Cross-Model Agreement as a Deployment-Time Reliability Signal for Automatic Polyp Segmentation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In real-time colonoscopy, ground-truth annotations are unavailable at inference, so polyp segmentation models can fail silently. We propose Referee-Based Quality Estimation (RBQE), a reference-free framework measuring agreement between a primary segmentation model and an independently trained referee on the same image. RBQE is evaluated on a standardized 1,223-image external benchmark drawn from four public datasets, using four referee configurations chosen to separate two design axes: referee independence and architectural diversity. Using a common Agreement Dice descriptor, a same-architecture referee differing from the primary model only in random initialization already yields a useful reliability signal (ROC-AUC = 0.923), showing that independent training alone is sufficient. Cross-architecture referees improve further: SegFormer-B0 achieves the strongest performance (ROC-AUC = 0.960), significantly outperforming the same-architecture control and UNet++, and exceeding a representative Test-Time Augmentation baseline by 0.055 ROC-AUC under an identical protocol, whereas a prompt-coupled MedSAM referee underperforms despite maximal architectural diversity. Because empty-mask agreement is trivially separable, we also report a restricted evaluation excluding such cases: ROC-AUC falls to 0.876 (SegFormer-B0, 1,046 images) and 0.783 (same-architecture control, 975 images), yet RBQE's margin over both baselines widens on this identical subset. RBQE additionally increases the mean Dice of retained predictions as low-agreement cases are progressively rejected, supporting selective prediction, and requires only one additional deterministic referee forward pass at inference. Our study therefore supports cross-model agreement as a practical, interpretable reliability framework for automated polyp segmentation.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Sep 2026.
Builds on
13 of 25 references.
References · 13
- 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,448
- 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,926
- 2021SegFormer: Simple and Efficient Design for Semantic Segmentation with Transformerscited by 2,940
- 2018UNet++: A Nested U-Net Architecture for Medical Image Segmentationcited by 1,525
- 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 852
- 2019Kvasir-SEG: A Segmented Polyp Datasetcited by 589
- 2019Deep Ensembles: A Loss Landscape Perspectivecited by 443
- 2018Aleatoric uncertainty estimation with test-time augmentation for medical image segmentation with convolutional neural networkscited by 280
- 2016A Benchmark for Endoluminal Scene Segmentation of Colonoscopy Imagescited by 221
- 2019Assessing Reliability and Challenges of Uncertainty Estimations for Medical Image Segmentationcited by 75
- 2017Reverse Classification Accuracy: Predicting Segmentation Performance in the Absence of Ground Truthcited by 35
- 2018Towards safe deep learning: accurately quantifying biomarker uncertainty in neural network predictionscited by 25
1 more
- 2018Real-time Prediction of Segmentation Qualitycited by 23
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.