ADAPTIVE DETECTOR-VERIFIER FRAMEWORK FOR ZERO-SHOT POLYP DETECTION IN OPEN-WORLD SETTINGS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polyp detectors trained on clean datasets often underperform in realworld endoscopy, where illumination changes, motion blur, and occlusions degrade image quality. Existing approaches struggle with the domain gap between controlled laboratory conditions and clinical practice, where adverse imaging conditions are prevalent. In this work, we propose ADAPTIVEDETECTOR, a novel two-stage detector-verifier framework comprising a YOLOv11 detector with a vision-language model (VLM) verifier. The detector adaptively adjusts per-frame confidence thresholds under VLM guidance, while the verifier is fine-tuned with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) using an asymmetric, cost-sensitive reward function specifically designed to discourage missed detections-a critical clinical requirement. To enable realistic assessment under challenging conditions, we construct a comprehensive synthetic testbed by systematically degrading clean datasets with adverse conditions commonly encountered in clinical practice, providing a rigorous benchmark for zero-shot evaluation. Extensive zero-shot evaluation on synthetically degraded CVC-ClinicDB [1] and Kvasir-SEG [2] images demonstrates that our approach improves recall by 14 to 22 percentage points over YOLO alone, while precision remains within 0.7 points below to 1.7 points above the baseline. This combination of adaptive thresholding and cost-sensitive reinforcement learning achieves clinically aligned, open-world polyp detection with substantially fewer false negatives, thereby reducing the risk of missed precancerous polyps and improving patient outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".