Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Learning Modality-Aware Representations: Adaptive Group-wise Interaction Network for Multimodal MRI Synthesis

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A plug-in neural module that rolls convolution kernels per modality group pushes multimodal MRI synthesis past prior adversarial and diffusion baselines.

desk verdict A solid, well-tested MRI synthesis module with a genuinely new rolling-convolution operator; the SOTA claim needs a capacity-matched baseline and error bars before I'd trust the margin. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14684 v2 pith:AUZWGNXB submitted 2024-11-22 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Tao Song , Yicheng Wu , Minhao Hu , Xiangde Luo , Linda Wei , Guotai Wang , Yi Guo , Feng Xu
show 1 more author
Shaoting Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV
keywords multimodalMRIsynthesisgroup-wiserollingconvolutioncross-groupattentionadaptiveplug-and-playmoduleimage-to-imagetranslationIXIdatasetBraTS2023
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that multimodal MRI synthesis improves when a convolution layer stops treating all input channels alike. The proposed CAGR module splits feature channels into groups, rolls each group's convolution kernel by a learned offset, and adds cross-group attention to suppress noise from other modalities; it is designed to be dropped into any convolution-based generator. On the IXI and BraTS2023 datasets, replacing standard convolutions in a ResUnet backbone with CAGR raises peak signal-to-noise ratio relative to adversarial and diffusion baselines, and the synthesized images also improve downstream brain tumor segmentation. The practical stake is that missing MRI modalities are common in clinical practice, and this is one plug-and-play component rather than a new multi-branch architecture.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Cross-Group Attention and Group-wise Rolling (CAGR) module, a plug-in replacement for a standard convolution layer. Cross-Group Attention pools each channel group, shuffles channels across groups, and uses a sigmoid-gated map to suppress aliasing noise from other modalities. Group-wise Rolling uses a lightweight routing function to predict a per-group offset and scale factor from the enhanced features, then cyclically rolls the convolution kernel by integer shifts and interpolates between floor and ceil displacements to handle fractional offsets. This lets kernels sit at different relative positions for different modality groups, so the same network can capture feature and semantic correspondences even when the input modalities are not perfectly aligned.

What would settle it

Train a control network that matches AGI-Net's 19.15M parameters and 154.28G FLOPs using only standard convolutions, for example by widening ResUnet, and evaluate it on the same IXI (T1,T2)->PD task; if it reaches or exceeds 34.96 dB PSNR, the CAGR module's claimed advantage over standard convolution would be undone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the combination of cross-group attention and group-wise rolling of convolution kernels yields state-of-the-art multimodal MRI synthesis: with AGI-Net integrated into pixel2pixel, PSNR reaches 34.96 dB on IXI for (T1,T2)->PD instead of 34.38 dB for the ResUnet baseline, and 26.07 dB on BraTS2023 for (T2,FLAIR)->T1 instead of 25.67 dB. The ablation attributes the gain to the CAGR module, with group-wise rolling alone adding 0.47 dB and cross-group attention another 0.11 dB. The paper further argues that the gain reflects genuine handling of cross-modality misalignment: under random translation perturbations up to 3 pixels, AGI-Net's PSNR declines more slowly than ResUnet's, and replacing standard convolutions in adversarial generators improves them, while the tested diffusion-based generators do not benefit.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation never trains a comparably sized baseline without the CAGR module, so the reported gains could come from the extra parameters and FLOPs rather than from the group-wise rolling mechanism itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A standard ResUnet backbone can be upgraded by replacing the first convolution in its first five stages with CAGR, raising PSNR from 34.38 to 34.96 dB on IXI (T1,T2)->PD with parameters growing from 17.04M to 19.15M and FLOPs from 141.91G to 154.28G.
  • The same replacement improves adversarial generators such as mmGAN, pGAN, and pixel2pixel, but lowers PSNR for the diffusion-based IDDPM and selfRDB, so CAGR helps when the network predicts the target image directly.
  • Synthesizing T1Gd with AGI-Net instead of pixel2pixel or MedSynth raises downstream brain tumor segmentation 2D Dice from 72.16% or 71.95% to 72.86%, toward the 86.31% upper bound obtained with the real modality.
  • Under induced misalignment between input modalities, AGI-Net's PSNR falls more gradually than ResUnet's, suggesting the rolling kernels actively adapt to registration error rather than merely adding capacity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the module is differentiable and roughly parameter-count-neutral relative to standard convolution, a natural test outside MRI is to apply CAGR to other misaligned multi-modal tasks, such as PET/CT or multispectral image fusion, where exact registration is also imperfect.
  • A capacity-matched control is missing from the paper: widening ResUnet to AGI-Net's parameter and FLOP budget without CAGR would show whether the 0.58 dB gain is due to the rolling mechanism or to extra capacity.
  • The learned per-group offsets could be inspected directly; if they consistently track the anatomical displacement between, say, T1 and T2, that would confirm the mechanism, whereas near-random offsets would shift the credit to cross-group attention.
  • For diffusion frameworks, a plausible adaptation is to route offsets from the noisy input or to apply CAGR in the denoising head; the paper's observed drop in diffusion baselines suggests the current offset routing does not transfer to noise-prediction targets.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes AGI-Net, a plug-and-play module for multimodal MRI synthesis that replaces standard convolutions with a Cross Group Attention and Group-wise Rolling (CAGR) mechanism. Feature channels are split into groups; a data-dependent routing function predicts per-group rolling offsets that cyclically shift convolution kernels, and a cross-group attention module suppresses aliasing by combining intra- and inter-group features. The module is inserted into the first five stages of ResUnet and evaluated inside a pixel2pixel framework on IXI and BraTS2023 for several 2-to-1 and 3-to-1 synthesis scenarios, with additional experiments on adversarial backbones, dynamic-convolution baselines, a translation-perturbation test, downstream tumor segmentation, and a 3D extension. The authors report consistent PSNR/SSIM/MAE improvements over existing methods and release code.

Significance. If the reported gains are attributable to the proposed mechanism, the paper makes a useful contribution: it offers a simple, architecture-level intervention that improves multimodal MRI synthesis across multiple datasets and downstream segmentation, and it ships public code. The study is broad in scope, including ablation of the two components, comparison with deformable and rotated convolutions, perturbation analysis, and a 3D extension. The central claim, however, is currently supported only by point estimates from a single configuration, and the attribution of the gains to the group-wise rolling operation is weakened by the absence of a capacity-matched static baseline.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV.C.3, Table VII and §IV.B, Table I] The state-of-the-art claim is based on comparing AGI-Net with ResUnet, but AGI-Net at n=8 has 19.15M parameters and 154.28G FLOPs versus ResUnet's 17.04M and 141.91G. The additional parameters and compute come from the routing function and cross-group attention. The n=1 row (33.58M, 238.84G, 34.76 dB) partially addresses the capacity confound by showing that raw capacity does not monotonically improve performance, but no equally large or equally compute-heavy static-convolution baseline is trained. Please add a capacity-matched ResUnet (e.g., with widened channels or additional ResBlocks) or a grouped static-convolution baseline with matched parameters and FLOPs. Without this control, the 0.58 dB improvement over ResUnet cannot be attributed specifically to the group-wise rolling mechanism rather than to the added network machinery.
  2. [§IV.B, Tables I–III and §IV.C.1, Table V] All comparisons and ablations report single point estimates without error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests. The differences between AGI-Net and the pixel2pixel baseline are 0.2–0.58 dB across scenarios, and the ablation gains are 0.47 and 0.11 dB. With a 40-patient test set, these differences are plausibly within run-to-run or subject-level variance. Please report repeated-seed results or bootstrap confidence intervals on the test set, and state whether the improvements are statistically significant. This is needed to support the 'consistently outperforms' claim.
  3. [§IV.B, Table VIII and §IV.C.5] The paper states that AGI-Net 'consistently outperforms the existing methods across all multimodal image synthesis scenarios,' yet Table VIII shows that replacing ResUnet with AGI-Net degrades performance in the diffusion-based frameworks IDDPM (32.47 to 32.15 dB) and selfRDB (34.46 to 34.05 dB). The text acknowledges this drop but does not analyze it, and the module is advertised as a plug-and-play replacement for any convolution layer. Please state the scope of the claim more precisely and either investigate why the rolling and attention design hurts noise-prediction networks or restrict the SOTA claim to the single-step adversarial frameworks where it is supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3] The legend contains a typo: 'AGI-Uet' should be 'AGI-Net'.
  2. [§IV.C.5] The sentence 'As shown in Table 2' refers to the replacement-strategy ablation, but the corresponding table is numbered Table IX; please correct the cross-reference.
  3. [§III.B, Eq. (4)] The text defines cxi but not 'fracyi'; the fractional y-offset appears to be missing, and the notation should be made consistent.
  4. [§IV.A.2] The sentence 'Although adversarial methods are no longer considered novel...' appears to be an incomplete transition; it lists challenges without connecting to the comparison choices.
  5. [§IV.C.2, Table VI] The dynamic-convolution comparison is performed only under a 3-pixel translation perturbation; stating the result without the corresponding unperturbed comparison makes it hard to separate the benefit of CAGR from the benefit under misalignment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported gains are held-out test measurements against public benchmarks, and the sole author-overlapping citation is contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical architecture study, so the standard circular-derivation failure mode does not apply. The central claim—that replacing standard convolutions with the CAGR module improves multimodal MRI synthesis—is established by direct measurement on held-out splits of two public benchmarks (IXI and BraTS2023) using PSNR, SSIM, and MAE, with baselines and ablations run under a common protocol. The routing offsets and scale factors in Equations (1)–(4) are learned parameters of the model; their effectiveness is evaluated on data not used for fitting, and no 'prediction' is defined in terms of the measured outcome. Ablations in Tables V–IX compare component variants and group counts under the same framework, and Tables I–III and X compare against independently published methods, so the claim does not reduce to a fitted input or to the paper's own definitional choices. The only clear author-overlapping citation is Ref. [5] (CodeBrain), used in the introduction as general context for missing-modality synthesis; it is not load-bearing for any method, equation, or reported number. The paper invokes no uniqueness theorem, imports no ansatz from prior authors, and does not rename a known result as an organizing principle. One minor completeness issue—an unresolved citation placeholder '[ ?]' for the BraSyn 2023 Challenge in Section IV.A.2—is a referencing defect, not evidence of circularity. Overall circularity score is therefore 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are proposed; the paper introduces network components (Cross Group Attention, Group-wise Rolling, routing function), which are computational modules rather than postulated entities. The main free design choices are the group count, the number of replaced stages, and the perturbation level.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of channel groups n = 8
    The method requires a predefined group count; the ablation in Table VII selects n=8 as best on the IXI (T1,T2)->PD task, but no principled or cross-dataset justification is given for using this value.
  • Number of replaced stages = 5
    The architecture replaces the first five stages of ResUnet with CAGR based on Table IX; this configuration is chosen by validation performance rather than derived from the method.
  • Random translation perturbation (pixels) = 3
    The dynamic-convolution comparison in Table VI uses a 3-pixel translation perturbation; this is an experimental setting, not part of the central method, but it determines the reported robustness improvement.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Feature channels can be divided into n groups such that each group retains a coherent modality-specific representation.
    Section III-A states that the input feature can be 'easily divided into n groups' where each contains modality-related information; after multiple convolutions this is an idealization, and the paper does not measure group purity.
  • standard math Bilinear interpolation of four cyclically rolled integer kernels approximates a fractional kernel shift.
    Equation (4) constructs the rolled kernel from floor and ceil shifted versions; this is a standard interpolation assumption.
  • domain assumption MRI modalities in IXI and BraTS2023 are co-registered well enough that residual misalignment is small and roughly translation-like.
    The method targets 'imperfect alignment' but evaluates with random translations of up to 3 pixels; real misalignment, such as through-plane or nonlinear distortion, is not modeled.
  • domain assumption Cyclic rolling of kernels introduces no harmful boundary artifacts.
    The roll operator shifts kernel weights cyclically, which wraps values around the kernel boundary; the paper does not analyze consequences for kernel edge positions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning Modality-Aware Representations: Adaptive Group-wise Interaction Network for Multimodal MRI Synthesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AUZWGNXB

@misc{pith2026241114684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning Modality-Aware Representations: Adaptive Group-wise Interaction Network for Multimodal MRI Synthesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AUZWGNXB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14684}
}
read the original abstract

Multimodal MR image synthesis aims to generate missing modality images by effectively fusing and mapping from a subset of available MRI modalities. Most existing methods adopt an image-to-image translation paradigm, treating multiple modalities as input channels. However, these approaches often yield sub-optimal results due to the inherent difficulty in achieving precise feature- or semantic-level alignment across modalities. To address these challenges, we propose an Adaptive Group-wise Interaction Network (AGI-Net) that explicitly models both inter-modality and intra-modality relationships for multimodal MR image synthesis. Specifically, feature channels are first partitioned into predefined groups, after which an adaptive rolling mechanism is applied to conventional convolutional kernels to better capture feature and semantic correspondences between different modalities. In parallel, a cross-group attention module is introduced to enable effective feature fusion across groups, thereby enhancing the network's representational capacity. We validate the proposed AGI-Net on the publicly available IXI and BraTS2023 datasets. Experimental results demonstrate that AGI-Net achieves state-of-the-art performance in multimodal MR image synthesis tasks, confirming the effectiveness of its modality-aware interaction design. We release the relevant code at: https://github.com/zunzhumu/Adaptive-Group-wise-Interaction-Network-for-Multimodal-MRI-Synthesis.git.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Problems and preferences in pediatric imaging,

    B. B. Thukral, “Problems and preferences in pediatric imaging,” Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging , vol. 25, no. 04, pp. 359–364, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Artifacts in magnetic reso- nance imaging,

    K. Krupa and M. Bekiesi ´nska-Figatowska, “Artifacts in magnetic reso- nance imaging,” Polish journal of radiology , vol. 80, p. 93, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Is synthesizing mri contrast useful for inter-modality analy- sis?

    J. E. Iglesias, E. Konukoglu, D. Zikic, B. Glocker, K. Van Leemput, and B. Fischl, “Is synthesizing mri contrast useful for inter-modality analy- sis?” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention– MICCAI 2013: 16th International Conference, Nagoya, Japan, Septem- ber 22-26, 2013, Proceedings, Part I 16 . Springer, 2013, pp. 631–638

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Adversarial synthesis learning enables segmentation without target modality ground truth,

    Y . Huo, Z. Xu, S. Bao, A. Assad, R. G. Abramson, and B. A. Landman, “Adversarial synthesis learning enables segmentation without target modality ground truth,” in 2018 IEEE 15th international symposium on biomedical imaging . IEEE, 2018, pp. 1217–1220

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Codebrain: Impute any brain mri via instance-specific scalar-quantized codes,

    Y . Wu, T. Song, Z. Wu, Z. Ge, Z. Chen, and J. Cai, “Codebrain: Impute any brain mri via instance-specific scalar-quantized codes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18328, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    One model to synthesize them all: Multi-contrast multi-scale trans- former for missing data imputation,

    J. Liu, S. Pasumarthi, B. Duffy, E. Gong, K. Datta, and G. Zaharchuk, “One model to synthesize them all: Multi-contrast multi-scale trans- former for missing data imputation,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 2577–2591, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Hi-net: hybrid-fusion network for multi-modal mr image synthesis,

    T. Zhou, H. Fu, G. Chen, J. Shen, and L. Shao, “Hi-net: hybrid-fusion network for multi-modal mr image synthesis,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 2772–2781, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Robust multi-modal mr image synthesis,

    T. Joyce, A. Chartsias, and S. A. Tsaftaris, “Robust multi-modal mr image synthesis,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention- MICCAI 2017: 20th International Conference, Quebec City, QC, Canada, September 11-13, 2017, Proceedings, Part III 20 . Springer, 2017, pp. 347–355

    work page 2017

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Multi- modal mr synthesis via modality-invariant latent representation,

    A. Chartsias, T. Joyce, M. V . Giuffrida, and S. A. Tsaftaris, “Multi- modal mr synthesis via modality-invariant latent representation,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 803–814, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Multi-modal modality- masked diffusion network for brain mri synthesis with random modality missing,

    X. Meng, K. Sun, J. Xu, X. He, and D. Shen, “Multi-modal modality- masked diffusion network for brain mri synthesis with random modality missing,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Multi-modal mri image synthesis via gan with multi-scale gate mergence,

    B. Zhan, D. Li, X. Wu, J. Zhou, and Y . Wang, “Multi-modal mri image synthesis via gan with multi-scale gate mergence,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics , vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 17–26, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Hybrid generative adversarial network based on a mixed attention fusion module for multi-modal mr image synthesis algorithm,

    H. Li, Y . Han, J. Chang, and L. Zhou, “Hybrid generative adversarial network based on a mixed attention fusion module for multi-modal mr image synthesis algorithm,” International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics , vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 2111–2130, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Multi-modality mr image synthesis via confidence-guided aggregation and cross-modality refine- ment,

    B. Peng, B. Liu, Y . Bin, L. Shen, and J. Lei, “Multi-modality mr image synthesis via confidence-guided aggregation and cross-modality refine- ment,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics , vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 27–35, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Medical image synthesis with deep convolutional adversarial networks,

    D. Nie, R. Trullo, J. Lian, L. Wang, C. Petitjean, S. Ruan, Q. Wang, and D. Shen, “Medical image synthesis with deep convolutional adversarial networks,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 2720–2730, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Image synthesis in multi-contrast mri with conditional generative adversarial networks,

    S. U. Dar, M. Yurt, L. Karacan, A. Erdem, E. Erdem, and T. Cukur, “Image synthesis in multi-contrast mri with conditional generative adversarial networks,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 2375–2388, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Missing mri pulse sequence synthesis using multi-modal generative adversarial network,

    A. Sharma and G. Hamarneh, “Missing mri pulse sequence synthesis using multi-modal generative adversarial network,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1170–1183, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    High-resolution medical image synthesis using progressively grown generative adversarial networks,

    A. Beers, J. Brown, K. Chang, J. P. Campbell, S. Ostmo, M. F. Chiang, and J. Kalpathy-Cramer, “High-resolution medical image synthesis using progressively grown generative adversarial networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.03144, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Diamondgan: unified multi-modal generative adversarial networks for mri sequences synthesis,

    H. Li, J. C. Paetzold, A. Sekuboyina, F. Kofler, J. Zhang, J. S. Kirschke, B. Wiestler, and B. Menze, “Diamondgan: unified multi-modal generative adversarial networks for mri sequences synthesis,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd ...

    2019

  11. [19]

    Collagan: Collaborative gan for missing image data imputation,

    D. Lee, J. Kim, W.-J. Moon, and J. C. Ye, “Collagan: Collaborative gan for missing image data imputation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2019, pp. 2487– 2496

    2019

  12. [20]

    Deformable convolutional networks,

    J. Dai, H. Qi, Y . Xiong, Y . Li, G. Zhang, H. Hu, and Y . Wei, “Deformable convolutional networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , 2017, pp. 764–773

    2017

  13. [21]

    Deformable convnets v2: More deformable, better results,

    X. Zhu, H. Hu, S. Lin, and J. Dai, “Deformable convnets v2: More deformable, better results,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2019, pp. 9308–9316

    2019

  14. [22]

    Internimage: Exploring large-scale vision foundation models with deformable convolutions,

    W. Wang, J. Dai, Z. Chen, Z. Huang, Z. Li, X. Zhu, X. Hu, T. Lu, L. Lu, H. Li et al., “Internimage: Exploring large-scale vision foundation models with deformable convolutions,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2023, pp. 14...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Efficient deformable convnets: Rethinking dynamic and sparse operator for vision applications,

    Y . Xiong, Z. Li, Y . Chen, F. Wang, X. Zhu, J. Luo, W. Wang, T. Lu, H. Li, Y . Qiao et al., “Efficient deformable convnets: Rethinking dynamic and sparse operator for vision applications,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , ...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Dynamic snake convolution based on topological geometric constraints for tubular structure segmen- tation,

    Y . Qi, Y . He, X. Qi, Y . Zhang, and G. Yang, “Dynamic snake convolution based on topological geometric constraints for tubular structure segmen- tation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 6070–6079

    2023

  17. [25]

    Adaptive rotated convolution for rotated object detection,

    Y . Pu, Y . Wang, Z. Xia, Y . Han, Y . Wang, W. Gan, Z. Wang, S. Song, and G. Huang, “Adaptive rotated convolution for rotated object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 6589–6600

    2023

  18. [26]

    Gra: Detecting oriented objects through group-wise rotating and attention,

    J. Wang, Y . Pu, Y . Han, J. Guo, Y . Wang, X. Li, and G. Huang, “Gra: Detecting oriented objects through group-wise rotating and attention,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11127 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Deformable kernels: Adapt- ing effective receptive fields for object deformation,

    H. Gao, X. Zhu, S. Lin, and J. Dai, “Deformable kernels: Adapt- ing effective receptive fields for object deformation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.02940, 2019

    1910 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Deformable kernel networks for joint image filtering,

    B. Kim, J. Ponce, and B. Ham, “Deformable kernel networks for joint image filtering,” International Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 129, no. 2, pp. 579–600, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Gmconv: Modulating effective receptive fields for convolutional kernels,

    Q. Chen, C. Li, J. Ning, S. Lin, and K. He, “Gmconv: Modulating effective receptive fields for convolutional kernels,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Shufflenet: An extremely effi- cient convolutional neural network for mobile devices,

    X. Zhang, X. Zhou, M. Lin, and J. Sun, “Shufflenet: An extremely effi- cient convolutional neural network for mobile devices,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 6848–6856

    2018

  23. [31]

    Shufflenet v2: Practical guidelines for efficient cnn architecture design,

    N. Ma, X. Zhang, H.-T. Zheng, and J. Sun, “Shufflenet v2: Practical guidelines for efficient cnn architecture design,” in Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) , 2018, pp. 116–131

    2018

  24. [32]

    Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks,

    A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, “Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks,” Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems , vol. 25, 2012

    2012

  25. [33]

    Layernorm: A key component in parameter-efficient fine-tuning,

    T. ValizadehAslani and H. Liang, “Layernorm: A key component in parameter-efficient fine-tuning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.20284, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Gaussian error linear units (gelus),

    D. Hendrycks and K. Gimpel, “Gaussian error linear units (gelus),” arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Plug- and-play image restoration with deep denoiser prior,

    K. Zhang, Y . Li, W. Zuo, L. Zhang, L. Van Gool, and R. Timofte, “Plug- and-play image restoration with deep denoiser prior,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 6360– 6376, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Analysis of the brats 2023 intracranial meningioma segmentation challenge,

    D. LaBella, U. Baid, O. Khanna, S. McBurney-Lin, R. McLean, P. Ned- elec, A. Rashid, N. H. Tahon, T. Altes, R. Bhalerao et al. , “Analysis of the brats 2023 intracranial meningioma segmentation challenge,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.09787, 2024

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 33, 2020, pp. 6840–6851

    2020

  31. [39]

    Improved denoising diffusion probabilis- tic models,

    A. Q. Nichol and P. Dhariwal, “Improved denoising diffusion probabilis- tic models,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, vol. 139, 2021, pp. 8162–8171

    2021

  32. [40]

    Self- consistent recursive diffusion bridge for medical image translation,

    F. Arslan, B. Kabas, O. Dalmaz, M. Ozbey, and T. C ¸ ukur, “Self- consistent recursive diffusion bridge for medical image translation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06789 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks,

    P. Isola, J.-Y . Zhu, T. Zhou, and A. A. Efros, “Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2017, pp. 1125– 1134

    2017

  34. [42]

    The brain tumor segmentation (brats) challenge 2023: Brain mr image synthesis for tumor segmentation (brasyn),

    H. B. Li, G. M. Conte, Q. Hu, S. M. Anwar, F. Kofler, I. Ezhov, K. van Leemput, M. Piraud, M. Diaz, B. Cole et al. , “The brain tumor segmentation (brats) challenge 2023: Brain mr image synthesis for tumor segmentation (brasyn),” ArXiv, pp. arXiv–2305, 2024

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.