Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Boosting 3D Liver Shape Datasets with Diffusion Models and Implicit Neural Representations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A weight-space diffusion model over implicit neural fields can generate realistic synthetic 3D livers and expand a scarce medical shape dataset.

desk verdict A useful liver dataset analysis and a clean HyperDiffusion baseline, but the paper's central claim—that synthetic livers improve downstream reconstruction—is never tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19402 v1 pith:GQXMOYBQ submitted 2025-04-28 cs.CV

Khoa Tuan Nguyen , Francesca Tozzi , Wouter Willaert , Joris Vankerschaver , Nikdokht Rashidian , Wesley De Neve This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3Dlivergenerationdiffusionmodelsimplicitneuralrepresentationsweight-spacedatasetaugmentationoccupancynetworksmedicalshapeanalysis
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

Public 3D liver shape datasets are mostly not usable as-is: the paper finds that in a TotalSegmentator-derived collection only 48.14% of 939 liver objects are complete, artifact-free, and anatomically plausible. To work around this scarcity, it proposes 3D Liver HyperDiffusion, which encodes each usable liver as an implicit neural representation (a small network that predicts whether a 3D point is inside the liver) and then trains a diffusion model directly on the flattened network weights. New synthetic livers are produced by denoising random weights and extracting surfaces with Marching Cubes. The paper's central claim is that these synthetic livers are realistic and diverse enough to expand the real dataset, with expert reviewers overwhelmingly classifying them as real. The experiments verify generation quality; the promised downstream gain in 3D reconstruction accuracy is a stated motivation rather than a measured result.

What carries the argument

The central object is a denoising diffusion model over flattened MLP weights. Each liver is first encoded as an implicit neural representation: a small fully connected network (three hidden layers of 128 ReLU neurons, positional-encoded 3D input) that predicts occupancy inside or outside the liver surface. The trained weight vectors are flattened into eight tensors, projected into a common token embedding, concatenated with a time-step token, and denoised by a Transformer; new weights are sampled with DDIM and decoded into meshes by Marching Cubes. The work this does is to turn 3D shape generation into a distribution-learning problem over weight space, avoiding explicit mesh or point-cloud generation.

What would settle it

Train a 3D liver reconstruction or segmentation model on the 452 real livers alone and on the same set augmented with synthetic livers, then measure accuracy on held-out real CT volumes; if the augmented training set does not improve accuracy, the paper's motivating promise of boosting liver reconstruction is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that weight-space diffusion on implicit neural fields, the "3D Liver HyperDiffusion" model, can generate novel 3D liver shapes whose geometry is statistically close to real livers and that surgeons classify as real. The paper demonstrates this on 452 quality-controlled real livers: each liver is overfitted by a small occupancy MLP with positional encoding, the flattened weights are treated as diffusion data, and a Transformer-based denoiser learns to sample new weight vectors that decode into liver-shaped occupancy fields. Quantitative metrics (volumetric IoU near 0.975, Chamfer-L1 near 0.003, F-score 1.0 for the INR encodings; MMD, COV, and 1-NNA on the generated set) are reported, and an expert survey overwhelmingly classified the synthetic objects as real. The paper positions this as a scalable data-augmentation strategy: combine synthetic livers with the usable real ones to boost reconstruction and generation, though the downstream improvement is proposed rather than measured.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that synthetic livers judged realistic by geometry metrics and expert review will also improve downstream 3D liver reconstruction accuracy when added to real training data, a benefit the paper states but does not test.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A hybrid dataset of the 452 curated real livers plus generated synthetic livers becomes available for training downstream 3D reconstruction and generation models.
  • The method offers a way to rescue public medical shape datasets whose raw segmentation exports are largely unusable: quality filtering to the usable fraction, then generative expansion.
  • Weight-space generation with occupancy fields naturally yields closed, volumetric shapes, avoiding some mesh-artifact issues of segmentation-to-mesh conversion.
  • Because the generative model is unconditional, a natural next step is conditioning on text or images, which the paper names as future work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct, untested consequence is that the method's practical value depends on downstream reconstruction: adding synthetic livers to training data could help, hurt, or leave accuracy unchanged, and the paper does not measure which.
  • Because synthetic shapes come from denoising weight vectors, rare or extreme liver anatomies in the 452-shape training set will constrain the generated distribution; the method is unlikely to invent anatomies it never saw.
  • The same INR-plus-weight-diffusion recipe could transfer to other organs, but its success would likely depend on how many clean seed shapes exist for that organ and on how much shape variation the MLP can capture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper addresses data scarcity in 3D medical shape datasets, specifically liver shapes. The authors analyze the TotalSegmentator-derived liver objects (939 subjects) and, with expert surgical review, classify only 48.14% as directly usable, citing incomplete shapes and segmentation-to-3D conversion artifacts. To supplement the limited usable data (452 objects), they adopt the HyperDiffusion framework: first training an MLP as an implicit neural representation (INR) for each liver, then training a Transformer-based diffusion model over the flattened MLP weights to generate new weight vectors, which are decoded into novel liver meshes via Marching Cubes. They evaluate MLP reconstruction quality (VIoU 0.9747, Chamfer-L1 0.0028, NC 0.9780, F-Score 1.0) and compare the Transformer-based weight-space diffusion against a 1D UNet baseline on MMD, COV, 1-NNA, and FPD, reporting that the Transformer performs better. They also report an expert survey in which clinicians classified 150 real/synthetic livers, with outcomes Real (139), Fake (4), Not sure (7). The paper claims the synthetic livers are realistic and can improve 3D liver reconstruction accuracy and reliability, addressing data scarcity.

Significance. If the central claim were fully validated, this work would offer a practical recipe for expanding small, curated medical shape datasets using implicit neural representations and weight-space diffusion, which could benefit downstream reconstruction and segmentation tasks. The paper has concrete strengths: it performs a careful, expert-annotated dataset curation (452/939 usable with explicit failure categories), reproduces an established framework rather than introducing unvalidated machinery, and reports standard generation metrics on a held-out test set (MMD, COV, 1-NNA, FPD). The MLP reconstruction results in Table 1 indicate that the INR representation is of high fidelity. However, the paper's stated contribution—that the generated shapes 'improve the accuracy and reliability of 3D liver reconstruction' and 'address the problem of data scarcity'—is not actually tested: no downstream reconstruction or segmentation model is trained on real-only versus real-plus-synthetic data. In addition, the expert survey, the only human-judgment evidence of realism, contains a clear internal inconsistency. These gaps currently prevent the paper from supporting its main claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4 (Experiments)] The abstract and introduction promise that the synthetic liver dataset will 'improve the accuracy and reliability of 3D liver reconstruction' and 'address the problem of data scarcity,' but Section 4 evaluates only generation fidelity (MMD, COV, 1-NNA, FPD) and an expert survey. No downstream reconstruction or segmentation model is trained on real-only versus real-plus-synthetic data, so the central augmentation claim is never demonstrated. The authors should add an experiment that trains a concrete downstream model (e.g., an occupancy-network-style reconstruction or a segmentation model) on the real dataset and on the real+synthetic dataset, and compare accuracy; alternatively, the paper should be re-scoped to a generation-only claim and the abstract revised accordingly.
  2. [Section 4, Expert Evaluation of 3D Liver Objects] The expert survey results are internally inconsistent: the text reports Real (139), Fake (4), and 'Not sure' (7) out of 150 objects (75 real and 75 synthetic), and then states that 'all were classified as real.' Since 139+4+7=150, the claim that all were classified as real cannot be correct unless 'all' refers only to the real objects. The paper should report the full confusion matrix (e.g., how many of the 75 synthetic objects were classified as real, fake, or not sure), state how many experts participated and whether each object was rated by one or multiple reviewers, and use this corrected analysis to support or qualify the realism claim.
  3. [Table 2 and Evaluation Metrics] The generation results in Table 2 report single-point estimates with no variance or significance testing. The MMD difference between Transformer (0.24) and 1D UNet (0.25) is small, and the 1-NNA value of 53.68% is close to the 50% target, so it is unclear whether the Transformer's superiority is meaningful. The authors should report mean and standard deviation over multiple random seeds, and ideally a permutation test or confidence interval for the differences, before claiming that the Transformer-based model outperforms the 1D UNet across all metrics.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Equation (1)] In Eq. (1), the parameter vector is written as θ_i ∈ R, which should be a vector space such as R^d; this is likely a typo but should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.2] The description of tokenization and the projection/merge operations for the 8 weight tensors (sizes [3456, 128, 16384, 128, 16384, 128, 128, 1]) is terse; a brief clarification of how the per-tensor linear projections are defined and why a sequence length of 8 is sufficient would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Section 2] The dataset analysis focuses entirely on TotalSegmentator-derived livers, but the introduction and Fig. 1 claim conclusions about 'current 3D medical shape datasets' such as MedShapeNet and SARAMIS. Please either provide quantitative evidence for the other datasets or restrict the claims to TotalSegmentator.
  4. [Table 2 caption] The caption notes that MMD is scaled by 10^2, which is easy to overlook; consider using a unified notation, such as 'MMD (×10^2)' in the table header, to avoid reader confusion.
  5. [Section 4] The paper does not report how many experts completed the survey, whether each object was reviewed by a single expert or multiple, or whether the experts were blinded to the real/fake ratio. These details are needed to interpret the survey as a validity check.
  6. [Conclusions] The final sentence suggests diffusion models can be applied to other downstream tasks in 3D medical imaging, but this is speculative and not supported by any experiment in the paper; consider citing related work or removing the suggestion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the generation pipeline and its evaluation are self-contained and externally benchmarked against held-out data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not self-referential. The proposed 3D Liver HyperDiffusion model is built on HyperDiffusion (Erkoç et al., 2023) and G.pt (Peebles et al., 2022), which are external prior works, not results of the present authors. The liver MLP stage trains occupancy networks with binary cross-entropy against ground-truth winding-number occupancies (Eq. 1), and the diffusion stage trains on those MLP weights using MSE against the original weights; neither stage defines its target quantity in terms of the final synthetic output. Evaluation is also non-circular: Table 2 reports MMD, COV, 1-NNA, and FPD computed against a held-out test set of real livers, so the synthetic shapes are not compared to the very training objects that generated them, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The expert survey mixes 75 real and 75 synthetic objects, so realism judgments are not forced by construction. The skeptical concern that the paper never trains a downstream reconstruction model on real vs. real-plus-synthetic data is a genuine gap between the abstract's claimed benefit ('improve the accuracy and reliability of 3D liver reconstruction') and the experiments, which only measure generation fidelity. However, that is a correctness/completeness issue, not circularity: the paper does not derive the downstream benefit from the fidelity metrics, it merely asserts it. The internally inconsistent survey reporting (Real 139, Fake 4, Not sure 7, followed by 'all were classified as real') is also an evidence-quality problem, not a circular reduction. No step in the paper reduces by construction to its inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The pipeline rests on representational and evaluation assumptions that the paper states as method choices without independent validation. There are no newly postulated physical entities or forces; the generative model is learned from existing liver shapes.

free parameters (5)
  • Per-object MLP capacity = 3 hidden layers of 128 neurons plus positional encoding
    Fixed architecture chosen in Section 3.1 without a sensitivity study; the central claim depends on these MLPs being faithful and amenable to diffusion.
  • MLP point sampling budget = 40,000 points per object (20k uniform, 20k near surface)
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.1; this budget affects occupancy accuracy and therefore every generated liver shape.
  • HyperDiffusion token embedding dimension nemb = 2880
    Chosen in Section 3.2 to map the eight MLP weight tensors to a common embedding size; no ablation is reported.
  • DDIM reverse-process step count = not stated
    Section 3.2 says DDIM is used for sampling but does not report the number of steps, a free choice that can materially change generation quality.
  • Manual usability filter = 452 of 939 objects
    The dataset is filtered to objects categorized as usable by the surgical team in Section 2; this hand-made selection defines the generative distribution.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The fast winding number implementation gives correct inside/outside labels for the liver meshes used as occupancy ground truth.
    Section 3.1 computes occupancy with fast_winding_number_for_meshes from libigl; incorrect labels would corrupt every MLP and the diffusion model.
  • domain assumption A 3-layer, 128-neuron MLP with positional encoding can faithfully represent the occupancy function of a liver surface.
    Section 3.1 uses this fixed capacity for all 452 objects; Table 1 supports it empirically for the chosen meshes, but it is an untested capacity assumption for unseen liver variations.
  • domain assumption The distribution of per-liver MLP weights is smooth enough that diffusion and DDIM sampling in weight space stay on the manifold of valid liver shapes.
    Section 3.2 trains a diffusion model directly on flattened weights; if weight-space interpolation leaves the manifold, generated livers could be anatomically invalid.
  • domain assumption The surgical team's manual categorization of 939 liver objects is a reliable ground truth for usability.
    Section 2 uses this categorization to define the training set; no inter-rater reliability or explicit criteria are reported.
  • domain assumption Fidelity metrics on held-out real livers are a sufficient proxy for the claimed downstream benefit to 3D reconstruction.
    Section 4 evaluates MMD, COV, 1-NNA, and expert realism, but never runs a downstream reconstruction task; the Abstract's claim of improved reconstruction accuracy relies on this untested proxy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boosting 3D Liver Shape Datasets with Diffusion Models and Implicit Neural Representations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GQXMOYBQ

@misc{pith2026250419402,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boosting 3D Liver Shape Datasets with Diffusion Models and Implicit Neural Representations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GQXMOYBQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19402}
}
read the original abstract

While the availability of open 3D medical shape datasets is increasing, offering substantial benefits to the research community, we have found that many of these datasets are, unfortunately, disorganized and contain artifacts. These issues limit the development and training of robust models, particularly for accurate 3D reconstruction tasks. In this paper, we examine the current state of available 3D liver shape datasets and propose a solution using diffusion models combined with implicit neural representations (INRs) to augment and expand existing datasets. Our approach utilizes the generative capabilities of diffusion models to create realistic, diverse 3D liver shapes, capturing a wide range of anatomical variations and addressing the problem of data scarcity. Experimental results indicate that our method enhances dataset diversity, providing a scalable solution to improve the accuracy and reliability of 3D liver reconstruction and generation in medical applications. Finally, we suggest that diffusion models can also be applied to other downstream tasks in 3D medical imaging.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19402 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our analysis of TotalSegmentator, MedShapeNet, and SARAMIS shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed 3D liver HyperDiffusion framework. Our frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our workflow used for MLP training. From the 3D liver object, we sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The operation in HyperDiffusion during training. The flattened [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The GUI allows the user to view one 3D liver object at a time and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Barill, G., Dickson, N.G., Schmidt, R., Levin, D.I., Jacobson, A.: Fast winding numbers for soups and clouds. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)37(4), 1–12 (2018) 3D Liver HyperDiffusion 9 (a) Survey GUI Real Fake Not sure (b) Visualization Fig.5: (a) The GUI allows the user to view one 3D liver object at a time and navigate among 150 objects to review an...

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Nature Biomedical Engineering pp

    Bluethgen, C., Chambon, P., Delbrouck, J.B., van der Sluijs, R., Połacin, M., Zambrano Chaves, J.M., Abraham, T.M., Purohit, S., Langlotz, C.P., Chaudhari, A.S.: A vision–language foundation model for the generation of realistic chest x-ray images. Nature Biomedical Engineering pp. 1–13 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36 (2024)

    Deitke, M., Liu, R., Wallingford, M., Ngo, H., Michel, O., Kusupati, A., Fan, A., Laforte, C., Voleti, V., Gadre, S.Y., et al.: Objaverse-xl: A universe of 10m+ 3d objects. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Erkoç, Z., Ma, F., Shan, Q., Nießner, M., Dai, A.: Hyperdiffusion: Generating implicit neuralfields withweight-space diffusion.In: Proceedings ofthe IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 14300–14310 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Magnetic reso- nance imaging 30(9), 1323–1341 (2012)

    Fedorov, A., Beichel, R., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Finet, J., Fillion-Robin, J.C., Pu- jol, S., Bauer, C., Jennings, D., Fennessy, F., Sonka, M., et al.: 3d slicer as an image computing platform for the quantitative imaging network. Magnetic reso- nance imaging 30(9), 1323–1341 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13861 (2023)

    Ghalebikesabi, S., Berrada, L., Gowal, S., Ktena, I., Stanforth, R., Hayes, J., De, S., Smith, S.L., Wiles, O., Balle, B.: Differentially private diffusion models generate useful synthetic images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13861 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2017), https://openreview.net/forum?id=rkpACe1lx

    Ha, D., Dai, A.M., Le, Q.V.: Hypernetworks. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2017), https://openreview.net/forum?id=rkpACe1lx

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Advances in neural information processing systems33, 6840–6851 (2020)

    Ho, J., Jain, A., Abbeel, P.: Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems33, 6840–6851 (2020)

    2020

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02463 (2023)

    Jun, H., Nichol, A.: Shap-e: Generating conditional 3d implicit functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02463 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG)36(4), 1–13 (2017)

    Knapitsch, A., Park, J., Zhou, Q.Y., Koltun, V.: Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG)36(4), 1–13 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    In: Computer Graphics Forum

    Lee, H., Savva, M., Chang, A.X.: Text-to-3d shape generation. In: Computer Graphics Forum. p. e15061. Wiley Online Library (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16139 (2023) 10 Khoa et al

    Li, J., Pepe, A., Gsaxner, C., Luijten, G., Jin, Y., Ambigapathy, N., Nasca, E., Solak, N., Melito, G.M., Memon, A.R., et al.: Medshapenet–a large-scale dataset of 3d medical shapes for computer vision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16139 (2023) 10 Khoa et al

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Medical Image Analysis p

    Li, W., Qu, C., Chen, X., Bassi, P.R., Shi, Y., Lai, Y., Yu, Q., Xue, H., Chen, Y., Lin, X., et al.: Abdomenatlas: A large-scale, detailed-annotated, & multi-center dataset for efficient transfer learning and open algorithmic benchmarking. Medical Image Analysis p. 103285 (202...

    2024

  6. [14]

    In: Seminal graphics: pioneering efforts that shaped the field, pp

    Lorensen, W.E., Cline, H.E.: Marching cubes: A high resolution 3d surface con- struction algorithm. In: Seminal graphics: pioneering efforts that shaped the field, pp. 347–353 (1998)

    1998

  7. [15]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2023)

    Luigi, L.D., Cardace, A., Spezialetti, R., Ramirez, P.Z., Salti, S., Stefano, L.D.: Deep Learning on Implicit Neural Representations of Shapes. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    In: The Thirty- eight Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Bench- marks Track

    Ma, Q., Paudel, D.P., Konukoglu, E., Van Gool, L.: Implicit zoo: A large-scale dataset of neural implicit functions for 2d images and 3d scenes. In: The Thirty- eight Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Bench- marks Track

  9. [17]

    In: Proceedings IEEE Conf

    Mescheder, L., Oechsle, M., Niemeyer, M., Nowozin, S., Geiger, A.: Occupancy Networks: Learning 3D Reconstruction in Function Space. In: Proceedings IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    In: ECCV (2020)

    Mildenhall, B., Srinivasan, P.P., Tancik, M., Barron, J.T., Ramamoorthi, R., Ng, R.: NeRF: Representing Scenes as Neural Radiance Fields for View Synthesis. In: ECCV (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Montaña-Brown, N., Saeed, S.U., Abdulaal, A., Dowrick, T., Kilic, Y., Wilkinson, S., Gao, J., Mashar, M., He, C., Stavropoulou, A., et al.: Saramis: simulation assets forroboticassistedandminimallyinvasivesurgery.AdvancesinNeuralInformation Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.12892 (2022)

    Peebles,W.,Radosavovic,I.,Brooks,T.,Efros,A.,Malik,J.:Learningtolearnwith generative models of neural network checkpoints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.12892 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems (NeurIPS) (2021)

    Peng, S., Jiang, C.M., Liao, Y., Niemeyer, M., Pollefeys, M., Geiger, A.: Shape as points: A differentiable poisson solver. In: Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems (NeurIPS) (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    In: Computer Graphics Forum

    Po, R., Yifan, W., Golyanik, V., Aberman, K., Barron, J.T., Bermano, A., Chan, E., Dekel, T., Holynski, A., Kanazawa, A., et al.: State of the art on diffusion models for visual computing. In: Computer Graphics Forum. vol. 43, p. e15063. Wiley Online Library (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 25278–25294 (2022)

    Schuhmann, C., Beaumont, R., Vencu, R., Gordon, C., Wightman, R., Cherti, M., Coombes, T., Katta, A., Mullis, C., Wortsman, M., et al.: Laion-5b: An open large- scale dataset for training next generation image-text models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 2...

    2022

  16. [24]

    In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

    Sinha, A., Hamarneh, G.: Trind: Representing anatomical trees by denoising d iffusion of i mplicit n eural fields. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 344–354. Springer (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    In: Proc

    Sitzmann, V., Martel, J.N., Bergman, A.W., Lindell, D.B., Wetzstein, G.: Implicit neural representations with periodic activation functions. In: Proc. NeurIPS (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Song,J.,Meng,C.,Ermon,S.:Denoisingdiffusionimplicitmodels.In:International Conference on Learning Representations

  19. [27]

    In: Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases

    Szatkowski, F., Piczak, K.J., Spurek, P., Tabor, J., Trzciński, T.: Hypernetworks build implicit neural representations of sounds. In: Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. pp. 661–676. Springer (2023) 3D Liver HyperDiffusion 11

    2023

  20. [28]

    NeurIPS (2020)

    Tancik, M., Srinivasan, P.P., Mildenhall, B., Fridovich-Keil, S., Raghavan, N., Sing- hal, U., Ramamoorthi, R., Barron, J.T., Ng, R.: Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimensional domains. NeurIPS (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 5(5) (2023)

    Wasserthal, J., Breit, H.C., Meyer, M.T., Pradella, M., Hinck, D., Sauter, A.W., Heye, T., Boll, D.T., Cyriac, J., Yang, S., et al.: Totalsegmentator: robust segmen- tation of 104 anatomic structures in ct images. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 5(5) (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    In: Computer Graphics Forum

    Yunus, R., Lenssen, J.E., Niemeyer, M., Liao, Y., Rupprecht, C., Theobalt, C., Pons-Moll, G., Huang, J.B., Golyanik, V., Ilg, E.: Recent trends in 3d reconstruc- tion of general non-rigid scenes. In: Computer Graphics Forum. p. e15062. Wiley Online Library (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2024)

    Zhang, Z., Yao, L., Wang, B., Jha, D., Durak, G., Keles, E., Medetalibeyoglu, A., Bagci, U.: Diffboost: Enhancing medical image segmentation via text-guided diffusion model. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.