Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

From Diffusion to Resolution: Leveraging 2D Diffusion Models for 3D Super-Resolution Task

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 The paper argues that 3D volume super-resolution networks can be trained from 2D diffusion-generated pseudo-volumes, with no high-resolution 3D ground truth, and still land within a few tenths of a dB of a supervised network.

desk verdict A useful diffusion-based training framework for 3D vEM SR that nearly closes the supervised gap, but the 'no HR supervision' claim is overstated and the isotropy assumption goes untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16792 v1 pith:BKDMXTP2 submitted 2024-11-25 cs.CV

Bohao Chen , Yanchao Zhang , Yanan Lv , Hua Han , Xi Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3Dvolumesuper-resolutiondiffusionmodelselectronmicroscopyFIB-SEMunsupervisedisotropicdistributionassumptionlateralcontinuity
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

The paper introduces D2R, a training framework that claims to train a 3D volume super-resolution network for volume electron microscopy with no high-resolution volume as supervision. Its load-bearing idea is that biological structures have an equivalent distribution across spatial dimensions: a 2D diffusion model trained to restore degraded XY slices learns a posterior that can be reused for the XZ and YZ lateral planes. Those lateral reconstructions are averaged into a pseudo-high-resolution volume that supervises DGEAN, a 3D convolutional network; at inference DGEAN performs the same super-resolution along the axial direction. The authors report D2R-DGEAN reaches PSNR 27.57 dB on FIB-25 in the XY plane and 26.27 dB on a second FIB-SEM dataset, close to the supervised 27.69 dB and 26.40 dB, and it surpasses all unsupervised baselines on similarity, FSC-0.5 resolution, membrane segmentation, and neuron reconstruction. If true, the framework removes the need for paired isotropic 3D training data and turns a slow diffusion process into a finite training-phase generator rather than an at-inference sampler.

What carries the argument

The machinery has two connected parts. The first is the isotropic conditional-distribution identity in Eq. (1): the posterior of a high-resolution lateral slice given its low-resolution observation is taken equal to the posterior of a high-resolution XY slice given its downsampled version. This identity allows a mean-reverting stochastic-differential-equation diffusion model, trained with the IRSDE maximum-likelihood objective, to act as a pseudo-label generator for the XZ and YZ planes. The second is DGEAN, a 3D convolutional network with Gaussian Embedding Attention Blocks that inject relative depth and high-frequency position encodings, a lightweight feature attention layer after each encoder, and a final $7\times7$ 2D convolution whose output is added to a traditional deconvolution result; its loss combines $L_1$, SSIM, focal frequency, and slice-continuity terms so it can learn smooth inter-slice transitions from the pseudo-volumes.

What would settle it

Take a FIB-SEM volume whose structures are strongly oriented along the axial direction, downsample it anisotropically, and train the Stage I diffusion model only on XY slices. Then apply it to XZ and YZ slices and compare the per-plane PSNR and FSC of the recovered lateral slices against a model trained on each plane with paired ground truth. A substantially lower lateral-plane accuracy than XY-plane accuracy would falsify the isotropic posterior assumption and invalidate the pseudo-volume training signal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper’s central claim is that the conditional distribution of a high-resolution slice given its low-resolution observation is approximately identical across the three spatial planes, $p(I^H_{XZ}|I^L_{XZ}) = p(I^H_{YZ}|I^L_{YZ}) \approx p(I^H_{XY}|\mathrm{downsample}(I^H_{XY}))$. Under this assumption, a 2D diffusion model trained only on synthetic low/high-resolution XY pairs can be applied slice-by-slice to the XZ and YZ planes of a low-resolution volume; averaging the two resulting reconstructions produces a full pseudo-high-resolution volume. That volume is then used as training data for DGEAN, an 18-layer 3D ResNet with Gaussian embedding attention blocks, which learns inter-slice feature transformations and is finally applied along the axial direction to yield the recovered high-resolution volume. The authors argue that the gap between this D2R-trained network and one trained with real high-resolution volumes is small (about 0.1–0.2 dB PSNR in the XY plane on their test sets), while both outperform earlier unsupervised approaches, including in estimated resolution and downstream segmentation.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline rests on the assumption that a slice taken perpendicular to the imaging axis looks statistically like a slice taken along the imaging axis, so a model trained on one direction works for the other two; if biological structure is not equivalent across spatial dimensions, the diffusion model cannot recover the lateral slices and the 3D network has no valid training signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Training 3D super-resolution networks no longer requires paired high-resolution 3D ground truth; any volume-super-resolution architecture that normally needs such supervision can be plugged into the D2R framework.
  • Because D2R only needs low-resolution volumes plus a 2D diffusion model trained on axial slices, it lowers the data barrier for isotropic volume electron microscopy reconstruction where high-resolution volumes are unavailable.
  • The same DGEAN model, trained once at scale factor 8, can be evaluated at other upsampling factors without fine-tuning, with the authors reporting consistent qualitative results across scales.
  • Downstream analyses such as membrane segmentation and neuron reconstruction inherit the benefit; reconstructions from D2R-DGEAN yield segmentation and tracing results close to those from ground-truth volumes.
  • The framework converts a slow generative procedure into a one-time data augmentation step: once pseudo-volumes are generated, inference is a deterministic 3D convolutional network.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The isotropic assumption is the main transfer risk: if a volume contains structures preferentially oriented along one axis, the XY-trained diffusion prior may generate lateral slices that are statistically implausible, and the 3D student could memorize those hallucinations.
  • Because the pseudo-volumes are generated by a stochastic sampler and then averaged across XZ and YZ, the averaging step likely suppresses some of the diffusion model's noise but may also blur directional structure; ablating the averaging and keeping XZ-only supervision would reveal how much cross-plane fusion contributes.
  • A direct stress test would be to run D2R on volumes with deliberately anisotropic structure and known ground truth in three planes; the resulting per-plane FSC curves would show whether the axial-resolution gains come from true recovery or from smoothing.
  • The framework's design implies that any future improvement to the 2D diffusion prior would automatically improve the pseudo-volume training data, so D2R can be combined with newer diffusion backbones without changing the 3D network.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes D2R, a three-stage framework for 3D volume super-resolution in focused ion beam scanning electron microscopy (FIB-SEM). In Stage I, a 2D diffusion model is trained on high-resolution XY slices and their degraded versions to learn a slice restoration prior. In Stage II, this diffusion model is applied slice-by-slice along the XZ and YZ planes of a low-resolution volume, and the two resulting volumes are averaged to form a pseudo high-resolution volume. In Stage III, a 3D convolutional network (DGEAN) is trained on this pseudo-volume in the lateral directions; at inference, DGEAN is applied along the axial direction to super-resolve the low-resolution volume. The authors evaluate D2R-DGEAN on the FIB-25 and EPFL datasets, reporting PSNR/SSIM values close to those of the same network trained with full high-resolution volume supervision, as well as favorable downstream segmentation and neuron-reconstruction metrics. The central claims are that D2R trains a 3D super-resolution network without any high-resolution volume supervision and that D2R-DGEAN outperforms all unsupervised vEM super-resolution methods.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper makes a useful practical contribution: it offers a way to train 3D volume super-resolution networks when isotropic high-resolution volumes are unavailable, which is a common situation in volume electron microscopy. The central empirical comparison is extensive, covering similarity metrics in three planes, resolution estimates, membrane segmentation, and neuron reconstruction, on two public datasets. The paper also provides a concrete network architecture (DGEAN) and demonstrates that its training framework can be applied to an existing network (SRUNet). The idea of using 2D diffusion priors to bootstrap training data for 3D networks is plausible and of interest. However, the significance is tempered by the fact that the method is not fully unsupervised (Stage I requires high-resolution XY slices for diffusion training), and by several load-bearing assumptions and metric-interpretation issues that need to be clarified and validated before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) states the load-bearing assumption p(IH_XZ|IL_XZ) = p(IH_YZ|IL_YZ) ≈ p(IH_XY|downsample(IH_XY)), but the manuscript provides no direct validation that the statistical relation between high- and low-resolution slices is the same across the XY, XZ, and YZ planes for the FIB-25 and EPFL datasets. This assumption is used twice: first to apply the XY-trained diffusion model to lateral slices in Stage II, and second to justify transferring the laterally trained DGEAN to the axial direction in Stage III. The final PSNR/SSIM results are only indirect evidence, because DGEAN's architecture and continuity losses could yield plausible-looking volumes even if the diffusion prior transfers poorly. I request either a direct test (for example, report the lateral-plane accuracy of the Stage II diffusion output against ground-truth lateral slices on held-out volumes, which the experimental setup already has access to) or an ablation in which the diffusion model is trained on XZ/YZ pairs and applied to XY, to quantify the asymmetry.
  2. [Sec. 4.4 and Supplementary Sec. 1] The 'estimated resolution' in Table 2 uses FSC-0.5 computed between the predicted volume V_pred and the ground-truth volume V_gt, as defined in Supplementary Eq. (1). This is a correlation measure between a prediction and its target, not the standard Fourier shell correlation between two independent half-maps that is used to estimate the intrinsic resolution of a reconstruction. As such, the values in Table 2 conflate reconstruction accuracy with resolution; a method that simply copies more information from the ground truth (e.g., through supervised training) will appear to have 'better resolution' for reasons unrelated to spatial frequency content. The claim that FSC 'strongly demonstrates the effectiveness of our method in volumetric super-resolution reconstruction' should be reworked: either use a proper split-half FSC estimator, or explicitly state that the reported numbers are prediction-vs-ground-truth correlations and interpret them accordingly.
  3. [Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 3.4] The data flow of Stage III training versus axial inference is underspecified. The text says DGEAN is trained on the recovered volume V_hat^H in lateral directions to 'learn stable structure deformation between continuous slices,' and the task is to generate (r−1) slices between consecutive input slices from a sequence I_1:2n. However, the paper does not clearly state what the input and output tensors are during Stage III training: are the 2n input slices taken from V_hat^H and the target slices also from V_hat^H (i.e., interpolation learning), or is V_hat^H first downsampled to synthesize low-resolution inputs paired with high-resolution targets? At inference, DGEAN is applied directly to the low-resolution volume V_L in the axial direction, which implies the network must map low-resolution inputs to high-resolution outputs. If Stage III only trains on high-resolution lateral slices without synthesizing low-resolution inputs, the domain gap between training (lateral, high-res inputs) and inference (axial, low-res inputs) is a major concern that is not addressed in the paper. Please specify the exact paired inputs/targets used in Stage III, including how the relative depth parameter d is encoded in training and whether it is consistent with the r=8 factor used in the experiments.
  4. [Abstract, Sec. 1, and Table 1 caption] The paper repeatedly describes the method as training 'without any high-resolution volumes as supervision' (which is technically true) and also as an 'unsupervised' method (which is misleading, since Stage I trains the 2D diffusion model on paired high-resolution and degraded XY slices). The supervision column in Table 1 marks D2R-SRUNet and D2R-DGEAN as unsupervised (×), but these methods rely on high-resolution 2D supervision in Stage I. This distinction matters because the comparison to other 'unsupervised' baselines, such as IsoRecon and IsoVEM, is presented as apples-to-apples; those methods do not use any high-resolution slices at all. The claims should be reworded to state precisely that the method avoids high-resolution volume supervision but still requires high-resolution XY slices, and the comparison tables should make this difference explicit.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 4.1 heading] The heading 'Degredataion Process' contains a typo; it should be 'Degradation Process'.
  2. [Sec. 2.1] 'refered' should be 'referred' in the sentence about STDIN.
  3. [Sec. 2.1] The discussion of IsoVEM says it 'assumes that the distribution of low-resolution lateral slices is the same as that of high-resolution axial slices,' but in the proposed method the assumption in Eq. (1) is about conditional distributions p(IH|IL), not about the marginal distribution of high-resolution axial slices. The distinction should be clarified to avoid conflating the two assumptions.
  4. [Table 4] In the Sup-DGEAN row, the Dice value for Neuron 2 (0.8185) is lower than the corresponding IoU value (0.8109), which is theoretically impossible for binary overlap measures (Dice ≥ IoU always). This suggests a typographical error and should be corrected.
  5. [Supplementary Sec. 4 and Fig. 5] The arbitrary-scale experiment is interesting, but the text says 'the performance of models trained with high-resolution volume as supervision (Sup-DGEAN) and the D2R training framework (D2R-DGEAN) have same performance.' If this is a qualitative statement based on the figure, it should be stated as such; if quantitative, the numbers should be provided.
  6. [Sec. 4.3] The training details do not report the number of diffusion sampling steps used in Stage II, the size of the Gaussian noise δ, or the total number of lateral slices processed. These details would help reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the D2R pipeline is a pseudo-label training framework whose main assumption is an unverified premise, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's three-stage derivation does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Stage I trains a 2D diffusion model on synthesized XY slice pairs under explicit supervision; Stage II applies that model to lateral slices to produce a pseudo-high-resolution volume; Stage III trains DGEAN on this volume and evaluates on held-out ground truth. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation is defined in terms of the quantity it claims to derive. The load-bearing equality in Eq. (1), p(IH_XZ|IL_XZ) = p(IH_YZ|IL_YZ) ≈ p(IH_XY|downsample(IH_XY)), is presented as an explicit statistical assumption about biological data, not derived from the model or the data. Its validity is a correctness risk, not a circularity: the paper does not directly validate cross-plane equivalence, but that is an empirical premise rather than a self-referential step. The two self-citations (STDIN [44] and SegNeuron [48]) are used only as a related-work baseline and an evaluation tool, respectively, and neither supports the core claim that 3D networks can be trained without high-resolution volume supervision. The final comparisons against ground-truth volumes, FSC resolution, membrane segmentation, and neuron reconstruction are external benchmarks, so the reported improvements are not forced by the training construction itself.

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

The method's central transfer step rests on the isotropic-distribution assumption, and the evaluation rests on a nonstandard FSC use. No new physical entities are introduced. Loss weights and scale/context choices are hand-set hyperparameters rather than derived constants.

free parameters (3)
  • Loss weights λ_FFL, λ_cont = λ_FFL = 10^2, λ_cont = 0.1
    Empirically set in Sec. 3.4.2 to balance focal frequency and continuity losses; not derived from first principles.
  • Super-resolution factor r = 8
    Chosen 'without loss of generality' (Sec. 3.1) and used for all reported super-resolution tasks.
  • DGEAN input context 2n = 4
    Set for all experiments (Sec. 3.4) as the number of input slices; affects interpolation quality and is not swept.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Biological samples exhibit a consistent data distribution across spatial dimensions (isotropy).
    Invoked in Eq. (1) to equate p(IH_XZ|IL_XZ) and p(IH_YZ|IL_YZ) with p(IH_XY|downsample(IH_XY)); also underpins Stage III transfer from lateral-trained DGEAN to axial inference.
  • domain assumption vEM noise is Poisson-Gaussian, approximated as signal-dependent Gaussian noise.
    Sec. 4.1, Eq. (15); this justifies the degradation simulation used to synthesize training pairs for the diffusion model.
  • domain assumption FSC-0.5 computed between a reconstruction and its ground truth is a valid measure of reconstruction resolution.
    Supplementary Sec. 1; standard FSC estimates resolution from independent half-map consistency, so applying it to a reconstruction-vs-ground-truth comparison is a nonstandard interpretation that affects Table 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Diffusion to Resolution: Leveraging 2D Diffusion Models for 3D Super-Resolution Task." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BKDMXTP2

@misc{pith2026241116792,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Diffusion to Resolution: Leveraging 2D Diffusion Models for 3D Super-Resolution Task},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BKDMXTP2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16792}
}
read the original abstract

Diffusion models have recently emerged as a powerful technique in image generation, especially for image super-resolution tasks. While 2D diffusion models significantly enhance the resolution of individual images, existing diffusion-based methods for 3D volume super-resolution often struggle with structure discontinuities in axial direction and high sampling costs. In this work, we present a novel approach that leverages the 2D diffusion model and lateral continuity within the volume to enhance 3D volume electron microscopy (vEM) super-resolution. We first simulate lateral degradation with slices in the XY plane and train a 2D diffusion model to learn how to restore the degraded slices. The model is then applied slice-by-slice in the lateral direction of low-resolution volume, recovering slices while preserving inherent lateral continuity. Following this, a high-frequency-aware 3D super-resolution network is trained on the recovery lateral slice sequences to learn spatial feature transformation across slices. Finally, the network is applied to infer high-resolution volumes in the axial direction, enabling 3D super-resolution. We validate our approach through comprehensive evaluations, including image similarity assessments, resolution analysis, and performance on downstream tasks. Our results on two publicly available focused ion beam scanning electron microscopy (FIB-SEM) datasets demonstrate the robustness and practical applicability of our framework for 3D volume super-resolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16792 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Super-Resolution of low-resolution vEM volume. Bi￾ological samples exhibit a consistent data distribution across spa￾tial dimensions. In this work, we propose a training framework named Diffusion to Resolution (D2R) that leverages this intrin￾sic property to train 3D super-resolution networks without any high-resolution volumes as supervision. Our proposed 3D super￾resolution network trained under D2R framework succ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of the proposed D2R training framework and the DGEAN architecture. In Stage I, a 2D diffusion model is trained to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of axial and lateral slices of recovery EPFL volumes using different unsupervised VSR methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FSC response curves of different methods on FIB-25 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Membrane segmentation results on different datasets. The quantitative segmentation results can be found in Tab. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: All scale bars in the ground truth row represents 500 nm. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: All scale bars in the ground truth row represents 500 nm. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Lateral image of methods at different super-resolution ratios. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. 2.5D Super-Resolution Approaches for X-ray Computed Tomography-based Inspection of Additively Manufactured Parts

    eess.IV 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Using seven contiguous CT slices as input improves super-resolved image quality and defect detection for additively manufactured parts compared with single-slice 2D networks, at near-2D memory cost.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    https://www.epfl.ch/labs/cvlab/data/ data-em/, 2013

    Lucchi Aurelien, Li Yunpeng, Becker Carlos, and Fua Pas- cal. https://www.epfl.ch/labs/cvlab/data/ data-em/, 2013. Accessed: 2024-08-16. 6

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Depth-aware video frame interpolation

    Wenbo Bao, Wei-Sheng Lai, Chao Ma, Xiaoyun Zhang, Zhiyong Gao, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Depth-aware video frame interpolation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 3703–3712, 2019. 2

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Multicut brings automated neurite segmentation closer to hu- man performance

    Thorsten Beier, Constantin Pape, Nasim Rahaman, Timo Prange, Stuart Berg, Davi D Bock, Albert Cardona, Gra- ham W Knott, Stephen M Plaza, Louis K Scheffer, et al. Multicut brings automated neurite segmentation closer to hu- man performance. Nature methods, 14(2):101–102, 2017. 8

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Channel attention is all you need for video frame interpolation

    Myungsub Choi, Heewon Kim, Bohyung Han, Ning Xu, and Kyoung Mu Lee. Channel attention is all you need for video frame interpolation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 34, pages 10663–10671,

    work page

  5. [5]

    3d multi-energy deconvo- lution electron microscopy

    Michiel de Goede, Eric Johlin, Beniamino Sciacca, Faysal Boughorbel, and Erik C Garnett. 3d multi-energy deconvo- lution electron microscopy. Nanoscale, 9(2):684–689, 2017. 5

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Isotropic re- construction of 3d em images with unsupervised degradation learning

    Shiyu Deng, Xueyang Fu, Zhiwei Xiong, Chang Chen, Dong Liu, Xuejin Chen, Qing Ling, and Feng Wu. Isotropic re- construction of 3d em images with unsupervised degradation learning. In Medical Image Computing and Computer As- sisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Con- ference, Lima, Peru, October 4–8, 2020, Proceedings, Part V 23, pages 163–17...

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alexander Nichol. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems, 34:8780–8794, 2021. 3

    2021

  8. [8]

    Practical poissonian-gaussian noise mod- eling and fitting for single-image raw-data

    Alessandro Foi, Mejdi Trimeche, Vladimir Katkovnik, and Karen Egiazarian. Practical poissonian-gaussian noise mod- eling and fitting for single-image raw-data. IEEE transac- tions on image processing, 17(10):1737–1754, 2008. 6

    work page 2008

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Isovem: Isotropic reconstruction for volume electron mi- croscopy based on transformer

    Jia He, Yan Zhang, Wenhao Sun, Ge Yang, and Fei Sun. Isovem: Isotropic reconstruction for volume electron mi- croscopy based on transformer. bioRxiv, pages 2023–11,

    2023

  2. [10]

    Aid: Attention interpolation of text-to-image diffusion, 2024

    Qiyuan He, Jinghao Wang, Ziwei Liu, and Angela Yao. Aid: Attention interpolation of text-to-image diffusion, 2024. 5

    2024

  3. [11]

    Deep learning for isotropic super-resolution from non- isotropic 3d electron microscopy

    Larissa Heinrich, John A Bogovic, and Stephan Saalfeld. Deep learning for isotropic super-resolution from non- isotropic 3d electron microscopy. In Medical Image Com- puting and Computer-Assisted Intervention- MICCAI 2017: 20th International Conference, Quebec City, QC, Canada...

    2017

  4. [12]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 3, 4

    2020

  5. [13]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Iq-vfi: Implicit quadratic motion es- timation for video frame interpolation

    Mengshun Hu, Kui Jiang, Zhihang Zhong, Zheng Wang, and Yinqiang Zheng. Iq-vfi: Implicit quadratic motion es- timation for video frame interpolation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6410–6419, 2024. 2

    2024

  7. [15]

    Real-time intermediate flow estimation for video frame interpolation

    Zhewei Huang, Tianyuan Zhang, Wen Heng, Boxin Shi, and Shuchang Zhou. Real-time intermediate flow estimation for video frame interpolation. In European Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 624–642. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  8. [16]

    Microdiffusion: Implicit representation-guided dif- fusion for 3d reconstruction from limited 2d microscopy projections

    Mude Hui, Zihao Wei, Hongru Zhu, Fei Xia, and Yuyin Zhou. Microdiffusion: Implicit representation-guided dif- fusion for 3d reconstruction from limited 2d microscopy projections. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11460–...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Video interpolation with diffu- sion models

    Siddhant Jain, Daniel Watson, Eric Tabellion, Ben Poole, Janne Kontkanen, et al. Video interpolation with diffu- sion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 7341– 7351, 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  10. [18]

    Super-resolution of biomedical volumes with 2d supervision

    Cheng Jiang, Alexander Gedeon, Yiwei Lyu, Eric Land- graf, Yufeng Zhang, Xinhai Hou, Akhil Kondepudi, Asadur Chowdury, Honglak Lee, and Todd Hollon. Super-resolution of biomedical volumes with 2d supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Super slomo: High quality estimation of multiple intermediate frames for video interpolation

    Huaizu Jiang, Deqing Sun, Varun Jampani, Ming-Hsuan Yang, Erik Learned-Miller, and Jan Kautz. Super slomo: High quality estimation of multiple intermediate frames for video interpolation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages ...

    2018

  12. [20]

    Focal frequency loss for image reconstruction and synthesis

    Liming Jiang, Bo Dai, Wayne Wu, and Chen Change Loy. Focal frequency loss for image reconstruction and synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 13919–13929, 2021. 5

    2021

  13. [21]

    Flavr: Flow-agnostic video representations for fast frame interpolation

    Tarun Kalluri, Deepak Pathak, Manmohan Chandraker, and Du Tran. Flavr: Flow-agnostic video representations for fast frame interpolation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, pages 2071– 2082, 2023. 2

    2023

  14. [22]

    Diffusionsat: A generative foundation model for satellite imagery

    Samar Khanna, Patrick Liu, Linqi Zhou, Chenlin Meng, Robin Rombach, Marshall Burke, David Lobell, and Stefano Ermon. Diffusionsat: A generative foundation model for satellite imagery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03606 , 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Arbitrary-scale image gen- eration and upsampling using latent diffusion model and im- plicit neural decoder

    Jinseok Kim and Tae-Kyun Kim. Arbitrary-scale image gen- eration and upsampling using latent diffusion model and im- plicit neural decoder. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9202–9211, 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  16. [24]

    D. P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization, 2014. 6

    2014

  17. [25]

    Is em dead? Journal of cell science, 126(20):4545–4552, 2013

    Graham Knott and Christel Genoud. Is em dead? Journal of cell science, 126(20):4545–4552, 2013. 2

    2013

  18. [26]

    Reference-free isotropic 3d em reconstruction using diffusion models

    Kyungryun Lee and Won-Ki Jeong. Reference-free isotropic 3d em reconstruction using diffusion models. In Inter- national Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages 235–245. Springer,

  19. [27]

    Reference-free ax- ial super-resolution of 3d microscopy images using implicit neural representation with a 2d diffusion prior

    Kyungryun Lee and Won-Ki Jeong. Reference-free ax- ial super-resolution of 3d microscopy images using implicit neural representation with a 2d diffusion prior. In In- ternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages 593–602. Springer,

  20. [28]

    Improving 3d imag- ing with pre-trained perpendicular 2d diffusion models

    Suhyeon Lee, Hyungjin Chung, Minyoung Park, Jonghyuk Park, Wi-Sun Ryu, and Jong Chul Ye. Improving 3d imag- ing with pre-trained perpendicular 2d diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 10710–10720, 2023. 1

    2023

  21. [29]

    Enhanced quadratic video interpolation

    Yihao Liu, Liangbin Xie, Li Siyao, Wenxiu Sun, Yu Qiao, and Chao Dong. Enhanced quadratic video interpolation. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020 Workshops: Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part IV 16, pages 41–56. Springer, 2020. 2

    2020

  22. [30]

    Diffusion-based deep learning method for augmenting ultrastructural imaging and volume electron microscopy

    Chixiang Lu, Kai Chen, Heng Qiu, Xiaojun Chen, Gu Chen, Xiaojuan Qi, and Haibo Jiang. Diffusion-based deep learning method for augmenting ultrastructural imaging and volume electron microscopy. Nature Communications, 15(1):4677, 2024. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8

    2024

  23. [31]

    Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Andreas Lugmayr, Martin Danelljan, Andres Romero, Fisher Yu, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11461–11471, 2022. 1, 3

    2022

  24. [32]

    Image restoration with mean- reverting stochastic differential equations

    Ziwei Luo, Fredrik K Gustafsson, Zheng Zhao, Jens Sj¨olund, and Thomas B Sch ¨on. Image restoration with mean- reverting stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11699, 2023. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Conversion between ct and mri images using diffusion and score-matching models

    Qing Lyu and Ge Wang. Conversion between ct and mri images using diffusion and score-matching models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.12104, 2022. 1

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Seven technologies to watch in 2023

    Eisenstein Michael. Seven technologies to watch in 2023. Nature, 613:26, 2023. 2

    2023

  27. [35]

    A morphology focused diffusion probabilistic model for synthesis of histopathology images

    Puria Azadi Moghadam, Sanne Van Dalen, Karina C Mar- tin, Jochen Lennerz, Stephen Yip, Hossein Farahani, and Ali Bashashati. A morphology focused diffusion probabilistic model for synthesis of histopathology images. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applica...

    2000

  28. [36]

    Measuring image resolution in optical nanoscopy

    Robert PJ Nieuwenhuizen, Keith A Lidke, Mark Bates, Daniela Leyton Puig, David Gr ¨unwald, Sjoerd Stallinga, and Bernd Rieger. Measuring image resolution in optical nanoscopy. Nature methods, 10(6):557–562, 2013. 8

    2013

  29. [37]

    Dif- fuseir: Diffusion models for isotropic reconstruction of 3d microscopic images

    Mingjie Pan, Yulu Gan, Fangxu Zhou, Jiaming Liu, Ying Zhang, Aimin Wang, Shanghang Zhang, and Dawei Li. Dif- fuseir: Diffusion models for isotropic reconstruction of 3d microscopic images. In International Conference on Med- ical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervent...

    2023

  30. [38]

    V olume electron microscopy.Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 2(1):51, 2022

    Christopher J Peddie, Christel Genoud, Anna Kreshuk, Kim- berly Meechan, Kristina D Micheva, Kedar Narayan, Con- stantin Pape, Robert G Parton, Nicole L Schieber, Yannick Schwab, et al. V olume electron microscopy.Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 2(1):51, 2022. 2

    2022

  31. [39]

    https : / / github

    Zhang Richard et al. https : / / github . com / richzhang / PerceptualSimilarity, 2018. Ac- cessed: 2024-08-16. 5

    2018

  32. [40]

    Continuous dice coefficient: a method for evaluating probabilistic segmentations

    Reuben R Shamir, Yuval Duchin, Jinyoung Kim, Guillermo Sapiro, and Noam Harel. Continuous dice coefficient: a method for evaluating probabilistic segmentations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.11031, 2019. 8

    1906 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Synaptic circuits and their variations within different columns in the visual system of drosophila

    Shin-ya Takemura, C Shan Xu, Zhiyuan Lu, Patricia K Rivlin, Toufiq Parag, Donald J Olbris, Stephen Plaza, Ting Zhao, William T Katz, Lowell Umayam, et al. Synaptic circuits and their variations within different columns in the visual system of drosophila. Proceedings of the Nat...

    2015

  34. [42]

    A closer look at spatiotemporal convolutions for action recognition

    Du Tran, Heng Wang, Lorenzo Torresani, Jamie Ray, Yann LeCun, and Manohar Paluri. A closer look at spatiotemporal convolutions for action recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, pages 6450–6459, 2018. 5

    2018

  35. [43]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Si- moncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600–612, 2004. 6

    2004

  36. [44]

    Stdin: Spatio-temporal distilled inter- polation for electron microscope images

    Zejin Wang, Guodong Sun, Guoqing Li, Lijun Shen, Lina Zhang, and Hua Han. Stdin: Spatio-temporal distilled inter- polation for electron microscope images. Neurocomputing, 505:188–202, 2022. 2

    2022

  37. [45]

    Ediffsr: An efficient diffusion prob- abilistic model for remote sensing image super-resolution

    Yi Xiao, Qiangqiang Yuan, Kui Jiang, Jiang He, Xianyu Jin, and Liangpei Zhang. Ediffsr: An efficient diffusion prob- abilistic model for remote sensing image super-resolution. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing ,

  38. [46]

    Deblurring by realistic blurring

    Kaihao Zhang, Wenhan Luo, Yiran Zhong, Lin Ma, Bjorn Stenger, Wei Liu, and Hongdong Li. Deblurring by realistic blurring. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2737–2746,

  39. [47]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 586–595, 2018. 5

    2018

  40. [48]

    Segneuron: 3d neuron instance segmentation in any em volume with a generalist model

    Yanchao Zhang, Jinyue Guo, Hao Zhai, Jing Liu, and Hua Han. Segneuron: 3d neuron instance segmentation in any em volume with a generalist model. InInternational Confer- ence on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 589–600. Springer, 2024. https:// ...

    2024

  41. [49]

    Iou loss for 2d/3d ob- ject detection

    Dingfu Zhou, Jin Fang, Xibin Song, Chenye Guan, Junbo Yin, Yuchao Dai, and Ruigang Yang. Iou loss for 2d/3d ob- ject detection. In 2019 international conference on 3D vision (3DV), pages 85–94. IEEE, 2019. 8 Supplementary Materials

    2019

  42. [51]

    Here, we provide additional details on the FSC metric employed in our resolution estimation experiments

    More Details of FSC metrics In Section 4.4, we estimate the resolution by Fourier Shell Correlation (FSC) with the FSC-0.5 criterion. Here, we provide additional details on the FSC metric employed in our resolution estimation experiments. For a frequency sequence{q}, the FSC m...

  43. [52]

    More Details of Membrane Segmentation In Section 4.4, we evaluate the performance of the same membrane segmentation method [ ?] applied to recovery volumes from different volume super-resolution methods by comparing the segmentation results with ground truth volumes using IoU ...

    2024 arXiv

  44. [53]

    More Details of Neuron Reconstruction In Section 4.4, we evaluate the performance of neuron reconstructions on high-resolution FIB-SEM volume and with recovery volumes, as referenced in Tab.4 of the arti- cle. In Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, we present the neuron reconstruc- tion result...

  45. [54]

    This adaptability eliminates the need for mul- tiple models trained at specific scales, making DGEAN both efficient and versatile for diverse volumetric super- resolution scenarios

    Arbitrary-Scale Super-Resolution with DGEAN By introducing the scaling factor d as an additional in- put, DGEAN dynamically adjusts its upsampling and re- construction processes to generate outputs at any desired resolution. This adaptability eliminates the need for mul- tiple...

  46. [143]

    2, 6, 7, 8

    Springer, 2017. 2, 6, 7, 8

    2017

Pith tools

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