Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 27 references

Data Augmentation with Diffusion Models for Colon Polyp Localization on the Low Data Regime: How much real data is enough?

T0 review · 3 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 Pre-training a YOLOv9 polyp detector on 80,000 diffusion-generated colonoscopy frames, then fine-tuning it on as few as 50–100 real frames, roughly doubles to quadruples localization mAP on four external benchmarks.

desk verdict Useful empirical comparison of diffusion-based polyp generation, but the central synthetic-data claim lacks a real-data pretraining control. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18926 v1 pith:EENJOPVJ submitted 2024-11-28 cs.CV

Adrian Tormos , Blanca Llauradó , Fernando Núñez , Axel Romero , Dario Garcia-Gasulla , Javier Béjar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords diffusionmodelspolyplocalizationlow-dataregimetransferlearningmedicalimagingdataaugmentationlatentobjectdetection
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 asks how little real annotated data a polyp-localization detector can get away with if it is first pre-trained on synthetic colonoscopy images. It claims that a YOLOv9 model pre-trained on 80,000 frames generated by a mask-conditioned latent diffusion model, then fine-tuned on only 50–100 real labeled frames, achieves roughly two to four times the mean average precision of the same model trained only on real data. The benefit is largest in the very-low-data regime and shrinks as real data grows, but it persists up to 1000 real images on several benchmarks. If this holds, generative pre-training is a practical way to reduce the annotation burden in medical imaging.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is a conditional Latent Diffusion Model (LDM): the fixed SDXL VAE maps colonoscopy frames into a smaller latent space, and a binary polyp mask derived from the bounding box is appended as an extra latent channel, so the denoising U-Net learns to generate image and mask together. The paper trains this generator with five recipes that mix the heterogeneous source datasets (LDPolyp, SUN, PolypGEN, BKAI) at different resolutions, samples 80,000 synthetic image–mask pairs per recipe, and uses them as pre-training data for a YOLOv9 object detector that is then fine-tuned on small real subsets.

What would settle it

Take a colonoscopy dataset collected at a site not represented among LDPolyp, SUN, PolypGEN, or BKAI; train a detector with and without the 80,000-image synthetic pre-training, fine-tuning both on the same small real subset from that new site. If the pre-training gain drops to near zero on out-of-distribution target data, the claim that synthetic pre-training broadly reduces real-data needs would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's terms, the central discovery is that synthetic pre-training works: conditioning a latent diffusion model on binary polyp masks lets it generate realistic colonoscopy frames with their localization annotations, and those synthetic frames are an effective pre-training corpus for YOLOv9 in the low-data regime. Across four external polyp-detection benchmarks, the modality that first trains on 80,000 generated images and then fine-tunes on a small random subset of real data (10–1000 images) consistently outperforms training on the real subset alone, with the largest relative gains at 50 and 100 real images (about 2–4x mAP). The paper also reports that the five different diffusion training strategies it compares produce a narrow band of downstream performance, and that generative quality scores such as FID or Inception Score do not predict which synthetic dataset helps most.

Load-bearing premise

The real training subsets and the generative model's training data are drawn from the same public colonoscopy datasets, so the measured benefit of synthetic pre-training depends on the target domain resembling those datasets; a deployment site with different equipment, resolution, or polyp appearance could see the advantage shrink or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With as few as 25–50 real images, a detector pre-trained on generated frames reaches mAP comparable to training on far larger real collections, suggesting a direct trade-off between data collection and synthetic pre-training.
  • The pre-training advantage persists but narrows as real data grows, so the decision to collect more real data can be weighed against generating synthetic data at near-zero marginal annotation cost.
  • Since all five generative training strategies behave similarly, the simplest recipe (VAE upscaling to 640×640) is sufficient for producing useful pre-training data.
  • The weak link between image-quality metrics and downstream detector accuracy implies that FID and Inception Score are not reliable guides for selecting a synthetic dataset for localization pre-training.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test of the mechanism is to fine-tune the trained generative model to a target hospital's colonoscopy videos (e.g., via LoRA) and check whether the real-data threshold drops further, as the authors suggest as future work.
  • The same mask-conditioned pre-training recipe could plausibly transfer to other scarce-annotation localization tasks in endoscopy (e.g., Barrett's esophagus or capsule endoscopy), provided the synthetic images are conditioned on the appropriate structure.
  • The results leave open whether the gain comes from the diversity of the four public datasets or from the diffusion model's ability to interpolate between them; ablating per-source diversity would separate these.
  • A direct comparison against classical augmentation (flips, rotations, CutMix) on the same low-data subsets would quantify how much of the gain is specifically due to generative data rather than to more training samples.
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. The paper studies whether synthetic colonoscopy images generated by conditional latent diffusion models can serve as a pre-training corpus for a YOLOv9-based polyp localizer when only small amounts of real annotated data are available. Five generative training variants are built from four public datasets, and 80,000 synthetic images are generated for each variant. The authors compare modality A (training only on 10--1000 real images from LDPolyp, SUN, and PolypGEN) with modality B (pre-training on 80,000 synthetic images, then fine-tuning on the same real subsets), evaluating mean average precision on Kvasir-SEG, ETIS-Larib, POLAR, and KUMC. They report that modality B gives large gains in the low-data regime, with about 2--4x mAP at 50 and 100 real images, and that gains diminish as the real dataset grows.

Significance. If the effect is real, the paper provides a practical recipe for improving polyp localization when annotations are scarce, and it surveys several diffusion training strategies in one comparison. The study has notable strengths: it evaluates on four external benchmarks, uses three seeds, considers five generative variants, and reports FID, IS, and precision/recall. However, the reported numbers are not sufficient to establish the strength of the effect: numeric mAP values and error bars are missing, and, more importantly, the experimental design lacks a control that isolates the contribution of synthetic content from the contribution of a large domain-related pre-training stage. The overlap between the generative training data and the real fine-tuning subsets further limits what can be concluded about low-data deployment.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6, Figure 2] The modality A versus modality B comparison conflates synthetic content with pre-training scale. Modality B adds 13 epochs over 80,000 synthetic images before fine-tuning, while modality A starts from ImageNet weights; this is not only a test of synthetic data but also of additional domain-specific exposure. Because the generator was trained on roughly 36,000 real labeled frames from the same datasets (Sections 4--5), the improvement could in principle be reproduced by pre-training on those real frames. I ask for a modality C control: pre-train YOLOv9 on real frames from LDPolyp/SUN/PolypGEN (with a matching number of gradient updates and image resolution), then fine-tune on the same small subsets and evaluate on the same benchmarks. If modality C matches modality B, the paper's conclusion that the diffusion model is the active ingredient would not be supported; if it is worse, the conclusion would be strengthened.
  2. [§6, Figure 2] No numeric table or error bars are provided. Figure 2 plots averaged curves, and the quantitative claims are stated only qualitatively: '2 to 4 times' at 50/100 images, '1.1 to 1.5 times' at 250+ images, and 'plateaus' on Kvasir-SEG and ETIS-Larib. Please report mean and standard deviation over the three seeds for each condition (dataset, subset size, modality, synthetic variant), and indicate whether the differences are statistically significant. Without these numbers, the reader cannot judge the size or reliability of the reported gains or reproduce them from the paper.
  3. [§4 vs §6] The fine-tuning subsets are sampled from the same public datasets used to train the generative models. As a result, the experiments measure the benefit of synthetic pre-training when the target domain is already represented in the generator's training data; near-duplicates of the real fine-tuning images may even appear in the generated set (Section 5). The paper should either use fine-tuning data from acquisition sources not seen by the generator, or provide a memorization/duplication analysis and explicitly discuss how the result would transfer to a site with a different acquisition protocol. This is especially relevant because the title's 'low data regime' framing understates the fact that training the generator itself required tens of thousands of labeled frames.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3] There is a typo, 'numbwer', and the DDPM loss equation is incomplete as typeset, with a missing closing bracket and an unspecified expectation; please correct the formula.
  2. [Figure 2] The five modality B variants are distinguished only by color, which is difficult to read in grayscale or for color-blind readers; please use distinct line styles or marker shapes and add a dedicated legend entry for modality A.
  3. [Section 6] The formula for the number of real-data epochs, 10000/(bs·n), is under-explained; please state the resulting epoch counts for each n and justify the schedule, for example by stating that it keeps the number of gradient updates roughly constant.
  4. [Section 5] A summary table of the five generative variants (input resolutions, training data, sampling steps, number of generated images) would make the experiments easier to follow; currently the descriptions appear only as bullets in the text.
  5. [Section 4] The deduplication threshold for LDPolyp is not reported; please provide the threshold value or at least the resulting neighborhood-graph statistics so that the preprocessing is reproducible.
  6. [Abstract] The sentence 'Denoising Diffusion models is a promising Deep Learning technique' contains a subject-verb agreement error; please revise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the study is an empirical comparison in which synthetic pre-training is evaluated on external benchmarks, and the only overlap (generator training data and real fine-tuning subsets sharing public source datasets) is a domain-overlap confound, not a logical reduction.

full rationale

The paper makes no formal derivation claim whose output is defined in terms of its inputs. Training modality B is an empirical procedure: the YOLOv9 model is pre-trained for 13 epochs on 80,000 synthetic images generated by latent diffusion models and then fine-tuned on small real subsets, while modality A is trained only on the same small real subsets. The reported 2–4x mAP gains at 50 and 100 images are measured 0-shot on four external datasets (KVASIR-SEG, ETIS-Larib, POLAR, KUMC), none of which are used for generative-model training or for the real training subsets. The claim is therefore not circular in the sense of a prediction being equivalent to its fitted input or a named quantity being defined by the quantity it claims to predict. The most relevant concern is that modality B confounds two interventions: the use of synthetic content and the presence of a large, domain-related pre-training stage; a modality C control that pre-trains on the same number of real frames from the same public datasets would be needed to isolate the contribution of the diffusion model. This is a confounding-variable issue, not a circularity, because the conclusion is not entailed by construction and the evaluation is held out. Similarly, the fact that the diffusion models were trained on LDPolyp, SUN, PolypGEN and BKAI while the real fine-tuning subsets are drawn from LDPolyp, SUN and PolypGEN creates distributional overlap that may inflate or alter the apparent benefit, but again this is a dataset-design limitation rather than a self-referential reduction. No load-bearing self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, or ansatz-smuggling citations appear in the manuscript. The strongest legitimate critique is the missing real-data pre-training control, which should be recorded as an experimental confound in a correctness review, not as circularity. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

This empirical paper has no mathematical derivation; the ledger records the experimental choices and implicit assumptions that the central comparison depends on. The most important entries are the fixed synthetic-dataset size and training schedule, and the domain assumption that data generated from public colonoscopy sets is representative of the real low-data target.

free parameters (4)
  • Size of synthetic pre-training dataset = 80,000 generated images per diffusion model
    Fixed by the authors rather than swept; the measured mAP gains could depend on this quantity, since more synthetic data may give diminishing returns.
  • Synthetic pre-training epochs = 13 epochs
    Fixed schedule for modality B; different amounts of pre-training could change the transfer benefit.
  • DDPM sampling steps = 300
    300 denoising steps used when generating the 80,000 images; sample quality and diversity depend on this.
  • LDPolyp deduplication threshold = Not reported, derived from VGG19 nearest-neighbor distances
    The threshold decides which frames are treated as duplicates and reduces training data from 40,266 to 17,360 frames; the exact value is not given, so the effective training set is not exactly reproducible.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The DDPM forward and reverse processes form a valid Markov chain with Gaussian transitions when the number of steps is large enough.
    Section 3 uses this standard derivation to justify the noise-prediction loss; not original to this paper.
  • domain assumption The pretrained SDXL VAE maps colonoscopy images into a latent space that preserves spatial structure sufficiently for generating images with correct polyp locations.
    Section 5 reuses the SDXL VAE without fine-tuning and appends masks as extra channels; no validation of localization fidelity is reported.
  • domain assumption A square binary mask derived from the bounding box is sufficient conditioning to generate images in which a polyp appears inside that box.
    Section 5 uses this conditioning; the paper does not evaluate whether generated polyps actually lie inside the predicted boxes.
  • domain assumption The random subsets of LDPolyp, SUN and PolypGEN used for the low-data regime are representative of real-world low-data conditions at other centers.
    Section 4 defines these subsets; Section 6 uses them for fine-tuning, but they are drawn from the same source pool as the generative training data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data Augmentation with Diffusion Models for Colon Polyp Localization on the Low Data Regime: How much real data is enough?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EENJOPVJ

@misc{pith2026241118926,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data Augmentation with Diffusion Models for Colon Polyp Localization on the Low Data Regime: How much real data is enough?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EENJOPVJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18926}
}
read the original abstract

The scarcity of data in medical domains hinders the performance of Deep Learning models. Data augmentation techniques can alleviate that problem, but they usually rely on functional transformations of the data that do not guarantee to preserve the original tasks. To approximate the distribution of the data using generative models is a way of reducing that problem and also to obtain new samples that resemble the original data. Denoising Diffusion models is a promising Deep Learning technique that can learn good approximations of different kinds of data like images, time series or tabular data. Automatic colonoscopy analysis and specifically Polyp localization in colonoscopy videos is a task that can assist clinical diagnosis and treatment. The annotation of video frames for training a deep learning model is a time consuming task and usually only small datasets can be obtained. The fine tuning of application models using a large dataset of generated data could be an alternative to improve their performance. We conduct a set of experiments training different diffusion models that can generate jointly colonoscopy images with localization annotations using a combination of existing open datasets. The generated data is used on various transfer learning experiments in the task of polyp localization with a model based on YOLO v9 on the low data regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18926 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Conditioned Latent Diffusion. The polyp images are transformed using the SDXL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mean Average Precision (mAP) of the trained YOLOv9 networks on the four evalu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A multi-centre polyp detection and segmentation dataset for generalisability assessment

    Sharib Ali, Debesh Jha, Noha Ghatwary, Stefano Realdon, Renato Cannizzaro, Osama E Salem, Dominique Lamarque, Christian Daul, Michael A Riegler, Kim V Anonsen, et al. A multi-centre polyp detection and segmentation dataset for generalisability assessment. Scientific Data , 10(1):75, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Randaugment: Practical au- tomated data augmentation with a reduced search space

    Ekin D Cubuk, Barret Zoph, Jonathon Shlens, and Quoc V Le. Randaugment: Practical au- tomated data augmentation with a reduced search space. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops , pages 702–703, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Arsdm: colonoscopy images synthesis with adaptive refinement semantic diffusion models

    Yuhao Du, Yuncheng Jiang, Shuangyi Tan, Xusheng Wu, Qi Dou, Zhen Li, Guanbin Li, and Xiang Wan. Arsdm: colonoscopy images synthesis with adaptive refinement semantic diffusion models. In International conference on medical image computing and computer- assisted intervention, pages 339–349. Springer, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Colonformer: An efficient transformer based method for colon polyp segmentation

    Nguyen Thanh Duc, Nguyen Thi Oanh, Nguyen Thi Thuy, Tran Minh Triet, and Viet Sang Dinh. Colonformer: An efficient transformer based method for colon polyp segmentation. IEEE Access, 10:80575–80586, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    The Pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling

    Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, Shawn Presser, and Connor Leahy. The Pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027, 2020. 9

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Is synthetic data from generative models ready for image recognition? arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07574, 2022

    Ruifei He, Shuyang Sun, Xin Yu, Chuhui Xue, Wenqing Zhang, Philip Torr, Song Bai, and Xiaojuan Qi. Is synthetic data from generative models ready for image recognition? arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07574, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

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

    2020

  8. [8]

    Computer-aided diagnosis for optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps including sessile serrated lesions: a real-time comparison with screening endoscopists

    Britt BSL Houwen, Yark Hazewinkel, Ioannis Giotis, Jasper LA Vleugels, Nahid S Mostafavi, Paul van Putten, Paul Fockens, Evelien Dekker, POLAR Study Group, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis for optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps including sessile serrated lesions: a real-time comparison with screening endoscopists. Endoscopy, 55(08):756–765, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Quilt-1m: One million image-text pairs for histopathology

    Wisdom Oluchi Ikezogwo, Mehmet Saygin Seyfioglu, Fatemeh Ghezloo, Dylan Stefan Chan Geva, Fatwir Sheikh Mohammed, Pavan Kumar Anand, Ranjay Krishna, and Linda Shapiro. Quilt-1m: One million image-text pairs for histopathology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11207, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Kvasir-seg: A segmented polyp dataset

    Debesh Jha, Pia H Smedsrud, Michael A Riegler, P ˚ al Halvorsen, Thomas De Lange, Dag Johansen, and H ˚ avard D Johansen. Kvasir-seg: A segmented polyp dataset. InMultiMedia modeling: 26th international conference, MMM 2020, Daejeon, South Korea, January 5–8, 2020, proceedings...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Improved precision and recall metric for assessing generative models

    Tuomas Kynk¨ a¨ anniemi, Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Improved precision and recall metric for assessing generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.06991, 2019

    1904 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Colonoscopy polyp detection and classification: Dataset creation and comparative evaluations

    Kaidong Li, Mohammad I Fathan, Krushi Patel, Tianxiao Zhang, Cuncong Zhong, Ajay Bansal, Amit Rastogi, Jean S Wang, and Guanghui Wang. Colonoscopy polyp detection and classification: Dataset creation and comparative evaluations. Plos one, 16(8):e0255809, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 11461– 11471, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    LDPolypVideo benchmark: a large-scale colonoscopy video dataset of diverse polyps

    Yiting Ma, Xuejin Chen, Kai Cheng, Yang Li, and Bin Sun. LDPolypVideo benchmark: a large-scale colonoscopy video dataset of diverse polyps. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbourg, France, September 2...

    2021

  8. [16]

    Riegler, and Vajira Thambawita

    Roman Mach´ aˇ cek, Leila Mozaffari, Zahra Sepasdar, Sravanthi Parasa, P ˚ al Halvorsen, Michael A. Riegler, and Vajira Thambawita. Mask-conditioned latent diffusion for gen- erating gastrointestinal polyp images, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Development of a computer-aided detection system for colonoscopy and a publicly accessible large colonoscopy video database (with video)

    Masashi Misawa, Shin-ei Kudo, Yuichi Mori, Kinichi Hotta, Kazuo Ohtsuka, Takahisa Mat- suda, Shoichi Saito, Toyoki Kudo, Toshiyuki Baba, Fumio Ishida, et al. Development of a computer-aided detection system for colonoscopy and a publicly accessible large colonoscopy video data...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Repolyp: A framework for generating realistic colon polyps with corresponding segmentation masks using diffusion models

    Alexander K Pishva, Vajira Thambawita, Jim Torresen, and Steven A Hicks. Repolyp: A framework for generating realistic colon polyps with corresponding segmentation masks using diffusion models. In 2023 IEEE 36th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS) ...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis, 2023

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M¨ uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Kvasir: A multi-class image dataset for computer aided gastrointestinal disease detection

    Konstantin Pogorelov, Kristin Ranheim Randel, Carsten Griwodz, Sigrun Losada Eskeland, Thomas de Lange, Dag Johansen, Concetto Spampinato, Duc-Tien Dang-Nguyen, Mathias Lux, Peter Thelin Schmidt, et al. Kvasir: A multi-class image dataset for computer aided gastrointestinal di...

    2017

  13. [21]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨ orn Om- mer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 10684–10695, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models

    Christoph Schuhmann, Romain Beaumont, Richard Vencu, Cade Gordon, Ross Wightman, Mehdi Cherti, Theo Coombes, Aarush Katta, Clayton Mullis, Mitchell Wortsman, et al. Laion-5b: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text models. Advances in Neural Informa...

    2022

  15. [23]

    To- ward embedded detection of polyps in wce images for early diagnosis of colorectal cancer

    Juan Silva, Aymeric Histace, Olivier Romain, Xavier Dray, and Bertrand Granado. To- ward embedded detection of polyps in wce images for early diagnosis of colorectal cancer. International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery , 9:283–293, 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    Understanding and mitigating copying in diffusion models

    Gowthami Somepalli, Vasu Singla, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Goldstein. Understanding and mitigating copying in diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:47783–47803, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Yolov9: Learning what you want to learn using programmable gradient information, 2024

    Chien-Yao Wang, I-Hau Yeh, and Hong-Yuan Mark Liao. Yolov9: Learning what you want to learn using programmable gradient information, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Cutmix: Regularization strategy to train strong classifiers with local- izable features

    Sangdoo Yun, Dongyoon Han, Seong Joon Oh, Sanghyuk Chun, Junsuk Choe, and Youngjoon Yoo. Cutmix: Regularization strategy to train strong classifiers with local- izable features. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 6023–6032, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Expanding small-scale datasets with guided imagination

    Yifan Zhang, Daquan Zhou, Bryan Hooi, Kai Wang, and Jiashi Feng. Expanding small-scale datasets with guided imagination. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13976 , 2022. 11

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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