Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Multi-resolution Guided 3D GANs for Medical Image Translation

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

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

Pith's one-line read A multi-resolution guided 3D GAN framework translates medical images between modalities while producing synthetic scans that nearly match real images in downstream segmentation utility.

desk verdict A workmanlike GAN paper with a broad, useful evaluation, but the reported numbers don't fully support the superiority claim; still worth refereeing for the downstream utility idea. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00575 v1 pith:ZZRPZLTN submitted 2024-11-30 eess.IV cs.CV

Juhyung Ha , Jong Sung Park , David Crandall , Eleftherios Garyfallidis , Xuhong Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords medicalimagetranslation3DGANmulti-resolutionU-Netvoxel-wisediscriminationsynthetic-to-realapplicabilityqualityassessmentMRI-to-CTsynthesisdownstreamsegmentation
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 sets out to show that a 3D GAN whose generator and discriminator both operate at multiple resolutions can translate medical images between modalities more accurately—and produce synthetic images that are more useful in real clinical pipelines—than current state-of-the-art approaches. The proposed 3D-mDAUNet framework is tested on five modality pairs across four datasets spanning adult and infant brains and adult pelvises, and it achieves the best or second-best performance on most image-quality metrics while also scoring highest when synthetic images are used to train or probe segmentation models. The authors further argue that conventional pixel-space quality metrics do not capture clinical value, so they introduce a synthetic-to-real applicability assessment that measures how well synthetic data performs in downstream tasks such as brain tumor and multi-organ segmentation. If the results hold, the framework offers a step toward reducing the number of scans a patient must undergo without sacrificing the usability of the reconstructed images.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the multi-resolution guided GAN pair. The generator, 3D-mDAUNet, is a 3D U-Net whose encoder stacks Residual-Dense Blocks (RDBs) of increasing capacity to exploit hierarchical features, and whose decoder uses a modified Convolutional Block Attention Module (CBAM) to merge low-resolution deep features with high-resolution shallow features before upsampling; it accepts input at several resolutions and emits output at several resolutions, each supervised by a loss term. The discriminator is a 3D U-Net that performs voxel-wise classification of real versus synthetic, with spectral normalization applied after each activation layer, and it is trained with a voxel-wise relativistic adversarial loss that contrasts each real voxel with the distribution of synthetic voxels and vice versa. A 2.5D perception loss, obtained by feeding axial, coronal, and sagittal slices through a pre-trained VGG-19 network, aligns high-level features at the finest resolution only, while the voxel and adversarial losses are applied at every resolution.

What would settle it

Run a controlled re-implementation where ResViT, PTNet3D, and Ea-GAN receive the same $96 \times 96 \times 96$ patch size, optimizer schedule, training epochs, and random seeds as the proposed model on the BraTS2021 T2-to-Flair task; if the proposed model's downstream Dice does not exceed Ea-GAN's 0.869 (toward the 0.880 reported) and the SynthRAD IQA margins shrink to within one standard deviation, the claimed superiority fails to reproduce.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that multi-resolution guidance on both sides of a GAN—feeding the generator and discriminator input at several scales and supervising every scale of the generator's output—makes 3D medical image translation both more accurate and more stable, and that replacing the usual whole-volume real/fake decision with a voxel-wise relativistic loss yields finer spatial detail. This is implemented as the 3D multi-resolution Dense-Attention U-Net (3D-mDAUNet) generator, which uses Residual-Dense Blocks in the encoder and convolutional block attention modules that fuse deep low-resolution features with shallow high-resolution features in the decoder, paired with a 3D multi-resolution U-Net discriminator that classifies each voxel individually. Training combines voxel-level L1 loss, a 2.5D perceptual loss computed from VGG-19 features on axial, coronal, and sagittal slices, and a small-weight adversarial loss. On the reported benchmarks the model takes first or second place on the large majority of dataset-metric comparisons, and it produces the highest downstream Dice scores: 0.880 versus a 0.898 real-data upper bound for brain tumor segmentation, and 0.812 and 0.836 versus 0.780 and 0.807 for the best baselines on the two CT translation tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The reported advantage over ResViT, PTNet3D, and Ea-GAN assumes those baselines were trained and tuned under the same data splits, patch sizes, compute budgets, and hyperparameter conditions as the proposed model, so the performance gap reflects architectural merit rather than unequal tuning effort.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Synthetic scans from the framework can replace real scans when training a brain tumor segmentation model, losing only about 0.018 Dice relative to training on real data (0.880 vs 0.898) on BraTS2021.
  • The framework generalizes across five modality pairs, two body regions, and two age groups, suggesting multi-resolution guidance is a transferable design for 3D medical image translation.
  • Synthetic CT images from CBCT and T1 MRI produce multi-organ segmentations with Dice scores of 0.836 and 0.812 when processed by a pre-trained TotalSegmentator, indicating downstream usability for radiotherapy planning pipelines.
  • Because IQA ranks and Dice ranks do not always agree across methods, evaluating translation quality solely by pixel-space metrics can misrepresent clinical utility; the synthetic-to-real applicability assessment adds a complementary axis.
  • If adopted as a standard evaluation, the synthetic-to-real applicability protocol encourages future translation systems to be designed around downstream task performance rather than pixel-wise fidelity alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the synthetic-to-real applicability protocol becomes a standard evaluation, translation research may shift from optimizing pixel-space metrics toward optimizing task-level utility, which could alter both model selection and loss design.
  • The multi-resolution guidance principle is not inherently tied to GANs; the same encoder-decoder supervision strategy could be transferred to diffusion-based or autoregressive 3D medical synthesizers to test whether the stability and detail benefits generalize.
  • The ablation attributes the largest single performance gain to the U-Net discriminator, which suggests a testable extension: pair the multi-resolution generator with simpler discriminators across other synthesis tasks to isolate where voxel-wise discrimination matters most.
  • The 0.018 Dice gap to the real-data upper bound raises a ceiling question the paper does not answer: whether further fidelity improvements would narrow the remaining gap, or whether it is set by segmentation-model capacity and label noise.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a 3D GAN framework for medical image translation, with a multi-resolution Dense-Attention UNet generator (3D-mDAUNet), a multi-resolution UNet discriminator, voxel-wise relativistic adversarial loss, and a 2.5D VGG-19 perception loss. The method is evaluated on four datasets (HCP1200, dHCP, BraTS2021, SynthRAD2023) covering T1/T2/Flair MRI, CBCT, and CT, and compared against ResViT, PTNet3D, and Ea-GAN using SSIM, PSNR, NMSE, LPIPS, and a proposed synthetic-to-real applicability assessment via downstream segmentation Dice. The central claim is that the proposed method achieves superior or comparable image quality and better downstream segmentation utility than the baselines across modalities, body regions, and age groups.

Significance. If the empirical claims are validated, the paper would provide a robust multi-resolution GAN architecture for 3D medical image translation and a useful downstream-utility evaluation protocol. The proposed synthetic-to-real applicability assessment is a positive addition, going beyond standard IQA metrics. However, the manuscript's central superiority claim rests on a comparison whose fairness is not fully documented, and the reported differences are frequently within one standard deviation without statistical testing. The paper also ships a code-link typo that impedes independent verification. The combination of known components (RDB, CBAM, U-Net discriminator, relativistic loss, deep supervision) means the contribution is mainly empirical, so the comparison quality is load-bearing.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, Table 1] The training and inference protocols for the baselines ResViT, PTNet3D, and Ea-GAN are not reported. Section 4.1 describes only the proposed model's setup (batch size 3, patch size 96x96x96, Adam lr 1e-4, one A40 GPU). It is unclear whether the baselines were trained with the same data split, patch size, sliding-window inference with Gaussian blending, compute budget, and hyperparameter optimization. Since ResViT is a 2D model and PTNet3D was designed for smaller volumes, a mismatch in patch size or inference protocol can materially affect their scores. Without this information, the superiority claims in Table 1 cannot be attributed to the proposed architecture.
  2. [Table 1] No statistical significance testing is reported, and many of the claimed improvements are within one standard deviation of the runner-up. For example, BraTS SSIM is 0.940±0.05 for the proposed method versus 0.944±0.05 for Ea-GAN; BraTS Dice is 0.880±0.11 versus 0.869±0.12; and dHCP NMSE is tied at 0.141. The text states the method secured '14 first-place and 6 second-place ranks,' but without paired significance tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank or paired t-test across subjects) these rank claims are not statistically supported.
  3. [§3.3, §3.4, Eqs. (2)-(4)] The evaluation metrics partially overlap with the training objectives. The L1 voxel loss in Eq. (3) directly optimizes the quantity underlying PSNR and NMSE, and the 2.5D VGG-19 perception loss in Eq. (4) is a deep feature loss similar in nature to the LPIPS metric computed with VGG16 in Section 3.4. Since the baselines are not reported to use these losses, improved scores on these metrics may reflect the loss design rather than a genuine advantage in image quality. The authors should discuss this overlap or report additional metrics that do not align with the training losses.
  4. [§4.4, SynthRAD paragraph] The synthetic-to-real applicability assessment for SynthRAD measures segmentation consistency by applying a pre-trained TotalSegmentator to synthetic and real CT and comparing the resulting segmentations with Dice. This does not measure whether synthetic data can replace real data in training a segmentation model. The text states the assessment 'determines how well the synthetic images can be used in training segmentation models for real images,' which overstates what is measured for SynthRAD. Only the BraTS experiment actually trains a segmentation model on synthetic data. The conclusion that synthetic images can 'replace real images in training' should be restricted to the BraTS result or supported by a training-based evaluation on SynthRAD.
  5. [§4.5, Table 2] The ablation study is performed on a single dataset (HCP1200 T1→T2) and reports only mean±standard deviation without significance tests. The differences in SSIM between configurations are on the order of 0.01–0.02 (e.g., 0.872 vs 0.865 vs 0.855), which may be within noise given the reported standard deviations. The claim that 'the U-Net discriminator contributes the most' is not supported by statistical evidence, and the ablation should either report significance tests or be framed as preliminary.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The code link is given as github.com/juhha/3D-mADUNet in the abstract, but the model name is 3D-mDAUNet; the repository link should be corrected and verified to enable independent reproduction.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos and formatting issues, including 'Positron Emission Tomographiy' in Section 1, 'the the feature resolution' in Section 3.2, 'V GG' in Eq. (4), and inconsistent capitalization of 'Ea-GAN' versus 'Ea-GANs' in the references.
  3. [Section 3.2, Figure 1] The figure caption and text state that RDB modules are 'light' in shallow layers and 'large' in deep layers, but the architectural details (number of blocks, growth rate, etc.) are not provided in the main text or the supplementary material description in this version.
  4. [References] Reference [12] is missing the author's full name ('Alexia J.'); it should be Jolicoeur-Martineau for the relativistic discriminator paper.
  5. [Section 4.1] The experimental setup omits the number of training epochs/iterations, the step learning rate scheduler parameters, and whether hyperparameters (especially loss weights λ1, λ2, λ3) were tuned; adding these details would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: empirical claims rest on held-out evaluation, and the one self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper makes empirical performance claims rather than deriving predictions from first principles, so most circularity patterns do not apply. The only self-citation is reference [8] for the 2.5D perception loss, but the loss is fully specified in Eq. (4) with a standard VGG-19 backbone, so the citation is credit rather than load-bearing support. The overlap between training objectives (L1 voxel loss, VGG-19 2.5D perception loss) and evaluation metrics (PSNR/NMSE, LPIPS) is a correlation concern, not a circular reduction: all IQA metrics are computed on held-out test data, and the paper does not define any reported quantity in terms of the fitted loss. The synthetic-to-real applicability assessment for BraTS trains an independent segmentation model on synthetic images and tests on real images, which is an external downstream check; for SynthRAD, a fixed pre-trained segmenter is applied to both synthetic and real CT, which measures consistency rather than training utility, but that is an overstatement concern, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no architecture choice is forced by a self-citation chain. The relative performance claims may be weakened by the unreported baseline tuning, but that is a correctness and reproducibility risk, not a circularity risk.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method depends on hand-chosen loss weights, transferability of natural-image perceptual features, and standard GAN stability assumptions. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced beyond an architectural combination.

free parameters (1)
  • Loss weights lambda1, lambda2, lambda3 = 1, 1, 0.0001
    Hand-chosen constants in Eq. 2 that balance voxel fidelity, perceptual similarity, and adversarial loss; there is no reported tuning procedure, and the central results depend on these values.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption VGG-19 features trained on ImageNet transfer to medical image perceptual quality.
    Section 3.3 specifies the 2.5D perception loss; this assumes natural-image features capture clinically relevant structure, which is not proven for MRI/CT.
  • domain assumption GAN training converges to a useful solution with spectral normalization and voxel-wise relativistic loss.
    The method relies on standard GAN training practices; the paper provides no convergence guarantee or failure analysis.
  • domain assumption Spatial normalization to average voxel spacing preserves anatomical correspondence across subjects.
    Section 3.1 resamples images to the population's average voxel size; if the spacing distribution is wide, resampling could bias the results for subjects far from the average.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-resolution Guided 3D GANs for Medical Image Translation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZRPZLTN

@misc{pith2026241200575,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-resolution Guided 3D GANs for Medical Image Translation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZRPZLTN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00575}
}
read the original abstract

Medical image translation is the process of converting from one imaging modality to another, in order to reduce the need for multiple image acquisitions from the same patient. This can enhance the efficiency of treatment by reducing the time, equipment, and labor needed. In this paper, we introduce a multi-resolution guided Generative Adversarial Network (GAN)-based framework for 3D medical image translation. Our framework uses a 3D multi-resolution Dense-Attention UNet (3D-mDAUNet) as the generator and a 3D multi-resolution UNet as the discriminator, optimized with a unique combination of loss functions including voxel-wise GAN loss and 2.5D perception loss. Our approach yields promising results in volumetric image quality assessment (IQA) across a variety of imaging modalities, body regions, and age groups, demonstrating its robustness. Furthermore, we propose a synthetic-to-real applicability assessment as an additional evaluation to assess the effectiveness of synthetic data in downstream applications such as segmentation. This comprehensive evaluation shows that our method produces synthetic medical images not only of high-quality but also potentially useful in clinical applications. Our code is available at github.com/juhha/3D-mADUNet.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00575 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Generator architecture in our GAN framework: 3D multi-resolution Dense-Attention UNet (3D-mDAUNet). The encoder of this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sample results from each method and dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sample segmentation results of whole tumor segmentation outputs testing synthetic-to-real applicability using BraTS 2021. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sample segmentation results by TotalSegmentator on different images. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The rsna-asnr-miccai brats 2021 benchmark on brain tu- mor segmentation and radiogenomic classification

    Ujjwal Baid, Satyam Ghodasara, Michel Bilello, et al. The rsna-asnr-miccai brats 2021 benchmark on brain tu- mor segmentation and radiogenomic classification. ArXiv, abs/2107.02314, 2021. 5

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Retrieval-augmented diffusion models

    Andreas Blattmann, Robin Rombach, Kaan Oktay, and Bj¨orn Ommer. Retrieval-augmented diffusion models. ArXiv/2204.11824, 2022. 2

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Jorge C., Wenqi L., Richard B., et al

    M. Jorge C., Wenqi L., Richard B., et al. MONAI: An open-source framework for deep learning in healthcare. ArXiv/2211.02701, 2022. 2

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Dalmaz, M

    O. Dalmaz, M. Yurt, and T. C ¸ ukur. ResViT: Residual Vi- sion Transformers for Multimodal Medical Image Synthesis. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 41(10):2598–2614,

    work page

  5. [5]

    Tam- ing transformers for high-resolution image synthesis

    Patrick Esser, Robin Rombach, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. Tam- ing transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12868–12878, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Glasser, S

    M. Glasser, S. Sotiropoulos, J. Wilson, et al. The minimal preprocessing pipelines for the Human Connectome Project. NeuroImage, 2013. 5

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Goodfellow, J

    I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, et al. Gener- ative adversarial nets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, page 2672–2680, 2014. 1

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    3d volumetric super-resolution in radiology using 3d rrdb-gan

    Juhyung Ha, Nian Wang, Surendra Maharjan, and Xuhong Zhang. 3d volumetric super-resolution in radiology using 3d rrdb-gan. In 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pages 1–5, 2024. 2, 4

    work page 2024

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 33, pages 6840–6851. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020. 2

    2020

  2. [10]

    Hor ´e and D

    A. Hor ´e and D. Ziou. Image Quality Metrics: PSNR vs. SSIM. In 2010 20th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, pages 2366–2369, 2010. 2

    2010

  3. [11]

    Isola, J

    P. Isola, J. Zhu, T. Zhou, et al. Image-to-Image Transla- tion with Conditional Adversarial Networks. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5967–5976, 2017. 1, 2

    2017

  4. [12]

    The relativistic discriminator: a key element miss- ing from standard GAN

    Alexia J. The relativistic discriminator: a key element miss- ing from standard GAN. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019. 4

    2019

  5. [13]

    R., Andreas S., et al

    Antonios M., Emma C. R., Andreas S., et al. The developing human connectome project: A minimal processing pipeline for neonatal cortical surface reconstruction. NeuroImage, 173:88–112, 2018. 5

    2018

  6. [14]

    Mixed precision training

    Paulius Micikevicius, Sharan Narang, Jonah Alben, Gregory Diamos, Erich Elsen, David Garcia, Boris Ginsburg, Michael Houston, Oleksii Kuchaiev, Ganesh Venkatesh, and Hao Wu. Mixed precision training. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018. 5

    2018

  7. [15]

    Miyato, T

    T. Miyato, T. Kataoka, M. Koyama, and Y . Yoshida. Spectral Normalization for Generative Adversarial Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.05957, 2018. 3

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer

    Robin Rombach, A. Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 10674–10685, 2021. 2

    2022

  9. [17]

    A U- Net Based Discriminator for Generative Adversarial Net- works

    Edgar Schonfeld, Bernt Schiele, and Anna Khoreva. A U- Net Based Discriminator for Generative Adversarial Net- works. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June

  10. [18]

    Skandarani, P

    Y . Skandarani, P. Jodoin, and A. Lalande. GANs for Medical Image Synthesis: An Empirical Study. Journal of Imaging, 9(3), 2023. 1

    2023

  11. [19]

    Thummerer, E

    A. Thummerer, E. van der Bijl, A. Galapon, et al. Syn- thRAD2023 Grand Challenge dataset: Generating synthetic CT for radiotherapy. Medical Physics , 50(7):4664–4674, June 2023. 5

    2023

  12. [20]

    Pixel recurrent neural networks

    A ¨aron Van Den Oord, Nal Kalchbrenner, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. Pixel recurrent neural networks. In Proceed- ings of the 33rd International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 48 , ICML’16, page 1747–1756. JMLR.org, 2016. 2

    2016

  13. [21]

    Bovik, H.R

    Zhou W., A.C. Bovik, H.R. Sheikh, and E.P. Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to struc- tural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , 13(4):600–612, 2004. 2

    2004

  14. [22]

    Wasserthal, H

    J. Wasserthal, H. Breit, M. Meyer, et al. TotalSegmentator: Robust Segmentation of 104 Anatomic Structures in CT Im- ages. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, 5(5):e230024, 2023. 7, 8

    2023

  15. [23]

    S. Woo, J. Park, JY . Lee, and I.S. Kweon. CBAM: Convo- lutional Block Attention Module. In V . Ferrari, M. Hebert, C. Sminchisescu, and Y . Weiss, editors, Computer Vision – ECCV 2018, volume 11211 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Cham, 2018. 3

    2018

  16. [24]

    B. Yu, L. Zhou, L. Wang, et al. Ea-GANs: Edge-Aware Generative Adversarial Networks for Cross-Modality MR Image Synthesis. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , 38(7):1750–1762, 2019. 1, 2

    2019

  17. [25]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In CVPR, 2018. 2, 4

    2018

  18. [26]

    Zhang, X

    X. Zhang, X. He, J. Guo, et al. PTNet3D: A 3D High-Resolution Longitudinal Infant Brain MRI Synthesizer Based on Transformers. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 41(10):2925–2940, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  19. [27]

    Zhang, K

    Y . Zhang, K. Li, K. Li, et al. Image Super-Resolution Us- ing Very Deep Residual Channel Attention Networks. In V . Ferrari, M. Hebert, C. Sminchisescu, and Y . Weiss, editors, Computer Vision – ECCV 2018 , volume 11211 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Cham, 2018. 3

    2018

  20. [28]

    Zhang, Y

    Y . Zhang, Y . Tian, Y . Kong, et al. Residual Dense Network for Image Super-Resolution. In 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2472– 2481, 2018. 3

    2018

  21. [29]

    J. Zhu, T. Park, P. Isola, et al. Unpaired Image-to-Image Translation using Cycle-Consistent Adversarial Networkss. 9 In Computer Vision (ICCV), 2017 IEEE International Con- ference on, 2017. 1, 2 10

    2017

Pith tools

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