Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Unsupervised Deformable Image Registration with Structural Nonparametric Smoothing

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SmoothProper unrolls smoothness regularization into the forward pass so that unsupervised deformable image registration can handle sparse-feature images with aperture and large-displacement challenges.

desk verdict Genuinely new forward-pass smoothing layer with a big FIRE result, but Eq. (7)'s q-update derivation is wrong as written and the optimization story needs a fix before the accuracy claim can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10813 v1 pith:W4O34JPA submitted 2025-06-12 cs.CV eess.IVeess.SP

Hang Zhang , Xiang Chen , Renjiu Hu , Rongguang Wang , Jinwei Zhang , Min Liu , Yaonan Wang , Gaolei Li
show 2 more authors
Xinxing Cheng Jinming Duan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVeess.IVeess.SP
keywords NonparametricsmoothingDeformableimageregistrationNeuralnetworksPlug-and-playApertureproblemLargedisplacementUnsupervisedlearningRetinalvessel
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's claim is that the pairwise smoothness regularizer in deformable registration is more than a penalty: if unrolled into the network's forward pass as an optimization layer, it can do the message-passing work that lets flow estimates propagate from vessel edges into large featureless regions. The result is SmoothProper, a plug-and-play module that replaces the final convolution of a registration backbone, and on the FIRE retinal dataset it lowers target registration error to 1.88 pixels at 2912x2912 resolution. The paper reports this as the first unsupervised deformable registration method to handle both aperture and large-displacement challenges together. If the claim holds, unsupervised deformable registration can approach the accuracy of supervised and descriptor-based methods on sparse-feature medical images without labels or manual regularizer tuning.

What carries the argument

The central object is the basis-constrained quadratic relaxation energy, a discretized objective involving a coefficient field p from the backbone network, an auxiliary field v, learned basis vectors b generated by two MLPs conditioned on a randomly sampled lambda, and the coupling term C(q,v,b). The q subproblem is solved pointwise in closed form, and the v subproblem is approximated by Gaussian blurring of qb. Alternating these updates for K iterations constitutes the unrolled SmoothProper layer, which carries the argument by converting smoothness regularization from a loss-term penalty into a forward-pass operation that propagates flow signals and preserves structural consistency.

What would settle it

Compare the closed-form q update against a numerical gradient of the q subproblem on random inputs; if they disagree, the unrolled layer is not solving the stated optimization. Independently, swap the Gaussian-blur v update for the exact fixed-point solve of the v subproblem and check whether the 1.88-pixel target registration error on FIRE persists; if it does not, the blur approximation is load-bearing rather than incidental.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SmoothProper casts registration as a bi-level optimization in which the displacement field is produced by minimizing a quadratic-relaxation energy rather than by a single network forward pass. The energy couples a coefficient field q(x) to learned basis vectors, pulls an auxiliary field v(x) toward the linear combination q(x)b, and applies a diffusive regularizer to v. Unrolling alternating updates of q and v, with v obtained by Gaussian blurring of qb, makes the regularizer act as a message-passing mechanism: strong flow signals in vessel-rich regions are reinforced while their influence spreads into smooth regions. On FIRE, the method achieves a target registration error of 1.88 pixels, improving over the best unrolled baseline by 62.20% and over the best learning-based non-unrolled baseline by 39.01%. The paper attributes the gain to this smooth-reinforce feedback loop rather than to a larger receptive field.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the unrolled update being a faithful solver of the stated subproblem: the q-update derivative in Eq. (7) is asserted rather than derived, and the v-update is replaced by a Gaussian blur without proof, so if either step does not minimize the energy the reported gains come from an unexplained modification rather than from the claimed optimization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Unsupervised deformable registration can reach sub-2-pixel accuracy on sparse-feature retinal images without label supervision, closing a gap previously filled only by supervised or descriptor-based methods.
  • Adding SmoothProper to an existing registration network requires only replacing the final convolution with the unrolled layer plus the two basis-vector MLPs, adding about 0.09 G multiply-add operations when the conditional basis vectors are not used.
  • Regularizer hyperparameter tuning becomes unnecessary, since the basis vectors are conditioned on a randomly sampled lambda during training and the smoothing strength adapts after amortized optimization.
  • The number of unrolled iterations has a sweet spot, with K=6 optimal on FIRE, matching earlier mean-field inference practice where further iterations give limited improvement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that the same unrolled smoothing layer could replace the final convolution in 3D registration backbones with minimal change, because the formulation is dimension-agnostic and only the convolution needs to become 3D.
  • The learned basis vectors are described as dictionary atoms; if that analogy holds, SmoothProper should be robust to the choice of backbone, but the paper only demonstrates it with a single three-level Laplacian pyramid backbone.
  • The smooth-reinforce explanation predicts a testable separation: removing the directional bias term should still leave smoothness but lose structural anchoring, so the error should degrade most on images with thin vessels and large blank areas, which is not isolated in the ablations.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SmoothProper, a plug-and-play neural layer for unsupervised deformable image registration. The method is built on a quadratic-relaxation of the Horn-Schunck energy, with a learned non-negative coefficient field p, a learned basis matrix b, and alternating updates of a coefficient field q and an auxiliary displacement field v. The authors claim that unrolling this optimization in the network forward pass enforces smoothness and message passing, addressing the aperture and large-displacement problems in retinal vessel registration. On the FIRE dataset they report a TRE of 1.88 pixels at 2912x2912 resolution, outperforming a broad set of detector-based, detector-free, and learning-based baselines. The paper also introduces conditional basis vectors generated by two MLPs conditioned on a randomly sampled regularization strength, eliminating manual lambda tuning.

Significance. If the technical derivation were sound, the contribution would be valuable: SmoothProper is model-agnostic, adds modest parameters, and the landmark-based TRE evaluation is independent of the unsupervised training loss, which is a genuine strength. The reported accuracy on FIRE is substantially better than the baselines, and the idea of using the pairwise regularizer as a message-passing mechanism during the forward pass is interesting and well motivated. However, the central mathematical claim in Section 3.1 is incorrect as written, and no code or precise algorithmic specification is provided to resolve the discrepancy. The paper also leaves key implementation details of the approximate v update unspecified and does not clarify whether the hyperparameters used for the headline result were selected on the test set. These issues make the current manuscript unsuitable for acceptance without a major revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) is not the stationary condition of the q subproblem in Eq. (6). Differentiating C = sum_i q_i ||v - b_i||^2 + ||q b - v||^2 with respect to q_j gives ||v - b_j||^2 + 2(q b - v) . b_j, which has no dependence on p. The full stationarity condition for the subproblem in Eq. (6) is (1/(2 alpha)) [||v - b_j||^2 + 2(q b - v) . b_j] + 2(q_j - p_j) = 0. Equation (7) instead asserts that the derivative of C equals alpha (p - q), which would imply q = p at stationarity and would remove the coupling between q and v entirely. This is load-bearing because the smooth-reinforce mechanism described in Section 3.1 depends on q being updated from v and b. Please provide the correct closed-form update, or state explicitly if the implemented update differs from the derivation.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, v subproblem] The paper states that the v subproblem is solved by fixed-point iteration and then approximated by applying Gaussian blurring to q b, with the blurring strength determined by beta. Neither the kernel size nor the standard deviation is specified, and no derivation shows that Gaussian blurring solves the regularized least-squares subproblem in Eq. (6). The citation to Diffeomorphic Demons motivates a smoothing step but does not justify this specific approximation in the proposed energy. Because the unrolled network is trained end-to-end, the approximation could be absorbed by learned parameters, but the claim that SmoothProper solves the stated optimization by coordinate descent is weakened. Please specify the blur operation and, ideally, verify that the approximation is faithful to the fixed-point solution.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 6] The headline TRE of 1.88 pixels is reported for m = 4x3^2, K = 6, and input size 1024x1024, with these parameters selected via the ablations shown in Fig. 6. The text does not state whether the ablations were performed on the validation split or on the test split. If the test set was used to choose m, K, and the input size, the reported TRE is an optimistically biased estimate of generalization. Please clarify the protocol and, if necessary, report results on a held-out test split after fixing hyperparameters.
  4. [Sec. 4.2, Table 1] The comparison protocol needs clarification. The text says all learning-based methods were initialized using the best-performing descriptor matching method, but Table 1 does not appear to show the initial alignment row that is described as highlighted in gray. Without this row, it is unclear how much of the reported improvement comes from SmoothProper rather than from the initial alignment. Please report the TRE of the initial alignment for each category and state whether all methods, including the detector-free and detector-based baselines, were evaluated under the same initialization protocol.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.2] There are several typos in this section: 'regularirizer' should be 'regularizer', 'convoloution' should be 'convolution', and 'wapred' should be 'warped'.
  2. [Sec. 3.2] The phrase 'from-matching strength lambda' is unclear. Please define what 'from-matching' refers to, or rephrase the sentence.
  3. [Sec. 5] The conclusion states that extending to 3D is as simple as replacing 2D convolution with 3D convolution, but the basis vectors b_i are d-dimensional and the MLP output dimensions would also need to change. Please qualify this claim.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. 5] The abstract calls the results 'Preliminary results' while the conclusions state that SmoothProper 'addresses aperture and large displacement challenges' and achieves the first unsupervised DIR result of this kind. Please align the strength of these claims with the evidence and the limitations of the evaluation.
  5. [Fig. 6] The boxplots in Fig. 6 would be more informative if the text stated whether the TRE values are computed on the validation set or the test set, and how many pairs are represented in each box.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Eq. (7) is not the derivative of C from Eq. (5); its stated stationarity condition forces q = p, so the unrolled layer's claimed 'smoothed, structurally consistent' output is its input by construction, while the 1.88 px TRE remains an independently measured landmark result.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1, Eq. (7) (q-subproblem closed-form solution); Section 3.3 (output field definition)]
    "The q subproblem can be solved optimally and pointwise across x ∈ Ω in closed form by taking the derivative of C(q, v^(k−1), b) with respect to q(x) and setting it to zero: ∂/∂q(x) C(q, v^(k−1), b) = α(p(x) − q(x))."

    In Eq. (5), C(q,v,b) = Σ_i (1/2α) q_i ||v − b_i||² + (1/2α)||qb − v||² contains no p; its true derivative w.r.t. q_i is (1/2α)[||v − b_i||² + 2(qb − v)·b_i], a function of v. Eq. (7) instead asserts ∂C/∂q = α(p − q); setting this to zero yields q = p. With the stated initialization q^(0) = p, the closed-form update leaves q unchanged at every unrolled iteration, so q^(K) = p and u = q^(K)b = pb by construction. The advertised feedback loop ('smoothing q as qb aligns with v', message passing, smooth-reinforce) cannot operate: the q update has no v-dependence, and the blurred v thread never feeds back into q. The promised output — 'a smooth and structurally consistent version of p' (§3.3) — is therefore p itself; the derived result equals its input by construction.

full rationale

This is an unusually clear case of a mechanism reducing to its input by the paper's own equations, but the headline empirical claim is not circular. The load-bearing step is the q-subproblem 'closed-form' solution in Eq. (7). Differentiating the C of Eq. (5) gives ∂C/∂q_i = (1/2α)[||v − b_i||² + 2(qb − v)·b_i], with no p-dependence, whereas Eq. (7) states ∂C/∂q = α(p − q), whose stationarity condition forces q = p. Since the paper sets q^(0) = p and forms the final field from q^(K)b (Section 3.3), the unrolled layer's stated output is its input by construction, and the v-subproblem's Gaussian blur cannot feed back into q; the 'smooth-reinforce' and 'message passing' claims are not consequences of the written derivation. This is a genuine reduction-by-construction of the paper's central mechanism (self-definitional), hence a circular step rather than mere under-specification. Equally, Eq. (7) is mathematically wrong as written, so an independent correctness risk remains: if implemented as stated, the module is an identity on q; if implemented with the correct gradient, the paper's derivation does not document what was implemented. The evaluation itself is independent of the training signal: TRE uses 10 annotated landmarks per FIRE pair while the unsupervised loss uses local normalized cross-correlation, so the 1.88 px figure is measured, not fitted, and does not reduce to the loss. Hyperparameters (m, K, input size) were chosen by ablations (Fig. 6) on a dataset split 7:1:2 into train/val/test; without evidence of test-set tuning, this is standard validation practice rather than a fitted-input-as-prediction circularity. No load-bearing self-citations appear: the authors' prior works [11], [74]–[78] are contextual references, and the smoothing-by-Gaussian-blur step is honestly labeled an approximation citing Diffeomorphic Demons. The resemblance to MoDL and mean-field message passing is acknowledged. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: the mechanistic derivation reduces to p by construction, while the central numerical result remains externally measured.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. The conditional basis vectors are learned parameters, not postulated structures. The free parameters and assumptions listed above carry the central claim.

free parameters (7)
  • alpha schedule = {150, 50, 15, 5, 1.5, 0.5}
    Fixed annealing schedule for the quadratic relaxation interaction weight, taken from prior work (Heinrich et al., WBIR 2014).
  • number of basis vectors m = 4*3^2 = 36
    Chosen by ablation on the FIRE dataset, balancing accuracy and overfitting.
  • unrolled iterations K = 6
    Chosen by ablation; matches prior mean-field inference practice.
  • input image size = 1024
    Chosen by ablation; larger sizes add noise, smaller sizes lose vessel detail.
  • lambda_max = not specified
    Upper bound for sampling the conditional regularization strength; never stated in the paper.
  • beta = not specified
    Regularizer strength in the SmoothProper energy; the paper says the blur strength is determined by beta but gives no value.
  • loss regularization weight = 1
    Fixed in Eq. (1) for all learning-based methods.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Quadratic relaxation with alpha tending to zero yields the original variational problem.
    Invoked in Eq. (4) and Section 3.1, with citations to Chambolle and Steinbrucker et al.
  • domain assumption The v subproblem solution can be approximated by Gaussian blurring of q b.
    Section 3.1: 'can be approximated by applying Gaussian blurring to q b as v(k) = K * q(k) b'; this assumes blurring captures the diffusion regularizer.
  • domain assumption The pairwise regularizer enables message passing that propagates flow signals.
    Section 1 and 2, based on Horn-Schunck optical flow; the premise of the whole method.
  • ad hoc to paper The q subproblem has a pointwise closed-form solution.
    Section 3.1 Eq. (6) and Eq. (7); the stated derivative does not actually set the objective's gradient to zero.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unsupervised Deformable Image Registration with Structural Nonparametric Smoothing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W4O34JPA

@misc{pith2026250610813,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unsupervised Deformable Image Registration with Structural Nonparametric Smoothing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W4O34JPA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10813}
}
read the original abstract

Learning-based deformable image registration (DIR) accelerates alignment by amortizing traditional optimization via neural networks. Label supervision further enhances accuracy, enabling efficient and precise nonlinear alignment of unseen scans. However, images with sparse features amid large smooth regions, such as retinal vessels, introduce aperture and large-displacement challenges that unsupervised DIR methods struggle to address. This limitation occurs because neural networks predict deformation fields in a single forward pass, leaving fields unconstrained post-training and shifting the regularization burden entirely to network weights. To address these issues, we introduce SmoothProper, a plug-and-play neural module enforcing smoothness and promoting message passing within the network's forward pass. By integrating a duality-based optimization layer with tailored interaction terms, SmoothProper efficiently propagates flow signals across spatial locations, enforces smoothness, and preserves structural consistency. It is model-agnostic, seamlessly integrates into existing registration frameworks with minimal parameter overhead, and eliminates regularizer hyperparameter tuning. Preliminary results on a retinal vessel dataset exhibiting aperture and large-displacement challenges demonstrate our method reduces registration error to 1.88 pixels on 2912x2912 images, marking the first unsupervised DIR approach to effectively address both challenges. The source code will be available at https://github.com/tinymilky/SmoothProper.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10813 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visual illustration of aperture and large displacement challenges. (a) shows a retinal vessel patch from the FIRE dataset, with blue, green, and yel￾low dashed boxes highlighting local vessel structures at different positions. The green and yellow boxes are horizontal and vertical translations of the blue box, respectively. (b), (c), and (d) are zoomed-in views of the blue, green, and yellow boxes, demonstrating tha… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the registration framework and integration of Smooth￾Proper into learning-based frameworks. Black arrows represent the forward pass, while yellow arrows indicate the backward pass. Dashed components are op￾tional: removing (a), (b), and (c) reverts to a classic iterative approach where loss gradients directly update the flow field u, similar to ConvexAdam [59], which follows a modern learning framewo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) is the schematic of the SmoothProper (SP) framework. The yellow box represents SP optimization, where p = gθ(If , Im) and b = Φl(Φ0(λ)), with λ randomly sampled from (0, λmax). SP iteratively updates q k to q k+1 until the maximum iteration count K is reached. (b) and (c) are visualizations of the SmoothProper module architecture in recursive and unrolled forms. Basis vectors b and α are omitted for brevity (det… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison. Fixed images are shown with the ’inferno’ col￾ormap, and moving images are overlaid with the ’viridis’ colormap for clar￾ity. Highlighted shadow regions show challenging cases with local anatomical changes, geometric shifts, or image shadowing. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of deformation fields: (a) Original SmoothProper, (b) SmoothProper without conditional basis vectors, and (c) GAMorph. Darker displacement vectors indicate larger magnitudes. all metrics. This marks the first successful application of unsupervise…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation analysis: boxplots and line plots showing the effect of basis vector count (a), inner-loop iterations (b), and input image size (c) on TRE (pixels). Red dashed lines indicate the lowest median TRE in each plot. Ablation Analysis on the Number of Basis Vectors …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. VoxelOpt: Voxel-Adaptive Message Passing for Discrete Optimization in Deformable Abdominal CT Registration

    eess.IV 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A discrete optimization registration method uses voxel-wise displacement entropy to guide adaptive message passing, matching supervised methods on abdominal CT without training.

  2. Gaussian Primitive Optimized Deformable Retinal Image Registration

    cs.CV 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    GPO, a sparse Gaussian-primitive optimization framework, reports 2.35 px TRE and 0.938 AUC@25 on FIRE, outperforming compared baselines for deformable retinal registration.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    IEEE transactions on medical imaging38(2), 394–405 (2018)

    Aggarwal, H.K., Mani, M.P., Jacob, M.: Modl: Model-based deep learning architec- ture for inverse problems. IEEE transactions on medical imaging38(2), 394–405 (2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    In: Medical Image Computing and Computer- Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2006: 9th International Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, October 1-6, 2006

    Arsigny, V., Commowick, O., Pennec, X., Ayache, N.: A log-euclidean framework for statistics on diffeomorphisms. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer- Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2006: 9th International Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, October 1-6, 2006. Proceedings, Part I 9. pp. 924–931. Springer (2006)

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Neuroimage 38(1), 95–113 (2007)

    Ashburner, J.: A fast diffeomorphic image registration algorithm. Neuroimage 38(1), 95–113 (2007)

    2007

  4. [4]

    Neuroimage54(3), 2033–2044 (2011)

    Avants, B.B., Tustison, N.J., Song, G., Cook, P.A., Klein, A., Gee, J.C.: A Re- producible Evaluation of ANTs Similarity Metric Performance in Brain Image Registration. Neuroimage54(3), 2033–2044 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    IEEE transactions on medical imaging38(8), 1788–1800 (2019)

    Balakrishnan, G., Zhao, A., Sabuncu, M.R., Guttag, J., Dalca, A.V.: Voxelmorph: a learning framework for deformable medical image registration. IEEE transactions on medical imaging38(8), 1788–1800 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    In: 1993 (4th) International Conference on Computer Vision

    Black, M.J., Anandan, P.: A framework for the robust estimation of optical flow. In: 1993 (4th) International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 231–236. IEEE (1993)

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    Medical image analysis67, 101822 (2021)

    Blendowski, M., Hansen, L., Heinrich, M.P.: Weakly-supervised learning of multi- modal features for regularised iterative descent in 3d image registration. Medical image analysis67, 101822 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Journal of Mathematical imaging and vision20, 89–97 (2004)

    Chambolle, A.: An algorithm for total variation minimization and applications. Journal of Mathematical imaging and vision20, 89–97 (2004)

    2004

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Chen, H., Luo, Z., Zhou, L., Tian, Y., Zhen, M., Fang, T., Mckinnon, D., Tsin, Y., Quan, L.: Aspanformer: Detector-free image matching with adaptive span trans- former. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 20–36. Springer (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Medical image analysis82, 102615 (2022)

    Chen, J., Frey, E.C., He, Y., Segars, W.P., Li, Y., Du, Y.: Transmorph: Transformer for unsupervised medical image registration. Medical image analysis82, 102615 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems pp

    Chen, X., Liu, M., Wang, R., Hu, R., Liu, D., Li, G., Zhang, H.: Spatially covariant image registration with text prompts. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems pp. 1–11 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems31(2018)

    Chen, X., Liu, J., Wang, Z., Yin, W.: Theoretical linear convergence of unfolded ista and its practical weights and thresholds. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems31(2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Medical Image Analysis57, 226–236 (2019)

    Dalca, A.V., Balakrishnan, G., Guttag, J., Sabuncu, M.R.: Unsupervised Learning of Probabilistic Diffeomorphic Registration for Images and Surfaces. Medical Image Analysis57, 226–236 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition workshops

    DeTone, D., Malisiewicz, T., Rabinovich, A.: Superpoint: Self-supervised interest point detection and description. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on com- puter vision and pattern recognition workshops. pp. 224–236 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Ding, X., Zhang, X., Ma, N., Han, J., Ding, G., Sun, J.: Repvgg: Making vgg-style convnets great again. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 13733–13742 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    In: International Con- ference on Learning Representations 14 H

    Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., et al.: An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In: International Con- ference on Learning Representa...

  9. [17]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Edstedt, J., Athanasiadis, I., Wadenb¨ ack, M., Felsberg, M.: Dkm: Dense kernel- ized feature matching for geometry estimation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 17765–17775 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15404 (2023)

    Edstedt, J., Sun, Q., B¨ okman, G., Wadenb¨ ack, M., Felsberg, M.: Roma: Revisiting robust losses for dense feature matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15404 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Esser, P., Rombach, R., Ommer, B.: Taming transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 12873–12883 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    In: Medical imaging with deep learning (2022)

    Evan, M.Y., Wang, A.Q., Dalca, A.V., Sabuncu, M.R.: Keymorph: Robust multi- modal affine registration via unsupervised keypoint detection. In: Medical imaging with deep learning (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    International journal of computer vision70, 41–54 (2006)

    Felzenszwalb, P.F., Huttenlocher, D.P.: Efficient belief propagation for early vision. International journal of computer vision70, 41–54 (2006)

    2006

  14. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Gleize, P., Wang, W., Feiszli, M.: Silk: Simple learned keypoints. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 22499–22508 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    In: Proceed- ings of the 27th international conference on international conference on machine learning

    Gregor, K., LeCun, Y.: Learning fast approximations of sparse coding. In: Proceed- ings of the 27th international conference on international conference on machine learning. pp. 399–406 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

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

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

    2017

  17. [25]

    Hansen, L., Heinrich, M.P.: Deep learning based geometric registration for medical images: How accurate can we get without visual features? In: Information Process- ing in Medical Imaging: 27th International Conference, IPMI 2021, Virtual Event, June 28–June 30, 2021, Proceedi...

    2021

  18. [26]

    Hansen, L., Heinrich, M.P.: Revisiting iterative highly efficient optimisation schemes in medical image registration. In: Medical Image Computing and Com- puter Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Stras- bourg, France, September 27–October 1, 2021...

    2021

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J.: Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 770–778 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Confer- ence, Shenzhen, China, October 13–17, 2019, Proceedings, Part VI 22

    Heinrich, M.P.: Closing the gap between deep and conventional image registration using probabilistic dense displacement networks. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Confer- ence, Shenzhen, China, October 13–17, 2019, ...

    2019

  21. [29]

    IEEE transactions on medical imaging32(7), 1239–1248 (2013)

    Heinrich, M.P., Jenkinson, M., Brady, M., Schnabel, J.A.: Mrf-based deformable registration and ventilation estimation of lung ct. IEEE transactions on medical imaging32(7), 1239–1248 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    In: Biomedical Image Registration: 6th In- ternational Workshop, WBIR 2014, London, UK, July 7-8, 2014

    Heinrich, M.P., Papie˙ z, B.W., Schnabel, J.A., Handels, H.: Non-parametric discrete registration with convex optimisation. In: Biomedical Image Registration: 6th In- ternational Workshop, WBIR 2014, London, UK, July 7-8, 2014. Proceedings 6. pp. 51–61. Springer (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Modeling and Artificial Intel- ligence in Ophthalmology1(4), 16–28 (2017)

    Hernandez-Matas, C., Zabulis, X., Triantafyllou, A., Anyfanti, P., Douma, S., Ar- gyros, A.A.: Fire: fundus image registration dataset. Modeling and Artificial Intel- ligence in Ophthalmology1(4), 16–28 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.2574 (2014) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 15

    Hershey, J.R., Roux, J.L., Weninger, F.: Deep unfolding: Model-based inspiration of novel deep architectures. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.2574 (2014) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 15

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    In: Information Processing in Medical Imaging: 27th International Conference, IPMI 2021, Virtual Event, June 28–June 30, 2021, Proceedings 27

    Hoopes, A., Hoffmann, M., Fischl, B., Guttag, J., Dalca, A.V.: Hypermorph: Amor- tized hyperparameter learning for image registration. In: Information Processing in Medical Imaging: 27th International Conference, IPMI 2021, Virtual Event, June 28–June 30, 2021, Proceedings 27....

    2021

  26. [34]

    Artificial intelligence17(1-3), 185–203 (1981)

    Horn, B.K., Schunck, B.G.: Determining optical flow. Artificial intelligence17(1-3), 185–203 (1981)

    1981

  27. [35]

    In: The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (2024),https://openreview.net/forum?id=DGez4B2a6Y

    Hu, J., Gan, W., Sun, Z., An, H., Kamilov, U.: A plug-and-play image registration network. In: The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (2024),https://openreview.net/forum?id=DGez4B2a6Y

    2024

  28. [36]

    Jena, R., Sethi, D., Chaudhari, P., Gee, J.C.: Deep learning in medical image registration: Magic or mirage? arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05839 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Jia, X., Bartlett, J., Zhang, T., Lu, W., Qiu, Z., Duan, J.: U-net vs transformer: Is u-net outdated in medical image registration? In: International Workshop on Machine Learning in Medical Imaging. pp. 151–160. Springer (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging41(1), 199–212 (2021)

    Jia, X., Thorley, A., Chen, W., Qiu, H., Shen, L., Styles, I.B., Chang, H.J., Leonardis, A., De Marvao, A., O’Regan, D.P., et al.: Learning a model-driven vari- ational network for deformable image registration. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging41(1), 199–212 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    Kingma, D.P., Ba, J.: Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Advances in neural information processing systems24(2011)

    Kr¨ ahenb¨ uhl, P., Koltun, V.: Efficient inference in fully connected crfs with gaussian edge potentials. Advances in neural information processing systems24(2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Lindenberger, P., Sarlin, P.E., Pollefeys, M.: Lightglue: Local feature matching at light speed. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 17627–17638 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Liu, J., Li, X.: Geometrized transformer for self-supervised homography estimation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 9556–9565 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Liu, J., Li, X., Wei, Q., Xu, J., Ding, D.: Semi-supervised keypoint detector and de- scriptor for retinal image matching. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 593–609. Springer (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01068 (2024)

    Liu, Y., Yu, B., Chen, T., Gu, Y., Du, B., Xu, Y., Cheng, J.: Progressive retinal image registration via global and local deformable transformations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01068 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Advances in neural information processing systems29(2016)

    Luo, W., Li, Y., Urtasun, R., Zemel, R.: Understanding the effective receptive field in deep convolutional neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems29(2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Ma, T., Zhang, S., Li, J., Wen, Y.: Iirp-net: Iterative inference residual pyramid network for enhanced image registration. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 11546–11555 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops

    Marstal, K., Berendsen, F., Staring, M., Klein, S.: SimpleElastix: A User-friendly, Multi-lingual Library for Medical Image Registration. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. pp. 134–142 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Meng, M., Feng, D., Bi, L., Kim, J.: Correlation-aware coarse-to-fine mlps for de- formable medical image registration. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 9645–9654 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Mok, T.C., Chung, A.: Affine medical image registration with coarse-to-fine vision transformer. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 20835–20844 (2022) 16 H. Zhang et al

    2022

  42. [50]

    In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru, October 4–8, 2020, Proceedings, Part III 23

    Mok, T.C., Chung, A.C.: Large deformation diffeomorphic image registration with laplacian pyramid networks. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru, October 4–8, 2020, Proceedings, Part III 23. pp. 2...

    2020

  43. [51]

    In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbourg, France, September 27–October 1, 2021, Proceedings, Part IV 24

    Mok, T.C., Chung, A.C.: Conditional deformable image registration with convo- lutional neural network. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbourg, France, September 27–October 1, 2021, Proceedings, Part...

    2021

  44. [52]

    Mok, T.C., Chung, A.C.: Large deformation image registration with anatomy- aware laplacian pyramid networks. In: Segmentation, Classification, and Registra- tion of Multi-modality Medical Imaging Data: MICCAI 2020 Challenges, ABCs 2020, L2R 2020, TN-SCUI 2020, Held in Conjunct...

    2021

  45. [53]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Potje, G., Cadar, F., Araujo, A., Martins, R., Nascimento, E.R.: Xfeat: Acceler- ated features for lightweight image matching. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 2682–2691 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

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

    Qiu, H., Hammernik, K., Qin, C., Chen, C., Rueckert, D.: Embedding gradient- based optimization in image registration networks. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 56–65. Springer (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    In: International conference on machine learning

    Rahaman, N., Baratin, A., Arpit, D., Draxler, F., Lin, M., Hamprecht, F., Ben- gio, Y., Courville, A.: On the spectral bias of neural networks. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 5301–5310. PMLR (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Advances in neural information processing sys- tems32(2019)

    Revaud, J., De Souza, C., Humenberger, M., Weinzaepfel, P.: R2d2: Reliable and repeatable detector and descriptor. Advances in neural information processing sys- tems32(2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    Physica D: nonlinear phenomena60(1-4), 259–268 (1992)

    Rudin, L.I., Osher, S., Fatemi, E.: Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms. Physica D: nonlinear phenomena60(1-4), 259–268 (1992)

    1992

  50. [58]

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

    Shi, J., He, Y., Kong, Y., Coatrieux, J.L., Shu, H., Yang, G., Li, S.: Xmorpher: Full transformer for deformable medical image registration via cross attention. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 217–226. Springer (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2024)

    Siebert, H., Großbr¨ ohmer, C., Hansen, L., Heinrich, M.P.: Convexadam: Self- configuring dual-optimisation-based 3d multitask medical image registration. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    In: 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision

    Steinbr¨ ucker, F., Pock, T., Cremers, D.: Large displacement optical flow computa- tion without warping. In: 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 1609–1614. IEEE (2009)

    2009

  53. [61]

    Ad- vances in neural information processing systems28(2015)

    Sukhbaatar, S., Weston, J., Fergus, R., et al.: End-to-end memory networks. Ad- vances in neural information processing systems28(2015)

    2015

  54. [62]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Sun, J., Shen, Z., Wang, Y., Bao, H., Zhou, X.: Loftr: Detector-free local fea- ture matching with transformers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 8922–8931 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    Advances in neural information processing systems29(2016)

    Sun, J., Li, H., Xu, Z., et al.: Deep admm-net for compressive sensing mri. Advances in neural information processing systems29(2016)

    2016

  56. [64]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Truong, P., Apostolopoulos, S., Mosinska, A., Stucky, S., Ciller, C., Zanet, S.D.: Glampoints: Greedily learned accurate match points. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 10732–10741 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33, 14254–14265 (2020) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 17

    Tyszkiewicz, M., Fua, P., Trulls, E.: Disk: Learning local features with policy gra- dient. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33, 14254–14265 (2020) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 17

    2020

  58. [66]

    Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

    Van Den Oord, A., Vinyals, O., et al.: Neural discrete representation learning. Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

    2017

  59. [67]

    Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems30(2017)

    Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A.N., Kaiser, L., Polosukhin, I.: Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems30(2017)

    2017

  60. [68]

    NeuroImage45(1), S61–S72 (2009)

    Vercauteren, T., Pennec, X., Perchant, A., Ayache, N.: Diffeomorphic demons: Efficient non-parametric image registration. NeuroImage45(1), S61–S72 (2009)

    2009

  61. [69]

    Medical Image Analysis90, 102962 (2023)

    Wang, A.Q., Evan, M.Y., Dalca, A.V., Sabuncu, M.R.: A robust and interpretable deep learning framework for multi-modal registration via keypoints. Medical Image Analysis90, 102962 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2024)

    Wang, H., Ni, D., Wang, Y.: Recursive deformable pyramid network for unsuper- vised medical image registration. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18362 (2024)

    Wang, J., Li, H., Hu, D., Xu, R., Yao, X., Tao, Y.K., Oguz, I.: Retinal ipa: Iterative keypoints alignment for multimodal retinal imaging. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18362 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05962 (2022)

    Wang, P., Zheng, W., Chen, T., Wang, Z.: Anti-oversmoothing in deep vision trans- formers via the fourier domain analysis: From theory to practice. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05962 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  65. [73]

    In: Pattern Recognition: 29th DAGM Symposium, Heidelberg, Germany, September 12-14, 2007

    Zach, C., Pock, T., Bischof, H.: A duality based approach for realtime tv-l 1 opti- cal flow. In: Pattern Recognition: 29th DAGM Symposium, Heidelberg, Germany, September 12-14, 2007. Proceedings 29. pp. 214–223. Springer (2007)

    2007

  66. [74]

    In: Linguraru, M.G., Dou, Q., Feragen, A., Giannarou, S., Glocker, B., Lekadir, K., Schnabel, J.A

    Zhang, H., Chen, X., Hu, R., Liu, D., Li, G., Wang, R.: Memwarp: Discontinuity- preserving cardiac registration with memorized anatomical filters. In: Linguraru, M.G., Dou, Q., Feragen, A., Giannarou, S., Glocker, B., Lekadir, K., Schnabel, J.A. (eds.) Medical Image Computing ...

  67. [75]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09833 (2024)

    Zhang, H., Chen, X., Wang, R., Hu, R., Liu, D., Li, G.: Slicer networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09833 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

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

    Zhang, H., Wang, R., Hu, R., Zhang, J., Li, J.: Deda: Deep directed accumulator. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 765–775. Springer (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    Neuroimage211, 116579 (2020)

    Zhang, J., Liu, Z., Zhang, S., Zhang, H., Spincemaille, P., Nguyen, T.D., Sabuncu, M.R., Wang, Y.: Fidelity imposed network edit (fine) for solving ill-posed image reconstruction. Neuroimage211, 116579 (2020)

    2020

  70. [78]

    NeuroImage p

    Zhang, J., Spincemaille, P., Zhang, H., Nguyen, T.D., Li, C., Li, J., Kovanlikaya, I., Sabuncu, M.R., Wang, Y.: Laro: Learned acquisition and reconstruction opti- mization to accelerate quantitative susceptibility mapping. NeuroImage p. 119886 (2023)

    2023

  71. [79]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision

    Zheng, S., Jayasumana, S., Romera-Paredes, B., Vineet, V., Su, Z., Du, D., Huang, C., Torr, P.H.: Conditional random fields as recurrent neural networks. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. pp. 1529–1537 (2015)

    2015

  72. [2024]

    pp. 671–681. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.