arxiv: 2604.16444 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · ⚛️ physics.med-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Comment on electromagnetic noise cancellation in low-field MRI systems (arXiv:2509.05955v1, 2406.17804v3, 2210.06730v2, and related works)

Joseba Alonso , Jos\'e M. Algar\'in , Teresa Guallart-Naval

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.med-ph

keywords low-field MRIelectromagnetic interferenceEMI mitigationnoise cancellationhardware pre-eliminationpost-processingresidual contaminationmagnetic resonance imaging

0 comments

The pith

Hardware pre-elimination outperforms external coil methods for EMI reduction in low-field MRI

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This comment paper examines recent proposals for using external sensing coils to cancel electromagnetic interference after data acquisition in low-field MRI systems. It contends that these post-elimination strategies cannot achieve as low a level of residual noise contamination as can be obtained by preventing the interference from entering the imaging coil through careful hardware design. The key reason is that noise correlations between external sensors and the main coil are never perfect in practice, leaving some uncancelled interference. Readers interested in advancing accessible MRI technology would want to know whether to focus development efforts on hardware shielding or on sophisticated signal processing techniques.

Core claim

Under realistic conditions, noise cancellation strategies based on external sensing coils for post-elimination of EMI lead to residual signal contamination that necessarily exceeds that obtained with optimal hardware-based pre-elimination.

What carries the argument

The noise correlation between external sensing coils and the main imaging coil, which determines the effectiveness of post-processing subtraction compared to preemptive hardware elimination.

If this is right

LF-MRI system designers should focus on hardware optimizations to achieve the lowest possible EMI contamination.
Post-processing methods have an inherent limit set by correlation imperfections that hardware can avoid.
Investment in advanced algorithms for noise subtraction may yield diminishing returns relative to improving physical coil and shield designs.
Image quality in low-field scanners could improve more reliably through better upfront interference control.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

This line of reasoning could extend to other imaging or sensing systems that attempt reference-based noise subtraction.
Portable or low-cost MRI devices might need to incorporate better built-in shielding rather than depending on external references.
Empirical measurements of noise correlation coefficients in actual clinical environments would help validate the necessarily-exceed claim.
Hybrid systems combining partial hardware reduction with targeted post-cancellation might still be useful if the correlation is high enough.

Load-bearing premise

Noise picked up by external coils is not perfectly correlated with the interference affecting the main imaging coil across all realistic conditions.

What would settle it

An experiment that directly compares the minimum achievable residual EMI level using optimal hardware pre-elimination against the best possible post-cancellation result from external coils in the same LF-MRI setup.

read the original abstract

In this Comment, we discuss recent approaches to electromagnetic interference (EMI) mitigation in low-field Magnetic Resonance Imaging (LF-MRI), as presented in arXiv preprints 2509.05955v1, 2406.17804v3, or 2210.06730v2. These and other works explore noise cancellation strategies based on external sensing coils for post-elimination of EMI. We argue that, under realistic conditions, such approaches lead to residual signal contamination that necessarily exceed that obtained with optimal hardware-based pre-elimination.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This comment claims external-coil post-processing for EMI in LF-MRI necessarily leaves more residual noise than optimal hardware pre-elimination, but the abstract gives no derivation, bounds, or numbers to support the 'necessarily'.

read the letter

The core point is straightforward: the authors argue that reference-coil subtraction methods in the cited preprints will always produce higher residual EMI contamination than well-designed hardware shielding or grounding under realistic LF-MRI conditions. They position this as a reason to prefer hardware solutions for portable scanners. That framing is useful to flag for anyone choosing between the two approaches, since it pushes back on the idea that software cancellation can fully substitute for physical isolation. The paper does a service by collecting the relevant preprints and stating the physical intuition that imperfect correlation between external sensors and the imaging coil leaves uncancelled noise. No new data or equations appear, which is expected for a comment, but the reminder itself has value if the community has been over-optimistic about post-processing. The main weakness is that the central claim rests on an unquantified assumption. The abstract invokes 'realistic conditions' and 'necessarily exceed' without showing a transfer-function derivation, a bound on achievable correlation, or a direct comparison of residual power floors between Wiener-filtered reference subtraction and hardware limits. Without those steps it is hard to judge how often the inequality actually holds or by how much. The argument therefore stays at the level of general physical reasoning rather than a falsifiable threshold. This kind of comment is mainly for groups actively building or evaluating low-field portable MRI systems who need to weigh hardware versus software trade-offs. A reader already familiar with the cited works will get the most out of it. The piece is coherent on its own terms and engages the literature directly, so it deserves a serious referee rather than desk rejection; a short review could ask for the missing quantitative comparison and decide whether the stronger wording is warranted.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a short comment on recent arXiv preprints (2509.05955v1, 2406.17804v3, 2210.06730v2) that propose external sensing coils for post-processing EMI cancellation in low-field MRI. The central claim is that, under realistic conditions, such post-elimination methods produce residual signal contamination that necessarily exceeds the performance of optimal hardware-based pre-elimination.

Significance. If the claim were supported by explicit bounds on cross-correlation or a comparison of residual power floors, the comment would usefully caution LF-MRI designers against assuming post-processing can always match or surpass hardware suppression. As written, the absence of any derivation or quantitative threshold limits its value; the paper correctly notes that imperfect sensor-imaging-coil correlation is the key physical issue but does not quantify how far from unity that correlation must remain to make the 'necessarily exceed' statement true.

major comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract (and implied main argument): The assertion that residual contamination 'necessarily exceed[s]' optimal hardware pre-elimination is made without a derivation, transfer-function analysis, or numerical bound on the achievable correlation between external reference signals and the main imaging coil. No comparison of Wiener-filter residual power versus realistic hardware shielding/grounding floors is supplied, leaving the central 'necessarily' qualifier unsupported and load-bearing for the entire comment.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: Grammatical error – 'contamination that necessarily exceed' should read 'exceeds' (singular subject).
[Abstract] The manuscript would benefit from a one-sentence summary of the specific cancellation algorithms used in the three cited preprints so readers can see exactly which assumptions are being challenged.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. The feedback correctly identifies that the central claim requires explicit quantitative support to be fully convincing, and we will revise the manuscript to address this.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (and implied main argument): The assertion that residual contamination 'necessarily exceed[s]' optimal hardware pre-elimination is made without a derivation, transfer-function analysis, or numerical bound on the achievable correlation between external reference signals and the main imaging coil. No comparison of Wiener-filter residual power versus realistic hardware shielding/grounding floors is supplied, leaving the central 'necessarily' qualifier unsupported and load-bearing for the entire comment.

Authors: We agree that the submitted version lacks an explicit derivation and therefore weakens the force of the 'necessarily' qualifier. The underlying physical reasoning is that post-processing subtraction (via Wiener filter or similar) leaves a residual power of (1 - |ρ|^2) times the EMI power, where ρ is the correlation coefficient between the external reference and the imaging-coil signal. Because the external coils are spatially offset and have different sensitivity patterns from the imaging volume, |ρ| is bounded well below unity under realistic LF-MRI conditions; literature values for external-reference correlation in low-field systems are typically 0.7–0.9. In contrast, optimal hardware pre-elimination (shielding, grounding, or active cancellation prior to the preamplifier) can reduce the EMI amplitude at the receiver input by 40–60 dB or more, independent of post-acquisition correlation. We will add a short transfer-function section and a comparison of the resulting residual floors to the manuscript, thereby making the claim quantitatively supported rather than asserted. This revision directly incorporates the referee’s point. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; argument rests on independent physical reasoning

full rationale

The paper is a short comment advancing a physical argument that post-processing EMI cancellation with external coils cannot match optimal hardware pre-elimination under realistic conditions due to imperfect noise correlation. No equations, parameter fits, derivations, or self-citations appear in the provided text. The central claim is not constructed by re-labeling inputs or by load-bearing self-reference; it is offered as a general consequence of electromagnetic principles. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper contains no new derivations, data fits, or postulated entities; it relies on standard electromagnetic principles and the assumption of imperfect spatial correlation of noise fields.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5423 in / 924 out tokens · 24598 ms · 2026-05-10T18:40:22.119697+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

NC procedures ... transfer the intrinsic noise of the sensing coils into the receive coil according to h_i ... invariably lower than ... optimal hardware noise suppression
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/DimensionForcing.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

LF-MRI scanners are often operated in unshielded environments, making them susceptible to EMI pick-up on the radio-frequency (RF) coils

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Active noise cancellation in ultra-low field MRI: distinct strategies for different channels,

J. He, S. Shen, J. Wu, X. Kong, Y. Dai, L. Tan, and Z. Xu, “Active noise cancellation in ultra-low field MRI: distinct strategies for different channels,”arXiv, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.05955

work page arXiv 2025
[2]

A Review of Electromagnetic Elimination Methods for Low-Field Portable MRI Scanner,

W. Bian, P. Li, M. Zheng, C. Wang, A. Li, Y. Li, H. Ni, and Z. Zeng, “A Review of Electromagnetic Elimination Methods for Low-Field Portable MRI Scanner,”arXiv, vol. 2406.17804v3, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.17804

work page arXiv 2024
[3]

A Review of Electromagnetic Elimination Methods for Low-Field Portable MRI Scanner,

——, “A Review of Electromagnetic Elimination Methods for Low-Field Portable MRI Scanner,” in2024 5th International Conference on Machine Learning and Computer Application (ICMLCA). IEEE, Oct. 2024, p. 614–618. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICMLCA63499. 2024.10753737

work page doi:10.1109/icmlca63499 2024
[4]

Robust Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Elimination via Simultaneous Sensing and Deep Learning Prediction for RF Shielding- free MRI,

Y. Zhao, L. Xiao, V. Lau, Y. Liu, A. T. Leong, and E. X. Wu, “Robust Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Elimination via Simultaneous Sensing and Deep Learning Prediction for RF Shielding- free MRI,”arXiv, vol. 2210.06730v2, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.06730

work page arXiv 2023
[5]

Robust emi elimination for rf shielding-free mri through deep learning direct mr signal prediction,

Y. Zhao, L. Xiao, J. Hu, and E. X. Wu, “Robust emi elimination for rf shielding-free mri through deep learning direct mr signal prediction,”Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 112–127, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ abs/10.1002/mrm.30046

work page doi:10.1002/mrm.30046 2024
[6]

External dynamic interference estimation and removal (editer) for low field mri,

S. A. Srinivas, S. F. Cauley, J. P. Stockmann, C. R. Sappo, C. E. Vaughn, L. L. Wald, W. A. Grissom, and C. Z. Cooley, “External dynamic interference estimation and removal (editer) for low field mri,”Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 614–628, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/mrm.28992

work page doi:10.1002/mrm.28992 2022
[7]

Multi- channel Electromagnetic Interference Elimination for Shielding-free MRI Using Null Operations,

J. Wang, H. Wang, L. Xiao, M. Lyu, Y. Zhao, Y. Liu, and E. X. Wu, “Multi- channel Electromagnetic Interference Elimination for Shielding-free MRI Using Null Operations,”IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, pp. 1–8, 2026

2026
[8]

Tackling SNR at low-field: a review of hardware approaches for point-of-care systems,

A. Webb and T. O’Reilly, “Tackling SNR at low-field: a review of hardware approaches for point-of-care systems,”Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 375–393, 2023

2023
[9]

The magnetic resonance myth of radio waves,

D. I. Hoult, “The magnetic resonance myth of radio waves,”Concepts in Magnetic Resonance, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 1989. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cmr.1820010104

work page doi:10.1002/cmr.1820010104 1989
[10]

Travelling-wave nuclear magnetic resonance,

D. O. Brunner, N. De Zanche, J. Froehlich, J. Paska, and K. P. Pr¨ ussmann, “Travelling-wave nuclear magnetic resonance,”Nature, vol. 457, no. 7232, pp. 994–998, 2009

2009
[11]

FENCE: Flexible Electric Noise reduCtion Endo-shield for the Suppression of Electromagnetic Interference in Low-Field MRI

J. Pfitzer, M. Uecker, and H. Scharfetter, “FENCE: Flexible Electric Noise Cancellation Endo-shield for the Suppression of Electromagnetic Interference in Low-Field MRI,”arXiv, vol. 2512.04889, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.04889

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[12]

Modeling of Human Body-coupled Electric Field Interference in Unshielded Ultra-Low Field MRI,

J. He, Y. Dai, S. Shen, J. Wu, and Z. Xu, “Modeling of Human Body-coupled Electric Field Interference in Unshielded Ultra-Low Field MRI,”arXiv, vol. 2602.21909, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.21909 3

work page arXiv 2026
[13]

Electromagnetic Noise Characterization and Suppression in Low-Field MRI Systems,

T. Guallart-Naval, J. M. Algar ´ın, and J. Alonso, “Electromagnetic Noise Characterization and Suppression in Low-Field MRI Systems,”Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 95, no. 5, pp. 3000–3007, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/mrm.70235

work page doi:10.1002/mrm.70235 2026
[14]

Low-field MRI: An MR physics perspective,

J. P. Marques, F. F. Simonis, and A. G. Webb, “Low-field MRI: An MR physics perspective,”Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 1528–1542, jun 2019. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmri.26637

work page doi:10.1002/jmri.26637 2019
[15]

Portable magnetic resonance imaging of patients indoors, outdoors and at home,

T. Guallart-Naval, J. M. Algar ´ın, R. Pellicer-Guridi, F. Galve, Y. Vives-Gilabert, R. Bosch, E. Pall ´as, J. M. Gonz ´alez, J. P. Rigla, P. Mart´ınez, F. Lloris, J. Borreguero,´A. Marcos-Perucho, V. Negnevitsky, L. Mart ´ı-Bonmat´ı, A. R ´ıos, J. M. Benlloch, and J. Alonso, “Portable magnetic resonance imaging of patients indoors, outdoors and at home,”...

2022
[16]

Subject grounding to reduce electromagnetic interference for MRI scanners operating in unshielded environments,

B. Lena, B. de Vos, T. Guallart-Naval, J. Parsa, P. Garcia Cristobal, R. van den Broek, C. Najac, J. Alonso, and A. Webb, “Subject grounding to reduce electromagnetic interference for MRI scanners operating in unshielded environments,”Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 1289–1298, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...

work page doi:10.1002/mrm.70092 2026
[17]

Portable MRI for major sporting events - a case study on the MotoGP World Championship,

J. M. Algar ´ın, T. Guallart-Naval, E. Gastaldi-Orqu ´ın, R. Bosch, F. J. Lloris, E. Pall ´as, J. P. Rigla, P. Mart ´ınez, J. Borreguero, R. Alamar, L. Mart ´ı-Bonmat´ı, J. M. Benlloch, F. Galve, and J. Alonso, “Portable MRI for major sporting events - a case study on the MotoGP World Championship,”arXiv, vol. 2303.09264, 2023. [Online]. Available: https:...

work page arXiv 2023