pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.04673 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-04 · 💻 cs.CV · physics.med-ph· stat.ML

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

sFRC for assessing hallucinations in medical image restoration

Prabhat Kc , Rongping Zeng , Nirmal Soni , Aldo Badano
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 15:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV physics.med-phstat.ML
keywords hallucination detectionFourier ring correlationmedical image restorationdeep learningCT imagingMRIimage quality assessment
0
0 comments X

The pith

Scanning small patches with Fourier ring correlation detects hallucinations in deep learning medical image restorations.

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

The paper introduces sFRC, a method that computes Fourier Ring Correlation on small image patches while scanning across deep learning outputs and their reference images to identify hallucinations. These are fabricated features that look plausible but do not match the underlying data in restoration tasks such as CT super-resolution, sparse-view CT, and MRI subsampling. Parameters for the scan are set either from expert-annotated hallucinated features or from imaging theory maps. The approach quantifies hallucination rates for different data distributions and subsampling levels, and it applies to both conventional and unrolled restoration methods.

Core claim

The authors claim that Fourier Ring Correlation performed over small patches and scanned across DL outputs and reference counterparts (sFRC) reliably detects hallucinations. They provide the mathematical formulation, show its effectiveness on CT problems by flagging hallucinated features, and demonstrate agreement with theory-based hallucination maps on MRI data while measuring robustness under in-distribution versus out-of-distribution conditions and increasing subsampling.

What carries the argument

sFRC: Fourier Ring Correlation computed locally on small patches and scanned across restored and reference images to expose local frequency discrepancies that indicate hallucinations.

If this is right

  • DL restoration methods show measurable differences in hallucination rates between in-distribution and out-of-distribution inputs.
  • Hallucination rates rise as subsampling increases in CT and MRI tasks.
  • sFRC applies to both conventional regularization-based methods and state-of-the-art unrolled methods.
  • Parameters can be fixed using either expert annotations of hallucinated features or theory-derived maps.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • sFRC scores could serve as a regularizer during DL training to reduce hallucination generation.
  • The same local correlation scan might transfer to other modalities such as ultrasound where reference data are available.
  • Comparing sFRC across model architectures could help select clinically safer restoration networks.

Load-bearing premise

Local differences in Fourier ring correlation between small patches of restored and reference images mark hallucinations rather than other natural image variations.

What would settle it

Insert known artificial hallucinations at specific locations in DL outputs and verify whether sFRC flags exactly those patches without signaling unaltered regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.04673 by Aldo Badano, Nirmal Soni, Prabhat Kc, Rongping Zeng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A range of artifacts, including (a) patient implant-based artifact [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Decomposition of a patch containing a hallucinated structure in (g) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A visual depiction of our sFRC analysis to detect hallucinated regions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An illustration for setting xht as an upper bound of xct s using patches that are labeled as hallucinations by subject matter experts or using an imaging theory. For a given imaging modality and acquisition condition, one may use a tuning/developmental dataset to set xht . For instance, using a tuning set, identify ROIs that are clinically or conclusively labeled as hallucinated ROIs (as depicted in figs. … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An illustration of the imaging theory-based approach to set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The purple ROIs indicate hallucinated patches in the SRGAN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An explicit illustration of the decay in performance of the SRGAN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A ground truth (in (a)) was used to perform subsampled MRI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Ground truth image and its corresponding (b) iFFT, (c) the U [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The reference CT image in (a) and its 36 view–based reconstruction from a state-of-the-art (SOTA) model in (c) are processed using sFRC to detect potentially hallucinated local regions, shown as red bounding boxes in (b). Display window is (W:400 L:50) with a medical officer, these findings were validated by direct comparison of sFRC-identified regions with the fully sam￾pled reference image (fig. 12(a)).… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: A visual depiction of how our patch-wise (scanned) FRC (sFRC) plot enables estimation of the hallucination rate as a function of the sFRC’s hallucination threshold (xht ). Concretely, the minimum xht value is set based on the sampling rate for a given restoration problem, while the maximum value is determined by considering the resolving power of the imaging modality and the high-frequency bands where con… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Hallucination Operating Characteristic (HOC) curve for the SRGAN model - trained on smooth data - evaluated using smooth and sharp test sets. and the empirically known fact that deep-learning models exhibit degraded performance on out-of-distribution test data compared with in-distribution data. Analogous to the Area Under the ROC (AU-ROC) used for diagnostic comparison in clinical science, the Area Under… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Deep learning (DL) methods are currently being explored to restore images from sparse-view-, limited-data-, and undersampled-based acquisitions in medical applications. Although outputs from DL may appear visually appealing based on likability/subjective criteria (such as less noise, smooth features), they may also suffer from hallucinations. This issue is further exacerbated by a lack of easy-to-use techniques and robust metrics for the identification of hallucinations in DL outputs. In this work, we propose performing Fourier Ring Correlation (FRC) analysis over small patches and concomitantly (s)canning across DL outputs and their reference counterparts to detect hallucinations (termed as sFRC). We describe the rationale behind sFRC and provide its mathematical formulation. The parameters essential to sFRC may be set using predefined hallucinated features annotated by subject matter experts or using imaging theory-based hallucination maps. We use sFRC to detect hallucinations for three undersampled medical imaging problems: CT super-resolution, CT sparse view, and MRI subsampled restoration. In the testing phase, we demonstrate sFRC's effectiveness in detecting hallucinated features for the CT problem and sFRC's agreement with imaging theory-based outputs on hallucinated feature maps for the MR problem. Finally, we quantify the hallucination rates of DL methods on in-distribution versus out-of-distribution data and under increasing subsampling rates to characterize the robustness of DL methods. Beyond DL-based methods, sFRC's effectiveness in detecting hallucinations for a conventional regularization-based restoration method and a state-of-the-art unrolled method is also shown.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes sFRC, a patch-wise scanning variant of Fourier Ring Correlation (FRC) applied between deep-learning restored medical images and their references, to detect hallucinations in tasks including CT super-resolution, sparse-view CT reconstruction, and MRI subsampled restoration. It provides a mathematical formulation for sFRC, describes parameter selection via expert-annotated hallucination maps or theory-based maps, demonstrates detection on CT and agreement with theory maps on MR, and quantifies hallucination rates for DL methods under in-distribution vs. out-of-distribution data and varying subsampling factors, with additional tests on conventional and unrolled methods.

Significance. If the specificity of sFRC for hallucinations can be established, the method would offer a practical, reference-based metric for a pressing reliability issue in DL medical image restoration, extending classical FRC to local analysis and applying it across multiple modalities and restoration approaches.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results (CT/MR experiments)] The central claim that sFRC selectively detects hallucinations (rather than any local frequency mismatch) is load-bearing but unsupported by the reported experiments. No ablation is described that introduces controlled non-hallucination artifacts (noise, sub-pixel shift, contrast drift) while holding hallucination content fixed, to test whether FRC ring drops remain specific. This is required in the results section on CT and MR test cases.
  2. [Method (sFRC formulation and parameter selection)] Parameter setting for sFRC (patch size, scanning stride, correlation threshold) is described as using expert annotations or theory-based maps, yet no sensitivity analysis, inter-annotator variability, or cross-task generalization test is reported. Because these are free parameters, the claim of robustness across CT and MR problems and increasing subsampling rates rests on unverified choices.
  3. [Results (MR agreement and CT detection)] Quantitative performance metrics (e.g., precision, recall, AUC against expert or theory ground-truth maps, or correlation coefficients) are not provided for the claimed agreement on MR hallucination maps or the visual detection on CT. Without these, the effectiveness statements cannot be evaluated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Method] Notation for the scanned FRC (e.g., how rings are defined on small patches and how the final sFRC map is aggregated) should be made fully explicit with equations, including handling of low-sample rings in small patches.
  2. [Introduction] The manuscript should cite prior uses of local or patch-wise FRC in imaging literature to clarify the novelty of the scanning component.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough and constructive review. The comments highlight important aspects for strengthening the specificity, robustness, and quantitative evaluation of sFRC. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional analyses where needed.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results (CT/MR experiments)] The central claim that sFRC selectively detects hallucinations (rather than any local frequency mismatch) is load-bearing but unsupported by the reported experiments. No ablation is described that introduces controlled non-hallucination artifacts (noise, sub-pixel shift, contrast drift) while holding hallucination content fixed, to test whether FRC ring drops remain specific. This is required in the results section on CT and MR test cases.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit ablation introducing controlled non-hallucination artifacts (e.g., additive noise, sub-pixel shifts, or contrast changes) while preserving hallucination content would provide stronger evidence of specificity. The current experiments rely on agreement with theory-derived hallucination maps (MR) and visual correspondence (CT), which are constructed to isolate hallucinated features based on imaging physics. To directly address the concern, we will add a controlled ablation study in the revised results section demonstrating sFRC behavior under these non-hallucination perturbations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method (sFRC formulation and parameter selection)] Parameter setting for sFRC (patch size, scanning stride, correlation threshold) is described as using expert annotations or theory-based maps, yet no sensitivity analysis, inter-annotator variability, or cross-task generalization test is reported. Because these are free parameters, the claim of robustness across CT and MR problems and increasing subsampling rates rests on unverified choices.

    Authors: The parameters were selected to align with expert-annotated or theory-based hallucination maps and were held fixed across the reported CT and MR experiments to demonstrate cross-task applicability. We acknowledge that a dedicated sensitivity analysis, inter-annotator agreement study, and explicit cross-task generalization tests would strengthen the robustness claims. We will include these analyses in the revised method and results sections. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results (MR agreement and CT detection)] Quantitative performance metrics (e.g., precision, recall, AUC against expert or theory ground-truth maps, or correlation coefficients) are not provided for the claimed agreement on MR hallucination maps or the visual detection on CT. Without these, the effectiveness statements cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We agree that reporting quantitative metrics (precision, recall, AUC, or correlation coefficients) against the expert/theory ground-truth maps would allow a more rigorous assessment of agreement. The original manuscript presents qualitative visual agreement and detection results. In the revision we will compute and report these standard detection metrics for both the MR theory-map agreement and the CT hallucination detection tasks. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

sFRC applies standard local FRC with no reduction to fitted inputs

full rationale

The paper defines sFRC as Fourier Ring Correlation performed over small patches scanned across DL outputs and reference images. Its mathematical formulation follows directly from the established FRC metric without any equations that equate the hallucination detection output to the input parameters or annotations by construction. Parameters such as patch size or thresholds are set using external expert annotations or theory-based maps, but the core derivation and testing (agreement on MR maps, detection on CT) remain independent of those choices rather than tautological. No self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked as load-bearing steps. The approach is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that local FRC can isolate hallucinations and that expert or theory-based maps can calibrate the detector without introducing bias.

free parameters (1)
  • patch size and scanning parameters
    Essential parameters for sFRC whose values are set using expert annotations or imaging theory maps.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption FRC differences on small patches indicate hallucinated features rather than legitimate variations or noise.
    Core premise invoked when proposing sFRC for hallucination detection.
invented entities (1)
  • sFRC no independent evidence
    purpose: Detecting hallucinations via local FRC scanning in DL medical image outputs.
    Newly introduced method whose effectiveness is demonstrated only at the abstract level.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5591 in / 1310 out tokens · 58055 ms · 2026-05-15T15:58:42.006023+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Towards reconstructing experimental sparse-view X-ray CT data with diffusion models

    cs.CV 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Diffusion priors trained on diverse synthetic data outperform narrow matched priors for experimental sparse-view CT reconstruction, but forward model mismatch introduces artifacts that annealed likelihood schedules ca...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Low-dose ct for the detection and classification of metastatic liver lesions: results of the 2016 low dose ct grand challenge,

    C. H. McCollough, A. C. Bartley, R. E. Carter, B. Chen, T. A. Drees, P. Edwards, D. R. Holmes III, A. E. Huang, F. Khan, S. Lenget al., “Low-dose ct for the detection and classification of metastatic liver lesions: results of the 2016 low dose ct grand challenge,”Medical physics, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. e339–e352, 2017

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Results of the 2020 fastmri challenge for machine learning mr image reconstruction,

    M. J. Muckley, B. Riemenschneider, A. Radmanesh, S. Kim, G. Jeong, J. Ko, Y . Jun, H. Shin, D. Hwang, M. Mostaphaet al., “Results of the 2020 fastmri challenge for machine learning mr image reconstruction,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 2306–2317, 2021

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Ad- dressing the false negative problem of deep learning mri reconstruction models by adversarial attacks and robust training,

    K. Cheng, F. Caliv ´a, R. Shah, M. Han, S. Majumdar, and V . Pedoia, “Ad- dressing the false negative problem of deep learning mri reconstruction models by adversarial attacks and robust training,” inMedical Imaging with Deep Learning. PMLR, 2020, pp. 121–135

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Distribution matching losses can hallucinate features in medical image translation,

    J. P. Cohen, M. Luck, and S. Honari, “Distribution matching losses can hallucinate features in medical image translation,” inMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2018: 21st International Conference, Granada, Spain, September 16-20, 2018, Proceedings, Part I. Springer, 2018, pp. 529–536

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    On instabilities of deep learning in image reconstruction and the potential costs of ai,

    V . Antun, F. Renna, C. Poon, B. Adcock, and A. C. Hansen, “On instabilities of deep learning in image reconstruction and the potential costs of ai,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117, no. 48, pp. 30 088–30 095, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    fastmri+, clinical pathol- ogy annotations for knee and brain fully sampled magnetic resonance imaging data,

    R. Zhao, B. Yaman, Y . Zhang, R. Stewart, A. Dixon, F. Knoll, Z. Huang, Y . W. Lui, M. S. Hansen, and M. P. Lungren, “fastmri+, clinical pathol- ogy annotations for knee and brain fully sampled magnetic resonance imaging data,”Scientific Data, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 152, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Deeplesion: automated mining of large-scale lesion annotations and universal lesion detection with deep learning,

    K. Yan, X. Wang, L. Lu, and R. M. Summers, “Deeplesion: automated mining of large-scale lesion annotations and universal lesion detection with deep learning,”Journal of medical imaging, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 036 501–036 501, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Predicting readers’ diagnostic accuracy with a new cad algorithm,

    N. A. Obuchowski, “Predicting readers’ diagnostic accuracy with a new cad algorithm,”Academic Radiology, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 1412–1419, 2011

    work page 2011

  9. [9]

    Three-dimensional re- construction from radiographs and electron micrographs: application of convolutions instead of fourier transforms,

    G. Ramachandran and A. Lakshminarayanan, “Three-dimensional re- construction from radiographs and electron micrographs: application of convolutions instead of fourier transforms,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 2236–2240, 1971

    work page 1971

  10. [10]

    Development and validation of a practical lower-dose-simulation tool for optimizing computed tomography scan protocols,

    L. Yu, M. Shiung, D. Jondal, and C. H. McCollough, “Development and validation of a practical lower-dose-simulation tool for optimizing computed tomography scan protocols,”Journal of computer assisted tomography, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 477–487, 2012

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    Accurate image domain noise insertion in ct images,

    S. E. Divel and N. J. Pelc, “Accurate image domain noise insertion in ct images,”IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1906–1916, 2019

    work page 1906

  12. [12]

    The fourier radial error spectrum plot: A more nuanced quantitative evaluation of image reconstruction quality,

    T. H. Kim and J. P. Haldar, “The fourier radial error spectrum plot: A more nuanced quantitative evaluation of image reconstruction quality,” in2018 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2018). IEEE, 2018, pp. 61–64

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Mr image reconstruction from highly undersampled k-space data by dictionary learning,

    S. Ravishankar and Y . Bresler, “Mr image reconstruction from highly undersampled k-space data by dictionary learning,”IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1028–1041, 2010

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    Esrgan: Enhanced super-resolution generative adversar- ial networks,

    X. Wang, K. Yu, S. Wu, J. Gu, Y . Liu, C. Dong, Y . Qiao, and C. Change Loy, “Esrgan: Enhanced super-resolution generative adversar- ial networks,” inProceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) workshops, 2018, pp. 0–0

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a generative adversarial network,

    C. Ledig, L. Theis, F. Husz ´ar, J. Caballero, A. Cunningham, A. Acosta, A. Aitken, A. Tejani, J. Totz, Z. Wanget al., “Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a generative adversarial network,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 4681–4690

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    Improved training of wasserstein gans,

    I. Gulrajani, F. Ahmed, M. Arjovsky, V . Dumoulin, and A. C. Courville, “Improved training of wasserstein gans,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Trustworthy limited data ct reconstruction using progressive artifact image learning,

    J. Zhang, Z. Li, J. Pan, S. Wang, and W. Wu, “Trustworthy limited data ct reconstruction using progressive artifact image learning,”IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2025

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Simultaneous iterative reconstruction technique: Physical interpretation based on the generalized least squares solution,

    J. Trampert and J.-J. Leveque, “Simultaneous iterative reconstruction technique: Physical interpretation based on the generalized least squares solution,”Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, vol. 95, no. B8, pp. 12 553–12 559, 1990

    work page 1990

  19. [19]

    A limited-angle ct reconstruction method based on anisotropic tv minimization,

    Z. Chen, X. Jin, L. Li, and G. Wang, “A limited-angle ct reconstruction method based on anisotropic tv minimization,”Physics in Medicine & Biology, vol. 58, no. 7, p. 2119, 2013

    work page 2013

  20. [20]

    A sparse-view ct reconstruction method based on combination of densenet and decon- volution,

    Z. Zhang, X. Liang, X. Dong, Y . Xie, and G. Cao, “A sparse-view ct reconstruction method based on combination of densenet and decon- volution,”IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1407–1417, 2018

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Iterative residual optimization network for limited-angle tomographic reconstruction,

    J. Pan, H. Yu, Z. Gao, S. Wang, H. Zhang, and W. Wu, “Iterative residual optimization network for limited-angle tomographic reconstruction,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 33, pp. 910–925, 2024. 6 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) r Fig. S1. An illustration of user-defined hallucinated ROIs (as bounding boxes) and markers (as arrows) annotated in the S...

    work page 2024