Papers › Optimization in Sparse 2D to Dense 3D Weakly Supervised Learning: Application to...
Optimization in Sparse 2D to Dense 3D Weakly Supervised Learning: Application to Multi-Label Segmentation of Large ex vivo MRI Data
Paul Hoareau, Kuan Yi Wang, Brandon Bujak, Roy Sun, Govind Nair, Irene Cortese, Charidimos Tsagkas, Daniel Reich, Julien Cohen-Adad
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
INTRODUCTION | Fully supervised 3D segmentation of high-resolution ex vivo MRI is limited by the prohibitive cost of volumetric annotation, forcing reliance on sparse 2D slices. Weakly supervised Sparse-to-Dense frameworks bridge this gap, but guidelines remain ambiguous regarding human-centric visual enhancements and transferring optimization strategies across dimensions. We analyze divergent regularization needs for multi-class segmentation of high-resolution ex vivo spinal cord MRI. METHODS | We used 9.4T MRI of multiple sclerosis spinal cords (>104,000 slices) with sparse annotations (428 slices). A 2D Teacher trained on sparse slices generated dense pseudo-labels to train a 3D Student. We systematically evaluated the impact of human-centric preprocessing, spatial augmentation, and soft-label regularization on both architectures. RESULTS | We identified a critical divergence in training dynamics. The 2D Teacher required strong spatial augmentation and soft-labeling to overcome data scarcity, improving White Matter Lesion Dice scores by >11 points. However, propagating these techniques to the 3D Student degraded its performance. Furthermore, human-centric preprocessing (e.g., CLAHE) disrupted global statistical cues, dropping Gray Matter Lesion Dice scores by ~25 points. DISCUSSION | Our study highlights a perception divergence (human-centric contrast enhancement harms machine models) and a regularization conflict across dimensions. 3D architectures trained on dense pseudo-labels exhibit fundamentally different optimization landscapes than 2D counterparts and require distinct, conservative regularization. Code and models: https://github.com/ivadomed/model_seg_sc-gm-lesion_human_ms_exvivo_t2star.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2605.12753")
Code
Syntology Ran 5 of 7 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 2 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 5 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 7 samples from 1 repository, 5 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
7 samples harvested; 5 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 7 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from ivadomed/model_seg_sc-gm-lesion_human_ms_exvivo_t2star. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
8b1b90b42bb372c8 · report
6adf2737a964f011 · report
41f2477d0e61cbd9 · report
1b60584ef67673ba · report
7175b4e5c3e73699 · report
21048ba09efd2d71 · report
29d31d8fad62ceb1 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2605.12753, was issued in May 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections