Papers › On Sensitivity and Robustness of Normalization Schemes to Input Distribution Shifts in...
On Sensitivity and Robustness of Normalization Schemes to Input Distribution Shifts in Automatic MR Image Diagnosis
Divyam Madaan, Daniel Sodickson, Kyunghyun Cho, Sumit Chopra
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is considered the gold standard of medical imaging because of the excellent soft-tissue contrast exhibited in the images reconstructed by the MRI pipeline, which in-turn enables the human radiologist to discern many pathologies easily. More recently, Deep Learning (DL) models have also achieved state-of-the-art performance in diagnosing multiple diseases using these reconstructed images as input. However, the image reconstruction process within the MRI pipeline, which requires the use of complex hardware and adjustment of a large number of scanner parameters, is highly susceptible to noise of various forms, resulting in arbitrary artifacts within the images. Furthermore, the noise distribution is not stationary and varies within a machine, across machines, and patients, leading to varying artifacts within the images. Unfortunately, DL models are quite sensitive to these varying artifacts as it leads to changes in the input data distribution between the training and testing phases. The lack of robustness of these models against varying artifacts impedes their use in medical applications where safety is critical. In this work, we focus on improving the generalization performance of these models in the presence of multiple varying artifacts that manifest due to the complexity of the MR data acquisition. In our experiments, we observe that Batch Normalization, a widely used technique during the training of DL models for medical image analysis, is a significant cause of performance degradation in these changing environments. As a solution, we propose to use other normalization techniques, such as Group Normalization and Layer Normalization (LN), to inject robustness into model performance against varying image artifacts. Through a systematic set of experiments, we show that GN and LN provide better accuracy for various MR artifacts and distribution shifts.
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="2306.13276")
Code
Syntology Ran 1 of 1 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: official repository: 1 sample from 1 repository, 1 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. 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
1 sample harvested; 1 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 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: 1 of the 1 sample is 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 divyam3897/mri-robustness. “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.
f3a3af1fefbb6e15 · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
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