Good Papers

Tokenizer-Generator Coupling in Medical Image Generation

Latent medical image generator rankings depend jointly on tokenizer, generator, and sampler choices, with retuned samplers reducing FID to 0.09 and reconstruction PSNR failing as a selection criterion.

Liam Chalcroft

Published 2026Paris Poster Session 5 · Fri, Dec 11, 11:30 AM–1:30 PM local time · Paris Poster HallarXiv ↗OpenReview ↗

80%
OverallMust read
?
OverallMust readVote to see the scoreThe exact score shows once you've voted, so every vote is your own call. The first half of each home page shelf shows its scores.
Readers
–

Only vote on papers you've read. Sign in with GitHub to vote.

AI panel12/20reviewers recommend it
lenient 4/5
medium 6/10
strict 2/5
AI panel?Vote to see what the 20 AI reviewers said

Abstract

Latent medical image generators usually treat the tokenizer as fixed preprocessing. We test whether this separation holds in a controlled ChestMNIST study at $64\times64$ that crosses discrete tokenizers, generator families, and sampler settings under a shared latent grid, with continuous-latent reference cells. The rankings depend jointly on the tokenizer, generator, and sampler. The best quantizer changes with the generator, and validation-based sampler selection changes the apparent generator ranking. We interpret this through a rate-distortion-modelability framing in which modelability is conditional on the generator, sampler, and inference budget. The interaction persists when the vocabulary-1024 block is retrained at three seeds, with 4 of 9 pairwise quantizer comparisons exceeding three seed standard deviations, including a reversal between LFQ and FSQ from MaskGIT to D3PM; the rest of the grid was trained at a single seed and is correspondingly less certain. Reconstruction PSNR alone is not a reliable selection criterion. On LFQ-1024, retuning the D3PM and SEDD samplers on a held-out validation split reduces FID-192 from 0.44/0.41 at the default budget to 0.09/0.10 at lower NFE, replicated across seeds, although the continuous references were not given an equivalent sampler sweep. FID-192, our internal ranking metric, ranks consistently with standard FID-2048 (Spearman 0.89) and with a label-free classifier two-sample test (0.86). All experiments are unconditional, use low-resolution $64\times64$ medical-style images and are evaluated with non-clinical FID-based metrics, and our claims are limited to that setting. Implementations are released at https://github.com/liamchalcroft/medtokenizers and https://github.com/liamchalcroft/medlatents.