Image registration is a fundamental task that aligns anatomical structures between images. While CNNs perform well, they lack rotation equivariance - a rotated input does not produce a correspondingly rotated output. This hinders performance by failing to exploit the rotational symmetries inherent in anatomical structures, particularly in brain MRI. In this work, we integrate rotation-equivariant convolutions into deformable brain MRI registration networks. We evaluate this approach by replacing standard encoders with equivariant ones in three baseline architectures, testing on multiple public brain MRI datasets. Our experiments demonstrate that equivariant encoders have three key advantages: 1) They achieve higher registration accuracy while reducing network parameters, confirming the benefit of this anatomical inductive bias. 2) They outperform baselines on rotated input pairs, demonstrating robustness to orientation variations common in clinical practice. 3) They show improved performance with less training data, indicating greater sample efficiency. Our results demonstrate that incorporating geometric priors is a critical step toward building more robust, accurate, and efficient registration models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Parameter comparison (log scale) between baselines and equivariant counterparts. Red values show parameter reduction. Equivariant models significantly reduce parameters.
Figure 2: Qualitative results of MindBoggle dataset on different baselines and their equivariant version.
Model
Avg
Std
Min
Max
Dual PR ++
0.554
0.107
0.416
0.684
Equi Dual PR ++
0.563
0.106
0.426
0.690
RDP
0.611
0.107
0.470
0.727
Equi RDP
0.628
0.098
0.491
0.729
Table 2: Dice scores for rotated inputs. Equivariant models achieve higher average scores and lower standard deviation.
Figure 3: Dice scores for rotation of moving image only.
Model config
irrep-0
irrep-1
irrep-2
Total channels
Equi irreps 0
16
0
0
16×1=16
Equi irreps 1
0
5
0
5×3=15
Equi irreps 2
0
0
3
3×5=15
Equi irreps 01 (4:4)
4
4
0
4×1+4×3=16
Equi irreps 01 (7:3)
7
3
0
7×1+3×3=16
Equi irreps 012 (5:2:1)
5
2
1
5×1+2×3+1×5=16
Table 3: Equivariant channel configurations.
Figure 4: Comparison of performance of Equivarint models with different choices of irreps.
PR ++
Equi PR ++
Training Portion
DSC
ASSD
DSC
ASSD
LPBA (full)
0.684 ± 0.024
1.864 ± 0.195
0.690 ± 0.023
1.834 ± 0.193
LPBA (1/2)
0.675 ± 0.025
1.911 ± 0.199
0.680 ± 0.024
1.883 ± 0.193
LPBA (1/4)
0.665 ± 0.027
1.962 ± 0.210
0.673 ± 0.025
1.916 ± 0.191
LPBA (1/8)
0.653 ± 0.031
2.032 ± 0.233
0.660 ± 0.028
1.987 ± 0.209
Table 4: Evaluation results on the LPBA test set using different portions of the LPBA training set.
School of Mathematics and Computational Science, Hunan Key Laboratory for Computation and Simulation in Science and Engineering, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan, Hunan 411105, P. R. China