Supervised training of deep neural networks on pairs of clean image and noisy measurement achieves state-of-the-art performance for many image reconstruction tasks, but such training pairs are difficult to collect. Self-supervised methods enable training based on noisy measurements only, without clean images. In this work, we investigate the cost of self-supervised training in terms of sample complexity for a class of self-supervised methods that enable the computation of unbiased estimates of gradients of the supervised loss, including noise2noise methods. We analytically show that a model trained with such self-supervised training is as good as the same model trained in a supervised fashion, but self-supervised training requires more examples than supervised training. We then study self-supervised denoising and accelerated MRI empirically and characterize the cost of self-supervised training in terms of the number of additional samples required, and find that the performance gap between self-supervised and supervised training vanishes as a function of the training examples, at a problem-dependent rate, as predicted by our theory.

Supervised training of deep neural networks on pairs of clean image and noisy measurement achieves state-of-the-art performance for many image reconstruction tasks, but such training pairs are difficult to collect. Self-supervised methods enable training based on noisy measurements only, without clean images. In this work, we investigate the cost of self-supervised training in terms of sample complexity for a class of self-supervised methods that enable the computation of unbiased estimates of gradients of the supervised loss, including noise2noise methods. We analytically show that a model trained with such self-supervised training is as good as the same model trained in a supervised fashion, but self-supervised training requires more examples than supervised training. We then study self-supervised denoising and accelerated MRI empirically and characterize the cost of self-supervised training in terms of the number of additional samples required, and find that the performance gap between self-supervised and supervised training vanishes as a function of the training examples, at a problem-dependent rate, as predicted by our theory.

Purpose: To investigate aspects of the validation of self-supervised algorithms for reconstruction of undersampled MR images: quantitative evaluation of prospective reconstructions, potential differences between prospective and retrospective reconstructions, suitability of commonly used quantitative metrics, and generalizability. Theory and Methods: Two self-supervised algorithms based on self-supervised denoising and neural network image priors were investigated. These methods are compared to a least squares fitting and a compressed sensing reconstruction using in-vivo and phantom data. Their generalizability was tested with prospectively under-sampled data from experimental conditions different to the training. Results: Prospective reconstructions can exhibit significant distortion relative to retrospective reconstructions/ground truth.