MedVA is presented, an end-to-end neuro-symbolic agentic system for medical volume visualization that addresses limitations through three complementary agents and provides more complete, clinically grounded ROI specifications than MLLM-only reasoning.
Abstract
Medical volume visualization requires selecting regions of interest (ROIs) and carefully controlling their relative visual emphasis according to a given clinical intent. Implementing these decisions in conventional workflows demands substantial clinical and visualization expertise and often involves trial-and-error optimization. Recent agentic systems have introduced natural-language interaction and autonomous visualization operations but largely rely on MLLM-based inference throughout the workflow. Although MLLMs encode broad medical knowledge and provide strong reasoning capabilities, such inference may be suboptimal for medical volume visualization, potentially leading to clinically incomplete interpretations of user requests and unreliable ROI identification and visualization optimization. In this work, we present MedVA, an end-to-end neuro-symbolic agentic system for medical volume visualization that addresses these limitations through three complementary agents. The neuro-symbolic intent formulation agent refines MLLM-based interpretations of natural-language requests through symbolic reasoning over established clinical knowledge, which provides more complete, clinically grounded ROI specifications than MLLM-only reasoning. The multi-model ROI identification agent directly identifies semantically specified ROIs in the original volume by leveraging complementary large-scale pretrained medical segmentation models. The objective-driven visualization optimization agent explicitly evaluates ROI visibility and occlusion in the original volume using a volume-based visibility objective. Extensive agent-level and system-level evaluations across diverse medical datasets and interaction scenarios support the effectiveness of the individual agents. A formative user study further indicates high usability and practical value among users with different levels of expertise.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.
M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 401 citations· ⚡48
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
The possibility of inferring high-dimensional data inference in a model that consists of a prior and an auxiliary differentiable constraint given some additional information is considered, thereby allowing a range of potential applications in adapting models to new domains and tasks.
Alexandros Graikos, Esmeralda S. Whitammer, N. Jojic et al.· Neural Information Processin...· 316 citations· ⚡15
Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity. The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.
Computer scientist, entrepreneur, and philanthropist will collaborate with the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing to advance AI and scientific discovery.