在我的写作中，我发现有时文本并不遵循在单词末尾添加引用时所规定的边距。
以下是一个例子：
相关代码是（我打破了这一行以使其更具可读性）：
\documentclass[12pt, english, onehalfspacing, headsepline]{MastersDoctoralThesis}
\begin{document}
Region-growing methods are particularly appropriate to segment large homogeneous connected regions
and have been employed for numerous segmentation tasks in medical imaging using MRI such as ventricular
blood pool segmentation\Cup{muhlenbruch2006global} or LA segmentation\Cup{zhu2013automatic}.
However, region growing approaches are sensitive to noise which can impair correct pixel annotation
and lead to holes in the region of interest.
Moreover, region growing methods still require manual tuning such as selecting
an appropriate seeding location and defining efficient similarity criterion
to prevent the algorithm to "leak" outside of the region of interest.
\end{document}
和：
\newcommand\Cup[1]{\textsuperscript{\cite{#1}}}
有沒有方法可以改善這種情況？
编辑：我正在使用来自 Overleaf 的模板：
% Masters/Doctoral Thesis
% LaTeX Template
% Version 2.5 (27/8/17)
%
% This template was downloaded from:
% http://www.LaTeXTemplates.com
%
% Version 2.x major modifications by:
% Vel ([email protected])
%
% This template is based on a template by:
% Steve Gunn (http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/srg/softwaretools/document/templates/)
% Sunil Patel (http://www.sunilpatel.co.uk/thesis-template/)
%
% Template license:
% CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/)
其他问题似乎类似：
我猜想第二个例子是由于使用了 $\pm$。但我不太确定。而且，我不知道为什么会出现第三个例子。
相关代码如下：
错位2：
(Dice score 93.67$\pm$0.2\% vs 92.91$\pm$0.38\%, MSD 0.689$\pm$0.107mm vs
0.791$\pm$0.047mm, \textit{p}-value < 0.01). On the other hand, the application
of solely histogram augmentations (gamma, CLAHE and add) (purple bars in Figure
\ref{data_aug_final} A and B) significantly decrease the accuracy scores (Dice
score 92.23$\pm$0.6\% vs 92.91$\pm$0.38\%, MSD 0.917$\pm$0.129mm vs
0.791$\pm$0.047mm,\textit{p}-value < 0.01). Even if removing the add data
augmentation improves the results, this
错位3：
Using \textit{histogram augmentations} only the modification of the contrast
using gamma showed improvements on the Dice score (93.06$\pm$0.51\% vs
92.93$\pm$0.38\% using no data augmentation). No Dice score modification was
yielded by using CLAHE (92.96\% vs 92.93\%) and "add" worsened the results lower
the Dice score (92.66\% vs 92.93\%). For the MSD metrics, only the CLAHE improved
the final score (0.758$\pm$0.06 vs 0.767$\pm$0.08mm) while "add"
是否存在我没有正确使用的包？
我使用了这些包：
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} % Required for inputting international characters
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} % Output font encoding for international characters
\usepackage{tocbibind}
\usepackage{mathpazo} % Use the Palatino font by default
\usepackage[backend=biber,style=ieee]{biblatex}
\usepackage[font=singlespacing, font=small]{caption}
\usepackage[autostyle=true]{csquotes}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\usepackage{amsfonts, amsmath, amsthm, amssymb}
\usepackage{color,soul}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{array}
编辑 2：这些后续问题已使用 microtype 包修复，如\usepackage{microtype}“包定义部分”中所述。但是，一些引用仍然不够清晰。
例子：
还有其他/特殊的包裹吗？
亲切的问候，
答案1
您的宏\Cup创建了前一个单词，无法使用连字符，因为框会立即附加到该单词。这会使段落拆分变得复杂，因此\hbox更有可能出现过度填充的情况。
定义
\def\Cup#1{\nobreak\textsuperscript{\cite{#1}}}
（或者\newcommand如果您坚持使用 LaTeX 符号，则使用：）。\nobreak宏在单词和由 构造的框之间插入惩罚\textsuperscript。在这种情况下，段落中断算法接受前一个单词作为单词，并且允许使用连字符。因此，如果使用英语连字符模式，则segmentation可以除以规则。seg-men-ta-tion