arxiv: 2602.12755 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-13 · 💻 cs.CV

Recognition: no theorem link

Towards reconstructing experimental sparse-view X-ray CT data with diffusion models

Nelas J. Thomsen , Xinyuan Wang , Felix Lucka , Ezgi Demircan-Tureyen

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 22:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV

keywords diffusion modelssparse-view CTX-ray computed tomographydomain shiftinverse problemsimage reconstructionexperimental datasampling methods

0 comments

The pith

Diffusion priors trained on diverse synthetic data reconstruct experimental sparse-view X-ray CT scans better than narrow priors, with annealing reducing mismatch artifacts.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests whether diffusion models trained as image priors on synthetic data can reconstruct real experimental sparse-view X-ray CT measurements. It creates training sets with controlled levels of domain shift relative to a physical phantom modeled after the Shepp-Logan phantom, then applies them inside a decomposed diffusion sampling procedure on measured data of increasing difficulty. The central finding is that severe domain mismatch produces collapse and hallucinations while moderate diversity improves results over narrow matching, and forward-model mismatch artifacts are reduced by annealed likelihood schedules that also cut computation time. This shows that performance advantages observed on synthetic data do not transfer directly to experimental settings.

Core claim

Diffusion priors from synthetic image sets can be used for experimental sparse-view CT reconstruction via decomposed diffusion sampling; severe domain shift causes model collapse and hallucinations, diverse priors outperform narrowly matched ones, and forward-model mismatch pulls samples off the prior manifold producing artifacts that annealed likelihood schedules mitigate while improving efficiency. Performance gains seen on synthetic benchmarks therefore do not translate immediately to real data.

What carries the argument

Decomposed Diffusion Sampling scheme that integrates a learned diffusion prior with the CT measurement operator through annealed likelihood schedules.

If this is right

Severe domain mismatch between training images and the target object produces hallucinations and model collapse during reconstruction.
Priors trained on more diverse synthetic data sets yield higher-quality reconstructions than those trained on data narrowly matched to the target.
Forward-model mismatch between the learned prior and real measurements creates artifacts that annealed likelihood schedules can reduce.
Annealed schedules also lower the computational cost of sampling.
Synthetic performance gains must be re-validated on physical measurements before clinical use.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Training diffusion models on broader ranges of synthetic anatomy could increase robustness when the exact target distribution is unknown.
Annealed likelihood weighting may transfer to other linear inverse problems that combine learned priors with physical forward models.
Benchmarks built around physical phantoms are required to determine which synthetic improvements survive the transition to measured data.

Load-bearing premise

The physical phantom used for experimental measurements sufficiently resembles the synthetic Shepp-Logan phantom that the observed effects of domain shift and forward-model mismatch will hold for other real data.

What would settle it

Reconstruct the experimental sparse-view data with the narrow prior and with the diverse prior; if the narrow prior produces fewer hallucinations or artifacts than the diverse prior, or if annealing produces no visible reduction in artifacts relative to standard sampling, the central claims are falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.12755 by Ezgi Demircan-Tureyen, Felix Lucka, Nelas J. Thomsen, Xinyuan Wang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: PSNR (dB) as a function of the number of projections across four different test domains for the reconstructions obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Line profiles from reconstructions shown in Fig. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: PSNR (dB) vs number of projections for three reso [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Diffusion-based image generators are promising priors for ill-posed inverse problems like sparse-view X-ray Computed Tomography (CT). As most studies consider synthetic data, it is not clear whether training data mismatch (``domain shift'') or forward model mismatch complicate their successful application to experimental data. We measured CT data from a physical phantom resembling the synthetic Shepp-Logan phantom and trained diffusion priors on synthetic image data sets with different degrees of domain shift towards it. Then, we employed the priors in a Decomposed Diffusion Sampling scheme on sparse-view CT data sets with increasing difficulty leading to the experimental data. Our results reveal that domain shift plays a nuanced role: while severe mismatch causes model collapse and hallucinations, diverse priors outperform well-matched but narrow priors. Forward model mismatch pulls the image samples away from the prior manifold, which causes artifacts but can be mitigated with annealed likelihood schedules that also increase computational efficiency. Overall, we demonstrate that performance gains do not immediately translate from synthetic to experimental data, and future development must validate against real-world benchmarks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper moves diffusion CT reconstruction to real measured data but the domain-shift claims rest on an unquantified phantom resemblance.

read the letter

The useful part is the shift to experimental sparse-view CT from a physical phantom. Most diffusion work stays in simulation, so testing on actual scanner data from something like a Shepp-Logan phantom is the right direction. They train priors on synthetic sets with controlled mismatch, then run Decomposed Diffusion Sampling on increasing difficulty levels up to the real measurements. The observation that severe mismatch collapses the model while diverse priors beat narrow matched ones, and that annealing helps with forward-model mismatch, is worth noting because it shows synthetic gains do not transfer cleanly.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the use of diffusion models as priors for sparse-view X-ray CT reconstruction on experimental data. It trains priors on synthetic image datasets with controlled degrees of domain shift relative to measurements from a physical phantom resembling the Shepp-Logan phantom, then applies them via Decomposed Diffusion Sampling to sparse-view CT datasets of increasing difficulty up to real experimental data. The central claims are that severe domain mismatch causes model collapse and hallucinations, diverse priors outperform narrow but well-matched priors, forward-model mismatch induces artifacts that can be mitigated by annealed likelihood schedules, and performance gains from synthetic settings do not directly translate to experimental data.

Significance. If the empirical claims are substantiated with quantitative validation, the work would be significant for the application of generative priors to ill-posed inverse problems in medical imaging. It offers concrete guidance on the value of prior diversity and annealing strategies when bridging synthetic training to real measurements, and the caution that synthetic-to-experimental transfer is not automatic is a useful contribution to the field.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that the physical phantom 'resembles' the synthetic Shepp-Logan phantom lacks any quantitative support (e.g., FID, MMD, intensity histogram overlap, or edge-density statistics between physical scans and the training sets). This is load-bearing for the domain-shift claims, as it prevents clean isolation of mismatch effects from possible unmodeled differences in phantom complexity or acquisition artifacts.
[Abstract] Abstract: The description of experiments and observations on model collapse, hallucinations, and mitigation by annealed schedules is entirely qualitative; no reconstruction metrics, error bars, statistical tests, or quantitative comparisons across training regimes are reported. This weakens verification of the nuanced role attributed to domain shift and forward-model mismatch.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: The term 'Decomposed Diffusion Sampling' is used without a one-sentence definition or pointer to its formulation, which reduces accessibility for readers outside the immediate subfield.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments highlighting the need for stronger quantitative support. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and verifiability of our claims on domain shift and forward-model mismatch.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that the physical phantom 'resembles' the synthetic Shepp-Logan phantom lacks any quantitative support (e.g., FID, MMD, intensity histogram overlap, or edge-density statistics between physical scans and the training sets). This is load-bearing for the domain-shift claims, as it prevents clean isolation of mismatch effects from possible unmodeled differences in phantom complexity or acquisition artifacts.

Authors: We agree that quantitative measures would strengthen the domain-shift analysis. In the revised manuscript we will add a table or supplementary figure reporting intensity histogram overlap, edge-density statistics, and MMD between the physical phantom scans and the synthetic training sets. This will better isolate mismatch effects from other factors. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The description of experiments and observations on model collapse, hallucinations, and mitigation by annealed schedules is entirely qualitative; no reconstruction metrics, error bars, statistical tests, or quantitative comparisons across training regimes are reported. This weakens verification of the nuanced role attributed to domain shift and forward-model mismatch.

Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract and experimental discussion are primarily qualitative. The main text reports PSNR/SSIM for synthetic cases, but to substantiate the claims on collapse, hallucinations, and annealing we will add quantitative metrics with error bars and statistical comparisons across regimes to the abstract and results section in the revision. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical comparisons across training regimes and data types

full rationale

The paper trains diffusion priors on synthetic datasets with varying degrees of domain shift toward a physical phantom, then applies them via Decomposed Diffusion Sampling to sparse-view CT reconstructions of increasing difficulty up to experimental data. Key claims (diverse priors outperforming narrow ones, annealed schedules mitigating forward-model mismatch) follow directly from reported performance differences across these controlled regimes. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are shown to reduce the central results to inputs by construction. The phantom-resemblance statement is an assumption but does not create a definitional or predictive loop within the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on standard assumptions from diffusion model literature for inverse problems without introducing new free parameters or entities.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Diffusion models trained on image distributions can serve as effective priors for ill-posed inverse problems such as sparse-view CT reconstruction
Invoked when employing the Decomposed Diffusion Sampling scheme on both synthetic and experimental data

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5488 in / 1297 out tokens · 23535 ms · 2026-05-15T22:39:42.136746+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

Image reconstruction in circular cone-beam computed tomography by constrained, total-variation minimization,

E. Y . Sidky and X. Pan, “Image reconstruction in circular cone-beam computed tomography by constrained, total-variation minimization,” Physics in Medicine & Biology, vol. 53, no. 17, pp. 4777–4807, 2008

work page 2008
[2]

Prior image constrained compressed sensing (piccs): a method to accurately reconstruct dynamic ct im- ages from highly undersampled projection data sets,

G.-H. Chen, J. Tang, and S. Leng, “Prior image constrained compressed sensing (piccs): a method to accurately reconstruct dynamic ct im- ages from highly undersampled projection data sets,”Medical physics, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 660–663, 2008

work page 2008
[3]

Deep con- volutional neural network for inverse problems in imaging,

K. H. Jin, M. T. McCann, E. Froustey, and M. Unser, “Deep con- volutional neural network for inverse problems in imaging,”IEEE transactions on image processing, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 4509–4522, 2017

work page 2017
[4]

Learn: Learned experts’ assessment- based reconstruction network for sparse-data ct,

H. Chen, Y . Zhang, Y . Chen, J. Zhang, W. Zhang, H. Sun, Y . Lv, P. Liao, J. Zhou, and G. Wang, “Learn: Learned experts’ assessment- based reconstruction network for sparse-data ct,”IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1333–1347, 2018

work page 2018
[5]

Learned primal-dual reconstruction,

J. Adler and O. ¨Oktem, “Learned primal-dual reconstruction,”IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1322–1332, 2018

work page 2018
[6]

Solving inverse problems in medical imaging with score-based generative models,

Y . Song, L. Shen, L. Xing, and S. Ermon, “Solving inverse problems in medical imaging with score-based generative models,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

work page 2022
[7]

Improving diffusion models for inverse problems using manifold constraints,

H. Chung, B. Sim, D. Ryu, and J. C. Ye, “Improving diffusion models for inverse problems using manifold constraints,” in36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NeurIPS 2022. Neural information processing systems foundation, 2022

work page 2022
[8]

Diffusion posterior sampling for general noisy inverse problems,

H. Chung, J. Kim, M. T. Mccann, M. L. Klasky, and J. C. Ye, “Diffusion posterior sampling for general noisy inverse problems,” inThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

work page 2023
[9]

Improving diffusion inverse problem solving with decoupled noise an- nealing,

B. Zhang, W. Chu, J. Berner, C. Meng, A. Anandkumar, and Y . Song, “Improving diffusion inverse problem solving with decoupled noise an- nealing,” inProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, 2025, pp. 20 895–20 905

work page 2025
[10]

Decomposed diffusion sampler for accelerating large-scale inverse problems,

H. Chung, S. Lee, and J. C. Ye, “Decomposed diffusion sampler for accelerating large-scale inverse problems,” in12th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, 2024

work page 2024
[11]

Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 6840– 6851, 2020

work page 2020
[12]

Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models

J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon, “Denoising diffusion implicit models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[13]

Tweedie’s formula and selection bias,

B. Efron, “Tweedie’s formula and selection bias,”Journal of the Amer- ican Statistical Association, vol. 106, no. 496, pp. 1602–1614, 2011

work page 2011
[14]

Improved denoising diffusion probabilis- tic models,

A. Q. Nichol and P. Dhariwal, “Improved denoising diffusion probabilis- tic models,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2021, pp. 8162–8171

work page 2021
[15]

The perception-distortion tradeoff,

Y . Blau and T. Michaeli, “The perception-distortion tradeoff,” inPro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 6228–6237

work page 2018
[16]

On hallucinations in tomographic image reconstruction,

S. Bhadra, V . A. Kelkar, F. J. Brooks, and M. A. Anastasio, “On hallucinations in tomographic image reconstruction,”IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 40, no. 11, pp. 3249–3260, 2021

work page 2021
[17]

sFRC for assessing hallucinations in medical image restoration

P. Kc, R. Zeng, N. Soni, and A. Badano, “sfrc for assessing hallucina- tions in medical image restoration,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.04673, 2026

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026