Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Fast Three-dimensional Opto-acoustic Simulation for Linear Array with Rectangular Elements

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The 3D opto-acoustic response of a linear array with rectangular elements factors exactly into a cascade of two perpendicular 2D operators, an n-fold speedup.

desk verdict The separability proof holds up and the method is a real advance for homogeneous-fluence opto-acoustic simulation, but the fixed-fluence assumption and thin validation are the soft spots. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05581 v3 pith:WXQBVNK6 submitted 2019-08-15 physics.comp-ph physics.med-ph

Jason Zalev , Michael C. Kolios This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phphysics.med-ph
keywords opto-acousticsimulationphotoacousticimaginglineartransducerarrayseparableoperatorcascadeGreen'sfunctionrectangularimpulseresponseopticalfluencetime-domain
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to show that simulating the opto-acoustic signal recorded by a linear transducer array from a three-dimensional volume does not require a full 3D convolution with the acoustic Green's function. It claims that the 3D system response, including the rectangular aperture of each element and the optical fluence pattern delivered by a probe-mounted light source, is exactly equivalent to two cascaded 2D operators, each integrating along circular arcs in a plane related to the array. The first pass collapses the 3D source volume to an intermediate 2D dataset, and the second pass turns that into the per-element time traces. For a volume of $n^3$ voxels, the separable cascade costs roughly $O(n^2)$ operations per transducer instead of $O(n^3)$, an $n$-fold acceleration that matters for iterative image reconstruction and for simulating free-hand probe motion in opto-acoustic imaging.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the sifting factorization of the retarded Green's function, $$\delta(t-\|x\|)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\delta(t-r)\delta(\tau-\rho)\,d\tau,\qquad r=\sqrt{$x_1^{2}$+\$tau^{2}$},\ \rho=\sqrt{$x_2^{2}$+$x_3^{2}$},$$ which decouples the 3D spherical wavefront into a circle in the $(x_2,x_3)$-plane followed by a circle in the $(x_1,\tau)$-plane. This factorization, together with changes of variables in the convolution integrals, is what carries the argument: it lets the system response operator be written as a composition, or cascade, of two operators, converting an $O(N)$ per-channel cost into $O(N^{2/3})$. The rectangular aperture enters through the multiplicatively separable form $f_1(u_1)f_2(u_2)\delta(u_3)$, so its two 1D factors can be paired with the two cascade stages.

What would settle it

Take a numerical phantom with a strongly absorbing inclusion placed between the light source and a second absorber, run the separable cascade and a dense non-separable reference simulation with the same fluence, and compare time traces; if the separable result differs from the reference by more than the known voxelization low-pass error, the factorization fails. A more direct check is to evaluate Proposition 3.1 on random volumes by computing $H^{A,b}$ directly as a 3D convolution and as the cascade $\tilde G\circ G^{A,b}$; any discrepancy beyond floating-point round-off would disprove the claimed identity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a separability theorem for the time-domain opto-acoustic operator. Writing the free-space pressure impulse response as $h(x,t)=\partial_t[\delta(t-\|x\|)/(4\pi t)]$, the paper factors the spherical shell $\delta(t-\|x\|)$ using a Dirac-delta identity into two nested circular integrations, one in a plane containing the array line and one perpendicular to it. This proves $H^{A,b} = \tilde G \circ G^{A,b}$: the first operator $G^{A,b}$ integrates the rotated and translated source over circles of radius $\tau$ in planes normal to the array, producing an intermediate function $\sigma$; the second operator $\tilde G$ integrates $\sigma$ over circles in the imaging plane and applies $\frac{1}{4\pi}\partial_t(1/t)$. For a multiplicatively separable rectangular aperture $f(u)=f_1(u_1)f_2(u_2)\delta(u_3)$, the two factors attach to the two cascade stages, so $H^{A,b}_f = \tilde G_{f_1}\circ G^{A,b}_{f_2}$. The obliquity factor is absorbed by weighting the source with $u_3$ before the cascade and by a $1/t$ post-factor, and a far-field variant rewrites the aperture convolution as six contour integrals, trading accuracy for speed.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the optical fluence $\Phi(u)$ stays fixed in the probe frame and is unaffected by local absorption variations, so heterogeneous tissue that significantly shadows deeper structures would break the model's description of the physical signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a $512^3$ voxel volume, the reported GPU implementation runs a 256-channel, 1024-sample simulation on the order of real time, with the $n$-fold speedup growing as the volume side length grows.
  • The same cascade, run in reverse, gives an adjoint operator usable for image reconstruction, since every forward step is linear and composable.
  • Arbitrary probe positions and orientations are handled by the affine transform $T_{A,b}$: the volume is rotated and translated into the probe frame once, and the cached optical fluence $\Phi(u)$ does not need recomputation as the probe moves.
  • The far-field contour approximation of Proposition 3.4 removes spatial convolutions with the aperture and can be faster at large grid sizes, at the cost of reduced near-field accuracy.
  • The Dirac-delta proof of separability generalizes to any Green's-function kernel that is itself multiplicatively separable, extending the method beyond rectangular apertures.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: Because the cascade is a composition of linear operators and each stage is shift-invariant along the array direction, the same factorization should carry over to linear inverse problems such as regularized maximum-likelihood reconstruction, where the system matrix could be applied implicitly as the product of the two sparse 2D kernels.
  • Editorial inference: The fixed-fluence assumption is the main limitation; if absorption heterogeneity significantly perturbs the fluence, an iterative scheme could alternate the separable acoustic cascade with Monte Carlo or diffusion fluence updates, but the single-pass $n$-fold speedup would be lost. A testable middle ground is to precompute a small library of fluence maps for different bulk opt
  • Editorial inference: The factoring identity suggests a direct numerical check of Green's-function separability in other wave-equation settings, such as weakly attenuating or dispersive media, by testing whether the factorized kernel reproduces the non-separable impulse response to machine precision on random volumes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a separable computational model for 3D opto-acoustic simulation with a linear array of rectangular transducer elements. Starting from the acoustic wave equation, it defines a generalized system response operator that includes the transducer aperture, an obliquity factor, a fixed optical energy distribution, and an affine transform to an arbitrarily rotated/translated probe frame. The central claim is that this non-separable 3D Green's function operator is equivalent to a cascade of two perpendicular 2D operators (Propositions 3.1-3.4), yielding an O(n) speedup for an n^3-voxel volume relative to a non-separable computation. The appendices contain proof sketches for each proposition, and a GPU implementation plus a point-source comparison against Field II are reported.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a valuable algebraic result: the 3D opto-acoustic forward operator, including rectangular-aperture impulse responses and obliquity weighting, can be evaluated as a cascade of two perpendicular 2D operations. The delta-function factorization in Eq. (36) and the grouping of aperture factors in Proposition 3.2 are nontrivial and internally consistent, and the complexity analysis (Table III) gives a clear O(N^{2/3}) scaling. The paper ships detailed proofs, a working GPU implementation, and reported runtimes for 128^3 to 768^3 volumes (Table II), which is a genuine strength. The main limitations are the fixed-fluence assumption, whose physical fidelity is not quantified, and the sparse accuracy validation against Field II.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.A, Eq. (9)] The stated change-of-coordinates identity is incorrect. With x = T_{A,b}(u) = Au+b, substituting y = T^{-1}_{A,b}(x') into the left-hand side gives ∫ h(y) ψ(A(u-y)) dy, while the right-hand side, using T^{-1}_{A,b}{ψ}(u) = ψ(Au+b) from Eq. (6b), gives ∫ h(y) ψ(A(u-y)+b) dy. The translation b does not appear on the left after the substitution. The correct relation is [T_{A,b}{h} ⊛ ψ](T_{A,b}(u)) = [h ⊛ (ψ∘A)](u), where (ψ∘A)(u) = ψ(Au). Because Eq. (9) is the stated motivation for the moving-frame operator definitions in Eqs. (19) and (30), this needs to be corrected and its consequences re-checked.
  2. [Section IV, Figures 7 and 8; Table II] The accuracy validation consists of a single point-source configuration at one depth, with no quantitative error metric reported; the difference from Field II is attributed only qualitatively to voxel-interpolation low-pass filtering. To support the abstract's claim of 'fast and accurate simulation,' the authors should report quantitative errors (e.g., normalized RMS or peak error) for multiple source depths, off-axis positions, and aperture widths, and include a rotated/translated probe test to validate the arbitrary-trajectory claim. In addition, Table II reports runtimes only for the separable implementation; a timing comparison against an actual non-separable implementation is needed to substantiate the claimed O(n) empirical speed-up.
  3. [Section II.C.3, Eqs. (31)-(33)] The generalized operator H^{A,b}_{f,Φ} is linear in η only under the stated assumption that Φ(u) is not affected by local changes in μ_a(x). The paper acknowledges this assumption but does not quantify its error in the intended breast-imaging regime, where blood-rich lesions with high absorption can perturb the fluence. If Φ depends on η, the mapping η→s is nonlinear and the operator formalism does not describe the physical signal. Please add a sensitivity analysis (e.g., comparing fixed-fluence simulations with Monte Carlo fluence recomputed for heterogeneous phantoms) or explicitly restrict the applicability claim in the abstract and conclusion to homogeneous or layered optical media.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Figure 10 caption] The word 'diamter' should be 'diameter'.
  2. [Section III.D, Figure 4 caption] The caption does not define the solid and dotted lines in Figure 4b; please add a sentence stating which contour corresponds to the positive wavefront and which to the negative wavefront.
  3. [Table III and Table IV] The mixed-domain complexity entry uses parameters kd and ke, but Table IV defines ka, kb, kc, and kd but not ke; please define ke or remove it.
  4. [References] Reference [40] is cited as an unpublished manuscript to support the reconstructive utility of the separable operator; if it is not available, please label the relevant claim as future work or provide a linkable version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the separable cascade is derived from the free-space Green's function and validated against an independent simulator; the fixed-fluence caveat is a modeling assumption, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central claim is the equivalence H^{A,b}_{f,Phi} = \tilde G_{f1} \circ G^{A,b}_{f2} (Propositions 3.1 and 3.2). The proof starts from the standard free-space pressure impulse response h(x,t) = (1/4\pi) \partial/\partial t [\delta(ct - ||x||)/t] and uses the delta-function factorization in Eq. (36), \delta(t - ||x||) = \int \delta(t-r)\delta(\tau-\rho)\,d\tau, followed by polar-coordinate changes of variables. The operators G and \tilde G are defined by these derived integrals, not by imposing the desired output, so the separability result is a genuine mathematical derivation rather than a definitional equivalence. Rectangular-aperture separability follows from f_a(x) = rect(x1/a1, x2/a2)\delta(x3) and convolution associativity, and the obliquity-factor case is derived from the identity \nabla g(x,t)\cdot\hat n = h(x,t)\alpha(x)/c0 (Proposition 3.3). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the optical energy distribution Phi(u) is an input computed from standard diffusion or Monte-Carlo optical models, and the transducer impulse response is not tuned to match the Field II output used for validation. The self-citations, e.g., references [7] and [40], are to the authors' reconstruction-related follow-ups and are not needed to establish the separability claim. The fixed-fluence assumption stated in Section II.C.3, that Phi(u) is not affected by local changes in optical absorption mu_a(x), is explicitly acknowledged and limits physical fidelity in heterogeneous tissue, but it is a modeling assumption rather than a circular step. The numerical comparison to the independent Field II simulator provides external validation of the derived impulse responses. No step in the chain reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on standard physics (wave equation, Green's function) and stated domain approximations (homogeneous medium, fluence independent of absorption). No free parameters are fitted to data; inputs like c0, mu_eff, z0, zb come from prior literature or user choice.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Acoustic medium is homogeneous with constant speed of sound and density.
    Stated in Section II: 'It is also assumed that the acoustic properties of the volume are homogeneous'. This excludes heterogeneous tissue models.
  • domain assumption Optical energy distribution Phi(u) is independent of local absorption and fixed relative to the probe frame.
    Stated in Section II.C.3: 'it is assumed that Phi(u) is not affected by local changes in optical absorption mu_a(x)'. This makes the fluence rotatable and translatable with the probe.
  • domain assumption Instantaneous optical pulse q(t) = delta(t).
    Used in the core derivation; arbitrary pulse shapes are treated as post-processing temporal convolution.
  • standard math Free-space Green's function solution to the 3D scalar wave equation.
    The causal Green's function in Eq. (24) is the fundamental solution of the wave equation; standard physics, cited to Morse and Ingard.
  • domain assumption Rectangular transducer aperture is multiplicatively separable: f(u) = f1(u1) f2(u2) delta(u3).
    Standard idealization of a flat rectangular piston, used in Proposition 3.2.
  • standard math Sifting, scaling and composition properties of the Dirac delta function.
    Used throughout the proofs in Appendix VII to factor the 3D Green's function into two 2D factors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast Three-dimensional Opto-acoustic Simulation for Linear Array with Rectangular Elements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WXQBVNK6

@misc{pith2026190805581,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast Three-dimensional Opto-acoustic Simulation for Linear Array with Rectangular Elements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WXQBVNK6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05581}
}
abstract

Simulation involves predicting responses of a physical system. In this article, we simulate opto-acoustic signals generated in a three-dimensional volume due to absorption of an optical pulse. A separable computational model is developed that permits an order-of-magnitude improvement in computational efficiency over a non-separable model. The simulated signals represent acoustic waves, measured by a probe with a linear transducer array, in a rotated and translated coordinate frame. Light is delivered by an optical source that moves with the probe's frame. A spatio-temporal impulse response for rectangular element transducer geometry is derived using a Green's function solution to the acoustic wave equation. The approach permits fast and accurate simulation for a probe with arbitrary trajectory. For a 3D volume of $n^3$ voxels, computation is accelerated by a factor of $n$. This may potentially have application for opto-acoustic imaging, where clinicians visualize structural and functional features of biological tissue for assessment of cancer and other diseases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05581 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Geometry of an opto-acoustic probe in rotated and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cross section of a typical optical energy distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cascaded separable operators for linear array applied to a spatial source distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spatial impulse responses in the z = 0 plane. Solid line represents positive wavefront and dotted line represents negative wavefront. a) The ray impulse response ς(x, y, t) at time t is ς(x, y, t) = 1 2 δ(t±y) u(x)−δ(t− p x 2 + y 2) sign(x), which traces out the path s…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulated time-domain signals generated by opto [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Signals from point source at (x,y,z)=(0,0,10)mm, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Simulated data for linear array. Time domain data is shown graphically (top) and plotted (bottom). The array is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 3D volume with spherical absorbers. A linear array [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Clinical optoacoustic imaging combined with ultrasound for coregistered functional and anatomical mapping of breast tumors

    AA Oraevsky, B Clingman, J Zalev, AT Stavros, WT Yang, and JR Parikh. “Clinical optoacoustic imaging combined with ultrasound for coregistered functional and anatomical mapping of breast tumors”. In: Photoa- coustics 12 (2018), pp. 30–45

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Opto-acoustic image fusion technology for diagnostic breast imaging in a feasibility study

    Jason Zalev, Bryan Clingman, Don Herzog, Tom Miller, Michael Ulissey, A Thomas Stavros, Alexander Oraevsky, Philip Lavin, Kenneth Kist, N Carol Dorn- bluth, and Pamela Otto. “Opto-acoustic image fusion technology for diagnostic breast imaging in a feasibility study”. In: SPIE Medical Imaging. International Society for Optics and Photonics. 2015, pp. 941909–941909

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    A Pivotal Study of Optoacoustic Imaging to Diagnose Benign and Malignant Breast Masses: A New Evaluation Tool for Radiologists

    E I Neuschler, R Butler, C A Young, L D Barke, M L Bertrand, M B ¨ohm-V´elez, S Destounis, P Donlan, S R Grobmyer, J Katzen, K A Kist, P T Lavin, E V Makariou, T M Parris, K J Schilling, F L Tucker, and B E Dogan. “A Pivotal Study of Optoacoustic Imaging to Diagnose Benign and Malignant Breast Masses: A New Evaluation Tool for Radiologists.” In: Radiology...

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Downgrading of Breast Masses Suspicious for Cancer by Using Optoacoustic Breast Imaging

    Gisela LG Menezes, Ruud M Pijnappel, Carla Meeuwis, Robertus Bisschops, Jeroen Veltman, Philip T Lavin, Marc J van de Vijver, and Ritse M Mann. “Downgrading of Breast Masses Suspicious for Cancer by Using Optoacoustic Breast Imaging”. In: Radiology (2018), p. 170500

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Optoacoustic tomography: from fundamentals to diagnostic imaging of breast can- cer

    Alexander A Oraevsky. “Optoacoustic tomography: from fundamentals to diagnostic imaging of breast can- cer”. In: Biomedical Photonics Handbook . CRC press, 2014, pp. 738–781

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Photoacoustic imag- ing in biomedicine

    Minghua Xu and Lihong V Wang. “Photoacoustic imag- ing in biomedicine”. In: Review of scientific instruments 77.4 (2006), p. 041101

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Image Reconstruction Combined with Interference Removal using a Mixed- Domain Proximal Operator

    Jason Zalev and Michael Kolios. “Image Reconstruction Combined with Interference Removal using a Mixed- Domain Proximal Operator”. In: IEEE Signal Process- ing Letters (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Theoretical acoustics

    Philip McCord Morse and K Uno Ingard. Theoretical acoustics. Princeton university press, 1968

    work page 1968

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Application of time-space impulse responses to calculations of acoustic fields in imaging systems

    Henryk Lasota and Roman Salamon. “Application of time-space impulse responses to calculations of acoustic fields in imaging systems”. In: Acoustical Imaging . Springer, 1982, pp. 493–512

    1982

  2. [10]

    A the- ory for the radiation pattern of a narrow-strip acoustic transducer

    AR Selfridge, GS Kino, and BT Khuri-Yakub. “A the- ory for the radiation pattern of a narrow-strip acoustic transducer”. In: Applied Physics Letters 37.1 (1980), pp. 35–36

    1980

  3. [11]

    Field: A program for simulating ultrasound systems

    Jørgen Arendt Jensen. “Field: A program for simulating ultrasound systems”. In: 10th Nordicbaltic Conference on Biomedical Imaging, Vol. 4, Supplement 1, Part 1: 351–353. Citeseer. 1996

    1996

  4. [12]

    Cal- culation of pressure fields from arbitrarily shaped, apodized, and excited ultrasound transducers

    Jørgen Arendt Jensen and Niels Bruun Svendsen. “Cal- culation of pressure fields from arbitrarily shaped, apodized, and excited ultrasound transducers”. In: IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and fre- quency control 39.2 (1992), pp. 262–267

    1992

  5. [13]

    Transient radiation from pistons in an infinite planar baffle

    Peter R Stepanishen. “Transient radiation from pistons in an infinite planar baffle”. In: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49.5B (1971), pp. 1629– 1638

    1971

  6. [14]

    Acoustic diffraction analysis by the impulse response method: A line impulse response approach

    H Lasota, R Salamon, and B Delannoy. “Acoustic diffraction analysis by the impulse response method: A line impulse response approach”. In: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 76.1 (1984), pp. 280– 290

    1984

  7. [15]

    A new approach to the derivation of the impulse response of a rectangular piston

    G Scarano, N Denisenko, M Matteucci, and M Pap- palardo. “A new approach to the derivation of the impulse response of a rectangular piston”. In: The Jour- nal of the Acoustical Society of America 78.3 (1985), pp. 1109–1113

    1985

  8. [16]

    Diffraction impulse response of rectangular transducers

    Jose Luis San Emeterio and Luis G Ullate. “Diffraction impulse response of rectangular transducers”. In: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 92.2 (1992), pp. 651–662

    1992

  9. [17]

    Two-pass 3D migration and linearized inversion in the (x, t)-domain

    H Jakubowicz and D Miller. “Two-pass 3D migration and linearized inversion in the (x, t)-domain”. In: Geo- physical prospecting 37.2 (1989), pp. 143–148

    1989

  10. [18]

    Basic earth imaging

    Jon F Claerbout and I Green. Basic earth imaging. 2008

    2008

  11. [19]

    Ul- trasound transducers for pulse-echo medical imaging

    John W Hunt, Marcel Arditi, and F Stuart Foster. “Ul- trasound transducers for pulse-echo medical imaging”. In: IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 8 (1983), pp. 453–481

    1983

  12. [20]

    Foundations of biomedical ultra- sound

    Richard SC Cobbold. Foundations of biomedical ultra- sound. Oxford University Press, 2006. 22 J. Zalev and M. C. Kolios

    2006

  13. [21]

    Comments on “Farfield of Pulsed Rectangular Acoustic Radiator

    PR Stepanishen. “Comments on “Farfield of Pulsed Rectangular Acoustic Radiator”[A. Freedman, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 49, 738–748 (1971)]”. In: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 52.1B (1972), pp. 434–436

    1971

  14. [22]

    Farfield of pulsed rectangular acous- tic radiator

    Albert Freedman. “Farfield of pulsed rectangular acous- tic radiator”. In: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49.3B (1971), pp. 738–748

    1971

  15. [23]

    Rapid calculations of time- harmonic nearfield pressures produced by rectangular pistons

    Robert J McGough. “Rapid calculations of time- harmonic nearfield pressures produced by rectangular pistons”. In: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 115.5 (2004), pp. 1934–1941

    2004

  16. [24]

    A 2D fast near-field method for calculating near-field pressures generated by apodized rectangular pistons

    Duo Chen and Robert J McGough. “A 2D fast near-field method for calculating near-field pressures generated by apodized rectangular pistons”. In: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 124.3 (2008), pp. 1526– 1537

    2008

  17. [25]

    An efficient grid sectoring method for calcula- tions of the near-field pressure generated by a circular piston

    Robert J McGough, Thaddeus V Samulski, and James F Kelly. “An efficient grid sectoring method for calcula- tions of the near-field pressure generated by a circular piston”. In: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 115.5 (2004), pp. 1942–1954

    2004

  18. [26]

    A simple exact method of 3-D migration theory

    H Jakubowicz and S Levin. “A simple exact method of 3-D migration theory”. In: Geophysical Prospecting 31.1 (1983), pp. 34–56

    1983

  19. [27]

    Com- ments on

    JT Fokkema, GJM L ¨ortzer, and AM Ziolkowski. “Com- ments on ”A simple exact method of (3-D) migration theory” by H. Jakubowicz and S. Levin–a note in favour of ”The myth of nonseparability of the (3-D) migration operator””. In: Geophysical prospecting 34.6 (1986), pp. 927–936

    1986

  20. [28]

    The k-space formulation of the scattering problem in the time domain

    Norbert N Bojarski. “The k-space formulation of the scattering problem in the time domain”. In: The Jour- nal of the Acoustical Society of America 72.2 (1982), pp. 570–584

    1982

  21. [29]

    k-space propagation models for acoustically heterogeneous media: Application to biomedical pho- toacoustics

    Benjamin T Cox, S Kara, Simon R Arridge, and Paul C Beard. “k-space propagation models for acoustically heterogeneous media: Application to biomedical pho- toacoustics”. In: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 121.6 (2007), pp. 3453–3464

    2007

  22. [30]

    Fast calculation of pulsed photoacoustic fields in fluids using k-space methods

    BT Cox and PC Beard. “Fast calculation of pulsed photoacoustic fields in fluids using k-space methods”. In: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117.6 (2005), pp. 3616–3627

    2005

  23. [31]

    k-Wave: MATLAB toolbox for the simulation and reconstruction of photoacoustic wave fields

    Bradley E Treeby and Benjamin T Cox. “k-Wave: MATLAB toolbox for the simulation and reconstruction of photoacoustic wave fields”. In: Journal of biomedical optics 15.2 (2010), p. 021314

    2010

  24. [32]

    Application of inverse source concepts to photoacoustic tomography

    Mark A Anastasio, Jin Zhang, Dimple Modgil, and Patrick J La Rivi `ere. “Application of inverse source concepts to photoacoustic tomography”. In: Inverse Problems 23.6 (2007), S21

    2007

  25. [33]

    Analytic expla- nation of spatial resolution related to bandwidth and detector aperture size in thermoacoustic or photoacous- tic reconstruction

    Minghua Xu and Lihong V Wang. “Analytic expla- nation of spatial resolution related to bandwidth and detector aperture size in thermoacoustic or photoacous- tic reconstruction”. In: Physical Review E 67.5 (2003), p. 056605

    2003

  26. [34]

    An imaging model incorporating ultrasonic transducer properties for three-dimensional optoacoustic tomogra- phy

    Kun Wang, Sergey A Ermilov, Richard Su, Hans-Peter Brecht, Alexander A Oraevsky, and Mark A Anastasio. “An imaging model incorporating ultrasonic transducer properties for three-dimensional optoacoustic tomogra- phy”. In: IEEE transactions on medical imaging 30.2 (2011), pp. 203–214

    2011

  27. [35]

    Investigation of the far-field approximation for model- ing a transducer’s spatial impulse response in photoa- coustic computed tomography

    Kenji Mitsuhashi, Kun Wang, and Mark A Anastasio. “Investigation of the far-field approximation for model- ing a transducer’s spatial impulse response in photoa- coustic computed tomography”. In: Photoacoustics 2.1 (2014), pp. 21–32

    2014

  28. [36]

    Accelerating image reconstruction in three- dimensional optoacoustic tomography on graphics pro- cessing units

    Kun Wang, Chao Huang, Yu-Jiun Kao, Cheng-Ying Chou, Alexander A Oraevsky, and Mark A Anas- tasio. “Accelerating image reconstruction in three- dimensional optoacoustic tomography on graphics pro- cessing units”. In: Medical physics 40.2 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    L1-L2 opti- mization in signal and image processing

    Michael Zibulevsky and Michael Elad. “L1-L2 opti- mization in signal and image processing”. In: IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 27.3 (2010), pp. 76–88

    2010

  30. [38]

    Biomedical Image Reconstruction: From the Foundations to Deep Neural Networks

    Michael T McCann, Michael Unser, et al. “Biomedical Image Reconstruction: From the Foundations to Deep Neural Networks”. In: Foundations and Trends® in Signal Processing 13.3 (2019), pp. 283–359

    2019

  31. [39]

    The application of compressed sensing for photo-acoustic tomography

    Jean Provost and Fr ´ed´eric Lesage. “The application of compressed sensing for photo-acoustic tomography”. In: IEEE transactions on medical imaging 28.4 (2009), pp. 585–594

    2009

  32. [40]

    Opto-acoustic Image Recon- struction and Motion Tracking using Convex Optimiza- tion

    J. Zalev and M.C. Kolios. “Opto-acoustic Image Recon- struction and Motion Tracking using Convex Optimiza- tion”. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Physics, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada. 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    A diffusion theory model of spatially resolved, steady-state diffuse reflectance for the noninvasive de- termination of tissue optical properties in vivo

    Thomas J Farrell, Michael S Patterson, and Brian Wil- son. “A diffusion theory model of spatially resolved, steady-state diffuse reflectance for the noninvasive de- termination of tissue optical properties in vivo”. In: Medical physics 19.4 (1992), pp. 879–888

    1992

  34. [42]

    Phase-function corrected diffusion model for diffuse reflectance of a pencil beam obliquely incident on a semi-infinite turbid medium

    Roger J Zemp. “Phase-function corrected diffusion model for diffuse reflectance of a pencil beam obliquely incident on a semi-infinite turbid medium”. In: Journal of biomedical optics 18.6 (2013), p. 067005

    2013

  35. [43]

    Light transport in three-dimensional semi-infinite scattering media

    Andr ´e Liemert and Alwin Kienle. “Light transport in three-dimensional semi-infinite scattering media”. In: JOSA A 29.7 (2012), pp. 1475–1481

    2012

  36. [44]

    Analytical approach for solving the radiative transfer equation in two- dimensional layered media

    Andr ´e Liemert and Alwin Kienle. “Analytical approach for solving the radiative transfer equation in two- dimensional layered media”. In: Journal of Quantita- tive Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer 113.7 (2012), pp. 559–564

    2012

  37. [45]

    Comparison of finite-difference trans- port and diffusion calculations for photon migration in homogeneous and heterogeneous tissues

    Andreas H Hielscher, Raymond E Alcouffe, and Ran- dall L Barbour. “Comparison of finite-difference trans- port and diffusion calculations for photon migration in homogeneous and heterogeneous tissues”. In: Physics in Medicine & Biology 43.5 (1998), p. 1285

    1998

  38. [46]

    MCML—Monte Carlo modeling of light transport in multi-layered tissues

    Lihong Wang, Steven L Jacques, and Liqiong Zheng. “MCML—Monte Carlo modeling of light transport in multi-layered tissues”. In: Computer methods and programs in biomedicine 47.2 (1995), pp. 131–146. 23 J. Zalev and M. C. Kolios

    1995

  39. [47]

    A Monte Carlo model for the absorption and flux distributions of light in tissue

    BC Wilson and G Adam. “A Monte Carlo model for the absorption and flux distributions of light in tissue”. In: Medical physics 10.6 (1983), pp. 824–830

    1983

  40. [48]

    Shanghai Lectures on Multivariable Analysis

    William G Faris. Shanghai Lectures on Multivariable Analysis . Online Book. http://math.arizona.edu/ faris/books.html, 2016. 24 J. Zalev and M. C. Kolios

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.