Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 40 references

The ML-EM algorithm in continuum: sparse measure solutions

T0 review · 4 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 When Poisson data fall outside the cone of achievable measurements, every maximum-likelihood reconstruction is sparse—generically a sum of Dirac masses—and inside the cone ML-EM cluster points are optimal with full support.

desk verdict Worth engaging: a mostly sound core duality argument, but the headline sparsity claim needs linear independence and two later results contain fixable errors. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01966 v2 pith:J4GF7LLH submitted 2019-09-04 math.OC cs.CV

Camille Pouchol , Olivier Verdier This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCcs.CV MSC 90C2549J2762F1044A6060F10
keywords PoissoninverseproblemML-EMalgorithmsparsemeasuresRadonKullback-Leiblerdivergencedualconeconcentrationboundspositronemissiontomography
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 treats image reconstruction for Poisson inverse problems—most concretely PET—with the unknown image modelled as a non-negative Radon measure on a compact set rather than as a discretized grid. It proves a sharp cone dichotomy for the maximum-likelihood problem $\min_{\mu\ge 0} d(y\,\|\,A\mu)$. If the measured data $y$ falls outside the cone $A(\mathcal{M}_+)=\{A\mu:\mu\ge 0\}$, which is typical at low dose or short exposure, then every minimizer is sparse: its support is contained in the minimum set of an explicit dual function $A^*\lambda^*$, and for generic smooth detectors it is a sum of Dirac masses. If $y$ lies in the interior of the cone and the detector response functions are linearly independent, absolutely continuous minimizers exist and ML-EM cluster points are optimal with full support. The paper also derives exponential concentration bounds for the probability that Poisson noise pushes the data outside the cone, explaining the long-observed spiky artefacts of ML-EM.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the image cone $A(\mathcal{M}_+)\subset\mathbb{R}^m$ and its dual cone $(A(\mathcal{M}_+))^*=\{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}^m:A^*\lambda=\sum_i\lambda_i a_i\ge 0\text{ on }K\}$. The argument runs through the identity $\nabla\ell(\mu)=A^*\lambda(A\mu)$ with $\lambda_i(A\mu)=1-y_i/\langle\mu,a_i\rangle$, which turns the KKT conditions into support localization: any minimizer's support is contained in the zero set of the nonnegative dual function $A^*\lambda^*$, and $\lambda^*$ is unique. For the interior case, the second piece of machinery is the imported moment-problem theorem: $y\in\operatorname{int}A(\mathcal{M}_+)$ implies the existence of a positive continuous density solution $A\mu=y$, and once such a reference solution exists, a relative-entropy monotonicity argument ($D(\mu^*\,\|\,\mu_{k+1})\le D(\mu^*\,\|\,\mu_k)$) forces ML-EM cluster points to have full support and, by linear independence of the detectors, to be optimal.

What would settle it

Take $K=[0,1]$, detectors $a_1(x)=1$ and $a_2(x)=x$, so the cone is $\{(\alpha,\beta):\alpha\ge\beta\ge 0\}$; choose normalized Poisson data $y=(0.4,0.6)$, which lies outside the cone. Solving $\min_{\mu\ge 0} d(y\,\|\,A\mu)$ numerically and checking whether every minimizer's support lies in $\arg\min(\lambda^*_1+\lambda^*_2 x)$ for the unique dual maximizer $\lambda^*$ would test the sparsity characterization directly. Independently, for the boundary case, construct data on $\partial A(\mathcal{M}_+)$ satisfying assumptions (31) and (32) and check whether the asserted absolutely continuous solution exists, since the printed proof's reduced set is defined incorrectly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the feasible set for Poisson measurements has a cone geometry that dictates solution structure. After normalizing $\sum_i a_i=1$, the negative log-likelihood is $\ell(\mu)=\langle\mu,1\rangle-\sum_i y_i\log\langle\mu,a_i\rangle$, and its gradient is $A^*\lambda(A\mu)$ with $\lambda_i=1-y_i/\langle\mu,a_i\rangle$. Optimality (KKT) gives $A^*\lambda^*\ge 0$ and $A^*\lambda^*=0$ on $\operatorname{supp}\mu^*$, where $\lambda^*$ is the unique maximizer of the dual problem $g(\lambda)=\sum_i y_i\log(1-\lambda_i)$ over the dual cone. When $y\notin A(\mathcal{M}_+)$, $\lambda^*\neq 0$, so the zero set of the nonnegative function $A^*\lambda^*$ is a proper closed set and every minimizer's support lies in it; with $C^2$ detectors and nondegenerate Hessians, the interior part of the support is a sum of Dirac masses. When $y\in\operatorname{int}A(\mathcal{M}_+)$, the moment-problem theorem quoted from reference [14] produces an absolutely continuous solution with positive continuous density, and the ML-EM iteration started from an absolutely continuous initial measure has the property that every cluster point is optimal and has full support.

Load-bearing premise

The dichotomy rests on the detector response functions being linearly independent, so the cone of achievable data has a genuine interior, together with the imported moment-problem theorem that interior data admit an absolutely continuous solution; the boundary-case theorem as printed also defines its reduced set with the wrong object.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In low-dose or short-exposure PET, the spiky appearance of ML-EM images is a structural feature of the maximum-likelihood problem itself, not merely an artefact of early stopping: every exact minimizer concentrates on the zero set of the dual function.
  • In the long-exposure regime, if the data enter the interior of the cone and the detectors are linearly independent, ML-EM started from a smooth positive image cannot converge to Dirac masses: its cluster points are optimal and have full support.
  • The probability of landing in the sparse regime is at most $2^m e^{-n\varepsilon/m}$ conditional on $n$ counts and at most $C(m)(1+(\gamma t)^m)e^{-\gamma t\varepsilon}$ for a dose $t$, with $\varepsilon$ the Kullback--Leibler distance from the true distribution to the complement of the cone; dose therefore controls sparsity exponentially.
  • Boundary data at an extremal point of the cone force any solution to be a Dirac mass, so sparse solutions can persist even on the boundary of the feasible set.
  • In the sparse regime, the limiting locations of the point masses depend on the initial measure $\mu_0$, shown explicitly when only one detector receives counts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not state a crossover dose, but its bounds imply a threshold roughly $m/(\gamma\varepsilon)$ below which the sparse regime is typical; this could be tested by sweeping dose in the numerical experiments.
  • The continuum mechanism suggests that the spike positions seen at finite ML-EM iterations are selected by the dynamics approaching the sharp peaks of $A^*\lambda^*$; comparing reconstructed spike locations across noise realizations with the argmin set of the dual function would test this.
  • For motion-corrected PET, where deformations act on the continuum measure, the same cone dichotomy should transfer, meaning low-dose motion-corrected reconstructions should also be atomic unless the deformed data cone is entered; regularisation could then be designed to favour absolutely continuous components at high dose.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Poisson maximum-likelihood problem for a linear operator A acting on nonnegative Radon measures on a compact set K, with finite-dimensional observations y. It derives optimality conditions for minimizers of the negative log-likelihood, proves a sparsity characterization when y lies outside the image cone A(M+), invokes a theorem of Georgiou to obtain absolutely continuous solutions when y is in the interior, analyzes ML-EM iterates (monotonicity, fixed-point cluster points, support properties), and gives concentration bounds for the probability that Poisson data fall outside the cone. Numerical experiments with a PET operator illustrate the predicted sparsity. The paper is a theoretical contribution with a clear applied motivation.

Significance. If the main claims hold, this would be a substantial step toward explaining the spiky artifacts of ML-EM in PET, since the dichotomy between sparse solutions outside the cone and absolutely continuous optimal limits inside the cone is governed by a parameter-free, checkable condition (membership of y in A(M+)). The convex-analysis core is clean, the dual-certificate interpretation is useful, and the numerical experiments are reproducible. The main theorems have no fitted parameters and the statistical bounds are explicit. However, the correctness of the headline claims currently depends on hypotheses that are either unstated or mis-stated: linear independence of the a_i is needed for the sparsity conclusion, the reduced compact K-tilde in Section 3.4 is defined with the wrong set, Proposition 3.14 is false as stated, and the concentration-bound proof in Section 5 contains a reversed inequality. The significance can only be assessed after those fixes.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Corollary 3.8 and Remark 3.9] The sparsity conclusion of Corollary 3.8 is vacuous unless A*λ* is not identically zero. The proof only shows λ* ≠ 0, but when the functions a_i are linearly dependent it can still happen that A*λ* = 0, in which case arg min(A*λ*) = K and condition (27) holds for every probability measure. Concretely, on K=[0,1] take m=2, a1=a2=1/2 and y=(0.6,0.4); then y ∉ A(M+), the negative log-likelihood is minimized by every measure of mass 1, and the dual maximizer is λ*=(-0.2,0.2) with A*λ*=0. Thus the conclusion "must be sparse, i.e., typically a sum of point masses" is false as stated. The paper should add the linear-independence assumption (28) to Corollary 3.8 (and to Corollary 4.4 and Remark 3.9), or otherwise prove that a nontrivial zero set is obtained. Moreover, even under (28), condition (27) only places the support in the zero set of a nonnegative continuous function; the additional Hessian/analyticity hypotheses of Remark 3.9 are needed to conclude a sum of Dirac masses, and they are not verified for PET detector responses.
  2. [§3.4, definition before Eq. (29) and Proposition 3.13] The reduced set K-tilde is defined as K \ ∪_{i∉supp(y)} a_i^{-1}({0}); this is the set where at least one zero-count detector response is positive, which is the opposite of what the proof requires. To have ⟨µ,a_i⟩=0 for every i∉supp(y), the support of the extended measure must be contained in ∩_{i∉supp(y)} a_i^{-1}({0}) = K \ ∪_{i∉supp(y)} {a_i>0}. As written, the extension argument in Proposition 3.13 can produce a measure with positive integrals against zero-count detectors. For example, if a_3 is positive everywhere on K and y_3=0, the printed K-tilde equals K and the proof would construct a measure with ⟨µ,a_3⟩>0, contradicting Aµ=y. Since Proposition 3.13 is used by Corollary 4.9 and Theorem 4.10, those results are invalid as printed. Please correct the definition of K-tilde, re-state assumptions (31)-(32) on the corrected set, and check that the corrected K-tilde satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 3.11 (for instance, having nonempty interior if "absolutely continuous positive density" is meant with respect to Lebesgue measure).
  3. [§3.4, Proposition 3.14] Proposition 3.14 is false as stated. An extreme point y of the convex set A(M+)∩S can have multiple preimages x with a(x)=y, and then any probability measure supported on that preimage set satisfies Aµ=y, not only Dirac masses. For instance, if a_1 has a flat plateau at its maximum and a_2=1-a_1, the corresponding y is an extreme point of conv(a(K)) but every measure supported on the plateau is a solution. The proof sketch "the only extremal points among probability measures are the Dirac masses" confuses extremality in the image convex set with extremality in the domain simplex; the map a need not be injective. The proposition needs an additional assumption, such as the level set {x: a(x)=y} being a singleton, before its conclusion holds. This affects the boundary-extremal case mentioned at the start of Section 4.2.
  4. [§5, proof of Theorem 5.2] The derivation of the concentration bounds in Theorem 5.2 uses the inequality 1-e^{-u} ≥ u for u>0, which is false; in fact 1-e^{-u} < u. In the second bound, the text asserts e^{-γt(1-exp(-ε/m))} ≤ e^{-γt ε/m}, but since 1-exp(-ε/m) < ε/m the inequality is reversed. The same problem occurs in the final step of the first bound, where e^{-γt(1-exp(-ε))} is replaced by e^{-γtε}. Thus the displayed concentration bounds in Theorem 5.2 are not justified by the given proof; corrected exponents or constants are needed. Since these bounds are one of the paper's stated contributions in Section 5, this is a load-bearing error.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] There are several typographical errors, including "in the sense of of the divergenced" in Section 1 and "the the sequence" in the proof of Proposition 4.3; a careful proofread is needed.
  2. [§2.2.4] The assertion that the iterates (14) are the EM algorithm for the continuous model is explicitly left unproved; a reference or a short proof would strengthen the paper, especially because the EM interpretation is invoked in later discussions.
  3. [§2.4] The closedness of A(M+) is asserted without proof; a one-sentence justification, for example writing A(M+) as the cone over the compact convex set conv{a(x): x∈K}, would be useful.
  4. [§3.3] The statement "Under (28), A(M+) has non-empty interior" is used without proof; this is a short exercise but should be spelled out because Theorem 3.11 explicitly assumes nonempty interiors of both the cone and its dual cone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: theorem inputs come from non-overlapping external work, and the only self-citation is motivational.

full rationale

The paper's advertised results are mathematical characterizations proved from stated assumptions, not fitted quantities presented as predictions. Corollary 3.8 derives sparsity from the optimality conditions of Proposition 3.4 together with uniqueness of the dual maximizer (Lemma 3.7); that uniqueness is credited to Mair-Rao-Anderson [21], an external source, and the proof sketch does not assume the sparsity conclusion. The absolutely continuous / full-support side (Lemma 3.12, Proposition 3.13, Theorem 4.10) imports Georgiou's moment-problem theorem [14], also external, whose hypotheses (nonempty interior of the cone and its dual) do not contain the target existence theorem. The concentration bounds in Section 5 use Sanov's theorem [36], Mardia et al. [22], and Bell-number bounds [4], all from non-overlapping authors. The only self-citation, [27] (Oktem-Pouchol-Verdier), appears in the introduction as motivation for a continuous formulation and is not used as evidence for any theorem; hence it is not load-bearing. The flagged issue that Corollary 3.8's support-containment condition can be vacuous when the a_i are linearly dependent (and that Remark 3.9 adds independence plus Hessian genericity to get Dirac sums) is a regularity/hypothesis gap, not a circular reduction: the conclusion is not built into the definitions, and the paper explicitly exposes the extra assumptions. The paper also honestly marks the omitted proof that the continuum iterates are an EM algorithm as beyond scope; that omission does not feed back into any claimed derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims carry no fitted free parameters. The main exogenous inputs are the Poisson point process model, the regularity and linear-independence assumptions on the detector functions, and the imported moment-problem theorem [14]. The concentration bounds add standard large-deviation inputs.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Riesz-Markov representation, Banach-Alaoglu compactness, weak-* lower semi-continuity of KL divergence
    Used throughout Sections 2-4 to pass from measures to functions and to extract cluster points.
  • domain assumption Poisson point process model with independent thinning for PET detection
    Proposition 2.1 derives the likelihood (3) from this model; the whole paper assumes this statistical model.
  • domain assumption Detector response functions a_i are continuous, nonnegative, normalized to sum to 1 on K
    Assumptions (4), (5), (10); normalization is WLOG but the regularity is used for the sparsity-to-point-masses conclusion.
  • domain assumption Linear independence of the a_i (assumption 28), and in the boundary case assumptions (31) and (32)
    Needed for non-empty interior of the image cone, for Lemma 3.12, and for Theorem 4.10 optimality from the fixed-point equation.
  • ad hoc to paper Georgiou's moment-problem theorem [14] quoted as Theorem 3.11: if y is in the interior of the image cone, an absolutely continuous preimage with positive continuous density exists
    This non-trivial external theorem is imported without proof and is load-bearing for the absolutely-continuous side of the dichotomy.
  • standard math Sanov's theorem [36] and the concentration inequality of Mardia et al. [22]
    Basis for the probability bounds in Section 5.
  • standard math Laplace's method for asymptotic integrals
    Used in Proposition 4.6 to identify the limiting measure in the one-detector case.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ML-EM algorithm in continuum: sparse measure solutions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J4GF7LLH

@misc{pith2026190901966,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ML-EM algorithm in continuum: sparse measure solutions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J4GF7LLH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01966}
}
abstract

Linear inverse problems $A \mu = \delta$ with Poisson noise and non-negative unknown $\mu \geq 0$ are ubiquitous in applications, for instance in Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in medical imaging. The associated maximum likelihood problem is routinely solved using an expectation-maximisation algorithm (ML-EM). This typically results in images which look spiky, even with early stopping. We give an explanation for this phenomenon. We first regard the image $\mu$ as a measure. We prove that if the measurements $\delta$ are not in the cone $\{A \mu, \mu \geq 0\}$, which is typical of short exposure times, likelihood maximisers as well as ML-EM cluster points must be sparse, i.e., typically a sum of point masses. On the other hand, in the long exposure regime, we prove that cluster points of ML-EM will be measures without singular part. Finally, we provide concentration bounds for the probability to be in the sparse case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01966 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Phantom and reconstruction after 100 iterations of ML-EM, with a zoom on the region containing the pixel of highest value. The ML-EM algorithm is iterative and writes (2) µk+1 = µk AT 1 A T  y Aµk  , starting from µ0 > 0, usually µ0 = 1. This algorithm is an expectation-maximisation (EM) algorithm, and as such it has many desirable properties: it preserves non-negativity and the negative log￾likelihood decreases a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We show here various reconstructions for a decreasing amount of dose (the first row has t = 102 and each subsequent row has ten times less dose than the previous one). The columns depict (a) the divergence to the data d(yt||Aµk ) (b) the 95 % percentile (logarithmic scale) (c) the reconstruction with limitations between zero and one (d) a smoothed reconstruction (three pixel wide Gaussian convolution). It is apparen… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ODL-a Python framework for rapid prototyping in inverse problems

    Adler, J., Kohr, H., and Öktem, O. ODL-a Python framework for rapid prototyping in inverse problems. Royal Institute of Technology (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Topics in inverse problems

    Baumeister, J., and Leitão, A. Topics in inverse problems

    work page

  3. [3]

    Regularization of multiplicative iterative algorithms with nonnegative constraint

    Benvenuto, F., and Piana, M. Regularization of multiplicative iterative algorithms with nonnegative constraint. Inverse Problems 30 , 3 (2014), 035012

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Improved bounds on Bell numbers and on moments of sums of random variables

    Berend, D., and T assa, T. Improved bounds on Bell numbers and on moments of sums of random variables. Probability and Mathematical Statistics 30 , 2 (2010), 185–205

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Introduction to inverse problems in imaging

    Bertero, M., and Boccacci, P. Introduction to inverse problems in imaging . CRC press, 1998

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Convex optimization

    Boyd, S., and V andenberghe, L. Convex optimization. Cambridge university press, 2004. THE ML-EM ALGORITHM IN CONTINUUM: SPARSE MEASURE SOLUTIONS 25

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Iterative image reconstruction algorithms based on cross-entropy minimization

    Byrne, C. Iterative image reconstruction algorithms based on cross-entropy minimization. IEEE Transactions on image processing 2 , 1 (1993), 96–103

    work page 1993

  8. [8]

    Iterative image-reconstruction algorithms based on cross-entropy minimization

    Byrne, C. Erratum and addendum to "Iterative image-reconstruction algorithms based on cross-entropy minimization", 1995

    work page 1995

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Iterative reconstruction algorithms based on cross-entropy minimization

    Byrne, C. Iterative reconstruction algorithms based on cross-entropy minimization. InImage Models (and their Speech Model Cousins) . Springer, 1996, pp. 1–11

    1996

  2. [10]

    C., Oberlin, T., Dobigeon, N., Févotte, C., Stute, S., Ribeiro, M.-J., and Tauber, C

    Ca v alcanti, Y. C., Oberlin, T., Dobigeon, N., Févotte, C., Stute, S., Ribeiro, M.-J., and Tauber, C. Factor analysis of dynamic PET images: beyond Gaussian noise. IEEE transactions on medical imaging (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Information geonetry and alternating minimization procedures.Statistics and decisions 1 (1984), 205–237

    Csiszár, I. Information geonetry and alternating minimization procedures.Statistics and decisions 1 (1984), 205–237

    1984

  4. [12]

    P., Laird, N

    Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., and Rubin, D. B. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 39, 1 (1977), 1–22

    1977

  5. [13]

    A., Clinthome, N

    Fessler, J. A., Clinthome, N. H., and Rogers, W. L. On complete-data spaces for PET reconstruction algorithms. IEEE Trans. Nuc. Sci 40 , 4 (1993), 1055–61

    1993

  6. [14]

    Georgiou, T. T. Solution of the general moment problem via a one-parameter imbedding. IEEE transactions on automatic control 50 , 6 (2005), 811–826

    2005

  7. [15]

    4DCTimagereconstruction with diffeomorphic motion model.Medical image analysis 16 , 6 (2012), 1307–1316

    Hinkle, J., Szegedi, M., W ang, B., Sal ter, B., and Joshi, S. 4DCTimagereconstruction with diffeomorphic motion model.Medical image analysis 16 , 6 (2012), 1307–1316

    2012

  8. [16]

    M., and Larkin, R

    Hudson, H. M., and Larkin, R. S. Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data.IEEE transactions on medical imaging 13 , 4 (1994), 601–609

    1994

  9. [17]

    Iusem, A. N. A short convergence proof of the EM algorithm for a specific poisson model. Brazilian Journal of Probability and Statistics (1992), 57–67

    1992

  10. [18]

    Jacobson, M., and Fessler, J. A. Joint estimation of image and deformation parameters in motion-corrected PET. In2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (IEEE Cat. No. 03CH37515) (2003), vol. 5, IEEE, pp. 3290–3294

    2003

  11. [19]

    Lectures on the Poisson process , vol

    Last, G., and Penrose, M. Lectures on the Poisson process , vol. 7. Cambridge University Press, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Lucy, L. B. An iterative technique for the rectification of observed distributions.The astronomical journal 79 (1974), 745

    1974

  13. [21]

    Positron emission tomography, Borel measures and weak convergence.Inverse Problems 12 , 6 (1996), 965

    Mair, B., Rao, M., and Anderson, J. Positron emission tomography, Borel measures and weak convergence.Inverse Problems 12 , 6 (1996), 965

    1996

  14. [22]

    D., and Weissman, T

    Mardia, J., Jiao, J., Tánczos, E., Now ak, R. D., and Weissman, T. Concentration inequalities for the empirical distribution.arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.06522 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Iterative continuous maximum-likelihood reconstruction method.Mathematical methods in the applied sciences 15 , 4 (1992), 275–286

    Mül thei, H. Iterative continuous maximum-likelihood reconstruction method.Mathematical methods in the applied sciences 15 , 4 (1992), 275–286

    1992

  16. [24]

    On an iterative method for a class of integral equations of the first kind.Mathematical methods in the applied sciences 9 , 1 (1987), 137–168

    Mülthei, H., Schorr, B., and Törnig, W. On an iterative method for a class of integral equations of the first kind.Mathematical methods in the applied sciences 9 , 1 (1987), 137–168

    1987

  17. [25]

    On properties of the iterative maximum likelihood reconstruction method.Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences 11 , 3 (1989), 331–342

    Mülthei, H., Schorr, B., and Törnig, W. On properties of the iterative maximum likelihood reconstruction method.Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences 11 , 3 (1989), 331–342

    1989

  18. [26]

    Mathematical methods in image reconstruction , vol

    Natterer, F., and Wübbeling, F. Mathematical methods in image reconstruction , vol. 5. Siam, 2001

    2001

  19. [27]

    Spatiotemporal PET reconstruction using ML-EM with learned diffeomorphic deformation

    Öktem, O., Pouchol, C., and Verdier, O. Spatiotemporal PET reconstruction using ML-EM with learned diffeomorphic deformation. InInternational Workshop on Machine Learning for Medical Image Reconstruction (2019), Springer, pp. 151–162

    2019

  20. [28]

    M., and Fessler, J

    Ollinger, J. M., and Fessler, J. A. Positron-emission tomography.IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 14, 1 (1997), 43–55

    1997

  21. [29]

    O’Sulliv an, F.A study of least squares and maximum likelihood for image reconstruction in positron emission tomography.The Annals of Statistics (1995), 1267–1300

    1995

  22. [30]

    Random coding strategies for minimum entropy.IEEE Transactions on Informa- tion Theory 21 , 4 (1975), 388–391

    Posner, E. Random coding strategies for minimum entropy.IEEE Transactions on Informa- tion Theory 21 , 4 (1975), 388–391

    1975

  23. [31]

    MLEM Experiment Notebook

    Pouchol, C., and Verdier, O. MLEM Experiment Notebook. https://github.com/ olivierverdier/mlem_notebook

  24. [32]

    Qi, J., and Leahy, R. M. Iterative reconstruction techniques in emission computed tomog- raphy. Physics in Medicine & Biology 51 , 15 (2006), R541. 26 CAMILLE POUCHOL AND OLIVIER VERDIER

    2006

  25. [33]

    W., and Iusem, A

    Resmerit a, E., Engl, H. W., and Iusem, A. N. The expectation-maximization algorithm for ill-posed integral equations: a convergence analysis.Inverse Problems 23 , 6 (2007), 2575

    2007

  26. [34]

    Richardson, W. H. Bayesian-based iterative method of image restoration.JoSA 62, 1 (1972), 55–59

    1972

  27. [35]

    Functional analysis, second ed

    Rudin, W. Functional analysis, second ed. International Series in Pure and Applied Mathe- matics. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1991

    1991

  28. [36]

    Sanov, I. N. On the probability of large deviations of random variables.Selected Translations in Mathematical Statistics and Probability 1 (1961), 213–244

    1961

  29. [37]

    A., and V ardi, Y

    Shepp, L. A., and V ardi, Y. Maximum likelihood reconstruction for emission tomography. IEEE transactions on medical imaging 1 , 2 (1982), 113–122

    1982

  30. [38]

    A smoothed EM approach to indirect estimation problems, with particular reference to stereology and emission tomography

    Sil verman, B., Jones, M., Wilson, J., and Nychka, D. A smoothed EM approach to indirect estimation problems, with particular reference to stereology and emission tomography. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 52 , 2 (1990), 271–303

    1990

  31. [39]

    A statistical model for positron emission tomogra- phy

    V ardi, Y., Shepp, L., and Kaufman, L. A statistical model for positron emission tomogra- phy. Journal of the American statistical Association 80 , 389 (1985), 8–20

    1985

  32. [40]

    Asymptotic approximations of integrals , vol

    Wong, R. Asymptotic approximations of integrals , vol. 34. SIAM, 2001. Department of Mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44 Stock- holm, Sweden. E-mail address: pouchol@kth.se Department of Mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44 Stock- holm, Swe...

    2001

Pith tools

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