Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Scalable Double Regularization for 3D Nano-CT Reconstruction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Reconstructing Nano-CT slices together, not one by one, cuts noise and sharpens shale images.

desk verdict A practical, memory-efficient 3D regularized reconstruction for Nano-CT with a useful phantom study; the real-data quantitative claim rests on a weak sharpness proxy, and two algorithmic details are unexplained. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02256 v3 pith:4QYG2FSB submitted 2019-09-05 eess.IV stat.AP

Wei Tang , Meng Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVstat.AP MSC 94A0865K1062J07
keywords Nano-CTshaletomographicreconstructiontotalvariationL1regularizationlassosparsematriximage
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

Nano-CT images of shale are noisy, undersampled, and often have blank edges from stage movement, so reconstructing each slice independently, as FBP and most iterative methods do, leaves artifacts. This paper proposes scalable double regularization (SDR), which reconstructs all slices together by penalizing total variation within each slice and the $L_1$ norm of differences between adjacent slices. The authors show on a Shepp-Logan phantom with added noise and blank edges that SDR beats FBP, OSSIRT, and TVART in SNR, SSIM, and contrast-to-noise ratio, and on two real shale datasets that it gives visually cleaner reconstructions with higher no-reference sharpness. If the method works as claimed, pore and fracture analysis in shale gas evaluation would start from sharper, less noisy 3D volumes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the penalized objective in Equation (4): a data-fidelity term plus two regularizers, within-slice total variation $g_1(\mathbf{f}) = \|\nabla \mathbf{f}\|_2$ summed over pixels and between-slice $L_1$ penalty $g_2 = \sum_l \|\mathbf{f}^{l+1} - \mathbf{f}^l\|_1$ on adjacent slice differences. The algorithm splits the work: a lasso step on differences of projections using soft-thresholding coordinate descent estimates $\hat{\mathbf{f}}^{l,l+1} = \mathbf{f}^{l+1} - \mathbf{f}^l$, and a TV gradient-descent step with Barzilai-Borwein step sizes reconstructs each slice; the two estimates are combined by averaging neighboring solutions. Memory efficiency comes from storing only the nonzero entries of the projection matrix $W$, since each ray intersects only about $\sqrt{n}$ pixels, reducing a dense 180 GB matrix to under 1.75 GB and cutting inner-product cost from $O(n)$ to $O(\sqrt{n})$.

What would settle it

On the two real shale datasets, compute an independent quality estimate, such as comparing pore-size distributions from the SDR volume against FIB-SEM measurements of the same sample. Because NRSS rewards gradient energy, a controlled test could take a clean reconstruction, add edge-preserving noise, and check whether NRSS rises; if it does, the quantitative sharpness claim is not decisive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that using the whole Nano-CT dataset at once, rather than slice by slice, improves 3D reconstruction quality at low signal-to-noise ratio. The authors formulate reconstruction as minimizing $\sum_l \|\mathbf{p}^l - W \mathbf{f}^l\|^2 + \lambda_1 \sum_l \|\mathbf{f}^l\|_{TV} + \lambda_2 \sum_{l=1}^{L-1} \|\mathbf{f}^{l+1} - \mathbf{f}^l\|_1$, so information is borrowed between neighboring slices through the sparsity-promoting $L_1$ difference penalty while each slice is kept piecewise smooth by total variation. They report that this double regularization reduces noise and sharpens edges on simulated and real Nano-CT data, and that the algorithm runs in memory feasible for $512\times 512$ resolution with 180 angles by exploiting the extreme sparsity of the projection matrix.

Load-bearing premise

The real-data evidence that SDR yields sharper reconstructions rests on a no-reference sharpness metric that rewards squared intensity differences, and on visual inspection; with no ground-truth volume, a reconstruction that is merely noisier or over-sharpened could also score high.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SDR reconstructions of Nano-CT shale volumes should show less noise and sharper edges than the FBP output that most devices currently produce, making microfractures and intercrystalline pores easier to see.
  • Because the $L_1$ between-slice penalty assumes sparse differences, the method is well matched to shale volumes where adjacent slices are mostly identical except at structural edges.
  • Blank edges in projection data, caused by small object-manipulator movements, are partially recovered by borrowing information from neighboring slices that share the same missing geometry.
  • The sparse-matrix implementation makes simultaneous 3D reconstruction computationally practical for routine Nano-CT datasets rather than only slice-by-slice methods.
  • Downstream pore segmentation and pore-size statistics should become more accurate if the reconstructed edges are sharper and noise is lower.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could test SDR on synthetic volumes with known ground truth and realistic blank-edge patterns to check whether NRSS rankings track true reconstruction error, since the real-data comparisons have no ground truth.
  • The same two-penalty strategy may transfer to other low-dose or limited-angle tomographic settings, such as FIB-SEM or synchrotron micro-CT, where adjacent slices are also nearly constant.
  • A natural extension is to replace the first-order $L_1$ difference with a learned or adaptive between-slice prior when the assumption that adjacent slices differ sparsely is violated by strongly tilted or curved structures.
  • The reported memory savings suggest the algorithm could scale to even larger volumes by distributing slices across compute nodes, although the paper does not test this.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses 3D Nano-CT reconstruction for shale samples. It proposes scalable double regularization (SDR), which solves a penalized least-squares objective (Eq. 4) with total variation within each slice and L1 regularization on differences between adjacent slices. The proposed algorithm combines coordinate-descent updates for a lasso problem on slice differences, TV gradient descent with Barzilai-Borwein steps and Kaczmarz initialization, and an averaging update (Eq. 11). The method is evaluated on a 128^3 Shepp-Logan phantom at three noise levels and on two real shale Nano-CT datasets (JLD and LMX). In the phantom experiment SDR is reported to be uniformly best in SNR, SSIM, and CNR. On real data, SDR is compared with FBP and is claimed to yield sharper, less noisy reconstructions, supported by a no-reference sharpness metric NRSS.

Significance. If the results hold, SDR would be a practically useful tool for Nano-CT reconstruction of shale: it jointly reconstructs all slices, borrows information across slices, and exploits the sparsity of the projection matrix for memory efficiency, with public Matlab code. The phantom experiment provides clean, quantitative evidence in favor of SDR over the selected baselines, and the reproducibility of the code is a concrete strength. However, the real-data evidence is the least secure part of the paper because the quantitative claim rests on a gradient-energy proxy rather than on ground truth or a validated no-reference metric, and the algorithm as written contains nontrivial specification errors that need correction before the method can be independently reproduced.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (9) and Eq. (11)] The algorithm is not fully specified as written. In Eq. (9), the last term has numerator (f_{x+1,y} - f_{x,y}), which repeats the x-direction difference from the third term; consistency with the TV gradient requires (f_{x,y} - f_{x,y+1}) in that term. In Eq. (11), the right-hand side combines five quantities in the numerator—f_l, f_{l-1}, f_{l+1}, f_{l,l+1}, and -f_{l-1,l}—but divides by 3, and no derivation is provided for this averaging rule. Because the correspondence of the implemented iterations to the objective in Eq. (4) is not established, the numerical results cannot be reproduced from the text as it stands.
  2. [Section 5.2, NRSS definition] The no-reference sharpness metric NRSS = sum_{x,y} [(f_{x+1,y}-f_{x,y})^2 + (f_{x,y+1}-f_{x,y})^2] is a sum of squared first differences, i.e., gradient energy. It does not measure reconstruction accuracy: a noisy image or a reconstruction with spurious edge artifacts can receive a high NRSS score even when pore boundaries are misplaced. Since the paper states that ground truth is not available in the real-data application, the claim that SDR 'provides much sharper reconstructions' on the JLD and LMX samples (Figures 9 and 11) is not established. The real-data comparison also includes only FBP; a TV-only reconstruction without the between-slice L1 term is needed to isolate the contribution of the double regularization.
  3. [Sections 4 and 5.2, parameter tuning] The hyperparameters lambda_1 and lambda_2 are tuned on the same data used for the performance comparison: in the simulation, lambda_1 is selected from the middle slice and lambda_2 is selected per noise level; in the real-data application, lambda_1 = 1 and lambda_2 = 0.03 are chosen for both datasets using the same tuning procedure. This creates a risk of selection bias, and the real-data claims are particularly sensitive because there is no ground truth against which the chosen parameters can be checked. The paper should report parameter sensitivity or use a validation split to support the generality of the reported improvements.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The last row of Table 1 is labeled 'CNR' but appears to contain the results for SDR; the row label should be corrected to 'SDR'.
  2. [Section 3.2, g2 definition] The definition g2(f_1,...,f_L) = sum_{l=1}^{L-1} ||f_l - f_{l-1}||_1 includes f_0 for l = 1; the summation index should be l = 2,...,L or the term should be written as f_{l+1} - f_l.
  3. [Eq. (7)] The coordinate-descent update in Eq. (7) normalizes by 1/(L*|Theta|) rather than by the column norm of W; the choice of this normalization is not motivated and should be clarified.
  4. [References] References [4] and [52] appear to refer to the same paper by Wang et al. on multiscale characterization of Longmaxi shale; one of the references should be removed or the two entries should be merged.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, such as 'Iterative reconstruction (IR) reconstruction methods..' in Section 2 and the inconsistent use of quotes in equations; a careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the reconstruction method is validated against known ground truth in simulation, and the real-data metric concerns validity, not circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce any predicted quantity to its inputs by construction. The SDR objective in Eq. (4) is a penalized likelihood combining data fidelity, slice-wise total variation, and between-slice L1 regularization; the algorithm in Eqs. (6)-(11) solves that objective. The simulation section compares SDR against FBP, OSSIRT, and TVART on a 3D Shepp-Logan phantom with known ground truth, using SNR, SSIM, and CNR defined in Eqs. (13)-(15), none of which coincides with the objective's regularization terms. The real-data section uses NRSS, a sum of squared first differences, as a no-reference sharpness proxy; while this is a weak validity choice because no ground truth exists and NRSS can reward noise or over-sharpening, it is not a circular equation-level reduction: the paper does not fit a parameter to NRSS and then 'predict' NRSS. The selection of lambda_1 and lambda_2 on the same data is model tuning, not a fitted input disguised as a prediction. The empirical sparsity observation in Fig. 5 motivates g2 but is not used as the evaluation metric. There are no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems; the cited prior work is contextual. Therefore the central claim retains independent content and the paper should not receive a circularity penalty.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Beyond standard CT modeling, the central claim relies on assumptions about sparse slice differences, shared geometry, implicit blank-edge handling, and an ad hoc solver. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda_1 (TV weight) = 0.5 (simulation), 1 (real data)
    Total variation regularization weight; selected by L-curve on the same datasets used for evaluation.
  • lambda_2 (between-slice L1 weight) = 0.005, 0.015, 0.03 (simulation); 0.03 (real data)
    Adjacent-slice L1 regularization weight; chosen by grid search or cross-validation on the evaluation data.
  • alpha (Kaczmarz relaxation factor) = 1
    Set to 1 in all experiments; affects the initialization used by the TV step and therefore the final reconstructions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Beer-Lambert law with mono-energetic X-rays models Nano-CT projections as line integrals in a parallel-beam geometry.
    Invoked in Section 3.1, Eqs (1)-(2), to set up the linear projection model; synchrotron illumination is treated as parallel beam.
  • domain assumption Projection geometry and the system matrix W are shared across slices after alignment, so differences of projections satisfy W(f_{l+1} - f_l).
    Used in Step 1, Eq (6), to recast between-slice regularization as a lasso on projection differences; misaligned geometry is a stated challenge and no misalignment model is included.
  • domain assumption Differences between adjacent slices of the true object are sparse, which justifies the L1 penalty.
    Empirical evidence in Section 5.1 from FBP reconstructions of JLD shale; the paper assumes the same sparsity holds for the unknown true object.
  • domain assumption Blank-edge pixels can be handled within the ordinary least-squares model without explicit masking or weights.
    Section 5.1 motivates information borrowing using blank-edge projections, but Eqs (3)-(4) treat every projection pixel as a valid observation; no masking procedure is described.
  • ad hoc to paper The three-step alternating algorithm, including the averaging update in Eq (11), approximates the minimizer of Eq (4).
    Section 3.2 describes the steps as solving the optimization, but Eq (11) is an ad hoc averaging rule with no convergence or optimality proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalable Double Regularization for 3D Nano-CT Reconstruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4QYG2FSB

@misc{pith2026190902256,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalable Double Regularization for 3D Nano-CT Reconstruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4QYG2FSB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02256}
}
abstract

Nano-CT (computerized tomography) has emerged as a non-destructive high-resolution cross-sectional imaging technique to effectively study the sub-$\mu$m pore structure of shale, which is of fundamental importance to the evaluation and development of shale oil and gas. Nano-CT poses unique challenges to the inverse problem of reconstructing the 3D structure due to the lower signal-to-noise ratio (than Micro-CT) at the nano-scale, increased sensitivity to the misaligned geometry caused by the movement of object manipulator, limited sample size, and a larger volume of data at higher resolution. In this paper, we propose a scalable double regularization (SDR) method to utilize the entire dataset for simultaneous 3D structural reconstruction across slices through total variation regularization within slices and $L_1$ regularization between adjacent slices. SDR allows information borrowing both within and between slices, contrasting with the traditional methods that usually build on slice by slice reconstruction. We develop a scalable and memory-efficient algorithm by exploiting the systematic sparsity and consistent geometry induced by such Nano-CT data. We illustrate the proposed method using synthetic data and two Nano-CT imaging datasets of Jiulaodong (JLD) shale and Longmaxi (LMX) shale acquired in the Sichuan Basin. These numerical experiments show that the proposed method substantially outperforms selected alternatives both visually and quantitatively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02256 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Demonstration of the image acquiring process in Nano-CT. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Phantom of 64th slice, Demonstration of generating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Convergence of SDR under various scenarios: noiseless (black), low noise (red), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reconstruction of the 64th slice using FBP, OSSIRT, TVART, and SDR (left to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The difference between two adjacent slices given by FBP by subtracting the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: geometric deviation and projection of 280th slice corrupted by blank edges [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of SDR and FBP using a JLD sample. From left to right is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Profile of one line in the reconstructions of FBP and SDR. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: NRSS of SDR vs. FBP from the 210th slice to the 290th slice of JLD shale. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of SDR and FBP using an LMX sample. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: NRSS of SDR vs. FBP from the 210th slice to the 290th slice of LMX shale. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Komini Babu, H

    S. Komini Babu, H. Taek Chung, P. Zelenay, S. Litster, Resolving electrode morphologys impact on platinum group metal free cathode performance us- ing nano-ct of 3d hierarchical pore and ionomer distributions, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 8 (48) (11 2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    B. Yu, L. Weber, A. Pacureanu, M. Langer, C. Olivier, P. Cloetens, F. Peyrin, Phase retrieval in 3d x-ray magnified phase nano ct: Imag- ing bone tissue at the nanoscale, in: IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, 2017, pp. 56–59. doi:10.1109/ISBI.2017.7950467. 20

    work page arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Cagno, D

    S. Cagno, D. A. Brede, G. Nuyts, F. Vanmeert, A. Pacureanu, R. Tucoulou, P. Cloetens, G. Falkenberg, K. Janssens, B. Salbu, Combined nano-ct and nano-xrf imaging of cobalt nanoparticles in caenorhabiditis elegans, Ana- lytical Chemistry 89 (2017) 11435–11442

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Y. Wang, L. Wang, J. Wang, Z. Jiang, C.-C. Wang, Y. Fu, Y.-F. Song, Y. Wang, D. Liu, C. Jin, Multiscale characterization of three-dimensional pore structures in a shale gas reservoir: A case study of the longmaxi shale in sichuan basin, china, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 66 (2019) 207 – 216. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2019.04.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jngse.2019.04.009 2019

  5. [5]

    Sasov, L

    A. Sasov, L. Xuan, P. L. Salmon, Compensation of mechanical inaccuracies in micro-ct and nano-ct, Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering 7078 (2008) 70781C

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Kampschulte, A

    M. Kampschulte, A. C. Langheinirch, J. Sender, H. D. Litzlbauer, U. Al- thhn, J. D. Schwab, E. Alejandre-Lafont, G. Martels, G. A. Krom- bach, Nano-computed tomography: Technique and applications, Rofo Fortschritte Auf Dem Gebiete Der Rontgenstrahlen Und Der Nuklearmedi- zin 188 (02) (2016) 146–154

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Mostowycz, R

    L. Mostowycz, R. W. Ware, D. Dochterman, Computerized transverse axial tomography, Journal of the Kentucky Medical Association 46 (545) (1973) 128–34

    work page 1973

  8. [8]

    X. Pan, E. Y. Sidky, M. Vannier, Why do commercial ct scanners still em- ploy traditional, filtered back-projection for image reconstruction?, Inverse Problems 25 (12) (2008) 1230009

    work page 2008

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    A. C. Kak, M. Slaney, G. Wang, Principles of computerized tomographic imaging, Medical Physics 29 (1) (2002) 49–112

    2002

  2. [10]

    G. L. Zeng, Comparison of fbp and iterative algorithms with non-uniform angular sampling, in: 2014 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC), IEEE, 2014, pp. 1–13. 21

    2014

  3. [11]

    Gordon, R

    R. Gordon, R. Bender, G. T. Herman, Algebraic reconstruction techniques (art) for three-dimensional electron microscopy and x-ray photography, Journal of Theoretical Biology 29 (3) (1970) 471–481

    1970

  4. [12]

    A. H. Andersen, A. C. Kak, Simultaneous algebraic reconstruction tech- nique (sart): a superior implementation of the art algorithm, Ultrasonic Imaging 6 (1) (1984) 81–94

    1984

  5. [13]

    Gilbert, Iterative methods for the three-dimensional reconstruction of an object from projections., Journal of Theoretical Biology 36 (1) (1972) 105–117

    P. Gilbert, Iterative methods for the three-dimensional reconstruction of an object from projections., Journal of Theoretical Biology 36 (1) (1972) 105–117

    1972

  6. [14]

    F. Xu, W. Xu, M. Jones, B. Keszthelyi, J. Sedat, D. Agard, K. Mueller, On the efficiency of iterative ordered subset reconstruction algorithms for ac- celeration on gpus., Computer Methods & Programs in Biomedicine 98 (3) (2010) 261–270

    2010

  7. [15]

    Badea, R

    C. Badea, R. Gordon, Experiments with the nonlinear and chaotic be- haviour of the multiplicative algebraic reconstruction technique (mart) al- gorithm for computed tomography, Physics in Medicine & Biology 49 (8) (2004) 1455–1474

    2004

  8. [16]

    Thibault, K

    J.-B. Thibault, K. D. Sauer, C. A. Bouman, J. Hsieh, A three-dimensional statistical approach to improved image quality for multislice helical ct, Medical physics 34 (11) (2007) 4526–4544

    2007

  9. [17]

    Lange, R

    K. Lange, R. Carson, Em reconstruction algorithms for emission and trans- mission tomography, Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 8 (2) (1984) 306

    1984

  10. [18]

    S. H. Manglos, G. M. Gagne, A. Krol, F. D. Thomas, R. Narayanaswamy, Transmission maximum-likelihood reconstruction with ordered subsets for cone beam ct, Phys.med.biol 40 (7) (1995) 1225–1241. 22

    1995

  11. [19]

    Z. Chen, X. Jin, L. Li, G. Wang, A limited-angle ct reconstruction method based on anisotropic tv minimization., Physics in Medicine & Biology 58 (7) (2013) 2119–41

    2013

  12. [20]

    Y. Sun, J. Tao, Image reconstruction from few views by l0-norm optimiza- tion, Chinese Physics B 23 (7) (2014) 762–766

    2014

  13. [21]

    H. Kim, J. Chen, A. Wang, C. Chuang, M. Held, J. Pouliot, Non-local total- variation (nltv) minimization combined with reweighted l1-norm for com- pressed sensing ct reconstruction, Physics in Medicine & Biology 61 (18) (2016) 6878

    2016

  14. [22]

    M. Chen, D. Mi, P. He, L. Deng, B. Wei, A ct reconstruction algorithm based on l1/2 regularization, Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine 2014 (3) (2014) 862910

    2014

  15. [23]

    Vandeghinste, B

    B. Vandeghinste, B. Goossens, R. Van Holen, C. Vanhove, A. Piˇ zurica, S. Vandenberghe, S. Staelens, Iterative ct reconstruction using shearlet- based regularization, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 60 (5) (2013) 3305–3317

    2013

  16. [24]

    J. Chu, L. Li, Z. Chen, G. Wang, H. Gao, Multi-energy ct reconstruction based on low rank and sparsity with the split-bregman method (mlrss), in: 2012 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record (NSS/MIC), IEEE, 2012, pp. 2411–2414

    2012

  17. [25]

    X. Jia, B. Dong, Y. Lou, S. B. Jiang, Gpu-based iterative cone-beam ct reconstruction using tight frame regularization, Physics in Medicine & Bi- ology 56 (13) (2011) 3787

    2011

  18. [26]

    Zhang, J

    H. Zhang, J. Wang, D. Zeng, X. Tao, J. Ma, Regularization strategies in statistical image reconstruction of low-dose x-ray ct: A review, Medical Physics 45 (10) (2018) e886–e907

    2018

  19. [27]

    J. Qi, R. M. Leahy, Iterative reconstruction techniques in emission com- puted tomography, Physics in Medicine & Biology 51 (15) (2006) R541. 23

    2006

  20. [28]

    Zhang, M

    X. Zhang, M. Burger, X. Bresson, S. Osher, Bregmanized nonlocal regu- larization for deconvolution and sparse reconstruction, SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences 3 (3) (2010) 253–276

    2010

  21. [29]

    G. Wang, J. Qi, Penalized likelihood pet image reconstruction using patch- based edge-preserving regularization, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imag- ing 31 (12) (2012) 2194–2204

    2012

  22. [30]

    T. Bai, X. Mou, Q. Xu, Y. Zhang, Low-dose ct reconstruction based on multiscale dictionary, in: Medical Imaging 2013: Physics of Medical Imag- ing, Vol. 8668, International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2013, p. 86683L

    2013

  23. [31]

    Higaki, Y

    T. Higaki, Y. Nakamura, F. Tatsugami, T. Nakaura, K. Awai, Improvement of image quality at ct and mri using deep learning, Japanese Journal of Radiology 37 (1) (2019) 73–80

    2019

  24. [32]

    Umehara, O

    K. Umehara, O. J, I. T, Application of super-resolution convolutional neu- ral network for enhancing image resolution in chest ct, Journal of Digital Imaging 31 (3) (2017) 1–10

    2017

  25. [33]

    J. Park, D. Hwang, K. Y. Kim, S. K. Kang, Y. K. Kim, J. S. Lee, Com- puted tomography super-resolution using deep convolutional neural net- work, Physics in Medicine & Biology 63 (14) (2018) 145011

    2018

  26. [34]

    W. Du, H. Chen, Z. Wu, H. Sun, P. Liao, Y. Zhang, Stacked competi- tive networks for noise reduction in low-dose ct, Plos One 12 (12) (2017) e0190069

    2017

  27. [35]

    E. Kang, J. Min, J. C. Ye, A deep convolutional neural network using directional wavelets for low-dose x-ray ct reconstruction, Medical physics 44 (10) (2017) e360–e375

    2017

  28. [36]

    K. H. Jin, M. T. Mccann, E. Froustey, M. Unser, Deep convolutional neu- ral network for inverse problems in imaging, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 26 (9) (2017) 4509–4522. 24

    2017

  29. [37]

    W. Cong, G. Wang, Monochromatic ct image reconstruction from current- integrating data via deep learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.03784 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Cnudde, B

    V. Cnudde, B. Masschaele, M. Dierick, J. Vlassenbroeck, L. Van Hoore- beke, P. Jacobs, Recent progress in x-ray ct as a geosciences tool, Applied Geochemistry 21 (5) (2006) 826–832

    2006

  31. [39]

    Willmott, An introduction to synchrotron radiation: techniques and applications, Wiley, 2019

    P. Willmott, An introduction to synchrotron radiation: techniques and applications, Wiley, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Tibshirani, Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso: a retro- spective, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 58 (1) (1996) 267–288

    R. Tibshirani, Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso: a retro- spective, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 58 (1) (1996) 267–288

    1996

  33. [41]

    Friedman, T

    J. Friedman, T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, Pathwise coordinate optimization, Annals of Applied Statistics 1 (2) (2007) 302–332

    2007

  34. [42]

    S. J. Laroque, E. Y. Sidky, X. Pan, Accurate image reconstruction from few-view and limited-angle data in diffraction tomography., Journal of the Optical Society of America A Optics Image Science & Vision 25 (7) (2008) 1772–82

    2008

  35. [43]

    Barzilai, J

    J. Barzilai, J. M. Borwein, Two-point step size gradient methods, IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis 8 (1) (1988) 141–148

    1988

  36. [44]

    Hansen, D

    P. Hansen, D. O’leary, The use of the l-curve in the regularization of discrete ill-posed problems, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 14 (1993) 1487–1503. doi:10. 1137/0914086

    1993

  37. [45]

    Z. Wang, E. Simoncelli, A. Bovik, Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment, in: Proc IEEE Asilomar Conference on Signals, Vol. 2, 2003, pp. 1398 – 1402 Vol.2. doi:10.1109/ACSSC.2003.1292216

    2003 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Timischl, The contrast-to-noise ratio for image quality evaluation in scanning electron microscopy, Scanning 37 (2014) 54–62

    F. Timischl, The contrast-to-noise ratio for image quality evaluation in scanning electron microscopy, Scanning 37 (2014) 54–62. doi:10.1002/ sca.21179. 25

    2014

  39. [47]

    Welvaert, Y

    M. Welvaert, Y. Rosseel, On the definition of signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio for fmri data, PloS one 8 (2013) e77089. doi:10. 1371/journal.pone.0077089

    2013

  40. [48]

    Cloetens, M

    P. Cloetens, M. Pateyron-Salom, J.-y. Buffiere, G. Peix, J. Baruchel, F. Peyrin, M. Schlenker, Observation of microstructure and damage in ma- terials by phase sensitive radiography and tomography, Journal of Applied Physics 81 (1997) 5878–5886. doi:10.1063/1.364374

    1997 doi

  41. [49]

    Chen, Shale gas exploration in jiulaodong formation of lowercambrian, sichuan basin, China Petroleum Exploration 17 (5) (2012) 71–78

    Z. Chen, Shale gas exploration in jiulaodong formation of lowercambrian, sichuan basin, China Petroleum Exploration 17 (5) (2012) 71–78

    2012

  42. [50]

    Y. F. Song, C. H. Chang, C. Y. Liu, S. H. Chang, U. S. Jeng, Y. H. Lai, D. G. Liu, S. C. Chung, K. L. Tsang, G. C. Yin, X-ray beamlines for structural studies at the nsrrc superconducting wavelength shifter, Journal of Synchrotron Radiation 14 (4) (2007) 320–325

    2007

  43. [51]

    Y. Wang, J. Pu, L. Wang, J. Wang, Z. Jiang, Y.-F. Song, C.-C. Wang, Y. Wang, C. Jin, Characterization of typical 3d pore networks of jiulaodong formation shale using nano-transmission x-ray microscopy, Fuel 170 (2016) 84–91

    2016

  44. [52]

    Y. Wang, L. Wang, J. Wang, Z. Jianga, C.-C. Wang, Y. Fu, Y.-F. Song, Y. Wang, D. Liu, C. Jin, Multiscale characterization of three-dimensional pore structures in a shale gas reservoir: A case study of the longmaxi shale in sichuan basin, china, Journal of Natural Gas Science a...

    2019

  45. [53]

    Zhang, L

    Q. Zhang, L. Renhe, Z. Pang, L. Wen, B. Wenhua, H. Wang, Charac- terization of microscopic pore structures in lower silurian black shale(s1l), southeastern chongqing, china, Marine and Petroleum Geology 71 (2015) 250–259. doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2015.12.015

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    R. Chen, D. Dreossi, L. Mancini, R. H. Menk, L. Rigon, T. Xiao, R. Longo, Pitre: Software for phase-sensitive x-ray image processing and tomography 26 reconstruction, Journal of synchrotron radiation 19 (2012) 836–45. doi: 10.1107/S0909049512029731. 27

    2012 doi

Pith tools

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