Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 27 references

2.5D Super-Resolution Approaches for X-ray Computed Tomography-based Inspection of Additively Manufactured Parts

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 2.5D super-resolution architecture—seven neighboring CT slices in, one super-resolved center slice out—beats 2D methods on XCT defect detection while adding less than 3 percent memory, making most of 3D's benefit available at near-2D…

desk verdict A practical 2.5D SR study for XCT of AM parts with solid baselines, but the claimed SR gain is entangled with artifact correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04525 v1 pith:SAEXYPMN submitted 2024-12-05 eess.IV

Haley Duba-Sullivan , Obaidullah Rahman , Singanallur Venkatakrishnan , Amirkoushyar Ziabari This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IV
keywords X-raycomputedtomographysuper-resolution2.5Ddeeplearningadditivemanufacturingnon-destructiveevaluationdefectdetectionMBIR
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 tries to establish that a simple architecture change—feeding seven contiguous low-resolution CT slices into a super-resolution network and asking it to output the super-resolved center slice—gives most of the benefit of full 3D processing at nearly 2D cost. On synthetic XCT volumes of additively manufactured aluminum parts, the 2.5D versions of SRCNN, EDSR, and ESRGAN all achieve higher mean PSNR than their 2D counterparts while increasing memory by less than 3 percent, and they consistently improve defect-detection recall, precision, and F1 score. Full 3D versions of the same networks score highest on image quality and defect detection but require over 1000 percent more memory, which the paper argues makes them impractical for large-scale inspection. The result matters because high-resolution XCT of metal parts is slow and expensive, and faster low-resolution scans lose the small defects that determine part quality; if the 2.5D advantage holds, it offers a practical route to high-throughput, accurate non-destructive evaluation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the 2.5D input modification: seven contiguous low-resolution slices are concatenated as input channels to an otherwise unmodified 2D super-resolution network, and the loss is computed only on the output center slice. Because the extra six input channels are absorbed by the first convolutional layer, the parameter increase is a constant $6mnk$ (kernel height $m$, kernel width $n$, and $k$ output feature maps), independent of patch size, which is why memory grows by less than 3 percent. The sliding-window scheme then assembles a full super-resolved volume while preserving the computational footprint of 2D inference, giving the network access to through-plane spatial context without 3D convolutions.

What would settle it

Re-run the same 2D, 2.5D, and 3D training with input and target volumes reconstructed by the same algorithm so that only detector binning and view count change one at a time; if the 2.5D advantage over 2D on recall, precision, and F1 shrinks or disappears, the reported gain is driven by artifact and texture matching rather than by inter-slice resolution recovery.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that inter-slice context, not full volumetric processing, is what makes super-resolution useful for XCT defect detection. The paper proposes a generic 2.5D architecture: take any 2D super-resolution network and change its input from a single slice to seven contiguous low-resolution slices, with the network trained to output the super-resolved center slice; a sliding window of seven slices then produces the whole volume. In synthetic experiments on aluminum AM parts, 2.5D architectures attain higher mean PSNR than 2D architectures with a negligible increase in required memory (2.63 percent for SRCNN, 0.10 percent for EDSR, 0.005 percent for ESRGAN), while 3D architectures increase memory by 1,122 to 12,416 percent. On defect detection, 2.5D consistently attains higher recall, precision, and F1 than 2D, with the largest gains in recall, and the paper emphasizes that 2D methods look acceptable on PSNR yet fail badly on task-specific defect metrics. Preliminary real-data results with ESRGAN show 2.5D resolving small defects slightly better than 2D and producing fewer Z-direction artifacts, visually on par with 3D for small defects.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison relies on treating the high-resolution model-based iterative reconstructions with beam-hardening correction as the true target; if those targets carry their own artifacts, the measured PSNR and defect-detection gains may reflect learning to imitate a particular reconstruction algorithm rather than recovering genuine spatial detail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 2.5D input trick can be dropped into any existing 2D super-resolution network; the paper demonstrates it on SRCNN, EDSR, and ESRGAN with the same standard architectures.
  • Defect detection on XCT volumes improves over 2D super-resolution on recall, precision, and F1, with recall improving most, meaning small defects that 2D methods miss become detectable.
  • Full 3D super-resolution remains the quality leader, but its memory cost (over 1000 percent more than 2D) makes it impractical for large industrial volumes, so 2.5D is the viable middle ground.
  • On real steel XCT data, preliminary ESRGAN results indicate 2.5D reduces Z-direction artifacts compared to 2D and visually matches 3D on small-defect recovery, despite 3D suffering from stitching grid artifacts under memory limits.
  • The approach targets high-throughput non-destructive evaluation of additively manufactured parts, where scanning time and cost push toward low-resolution acquisition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the synthetic and real training pairs differ in view count, detector binning, and beam-hardening correction simultaneously, part of the measured gain may come from learning to remove beam-hardening artifacts and match MBIR's noise texture rather than from recovering true spatial resolution; a controlled ablation varying one degradation at a time would separate these effects.
  • The 7-slice window was selected empirically, which suggests the optimal window size is a tunable parameter that could be re-tuned for anisotropic voxels or different defect sizes, potentially changing the memory-quality trade-off.
  • The paper tests only ESRGAN on the real dataset; a natural extension is to check whether the 2.5D advantage persists for SRCNN and EDSR on real scans, since the paper reports those struggle on real data even in 2D.
  • The architecture is not specific to XCT or to these three backbones, so the same 2.5D modification could be applied to transformer- or diffusion-based super-resolution models, which the paper lists as future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 proposes a 2.5D super-resolution architecture for XCT-based inspection of additively manufactured parts. The architecture takes seven contiguous low-resolution slices as input and outputs a super-resolved center slice, and is applied to three standard networks (SRCNN, EDSR, and ESRGAN) by changing only the input channel layout. The authors compare 2D, 2.5D, and 3D variants on a synthetic XCT dataset and present preliminary visual results on a real XCT dataset. The central claims are that 2.5D variants attain higher mean PSNR and higher recall, precision, and F1 scores than 2D variants with a negligible increase in memory, while 3D variants require over 1000% more memory.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the 2.5D architecture is a practically useful bridge between 2D and 3D super-resolution for XCT inspection, because it provides most of the benefit of 3D context at near-2D cost. The paper has several strengths: the comparison is internally consistent (same networks, same patches, only the channel layout changes), the memory and parameter measurements are concrete, and the use of task-specific defect-detection metrics (recall, precision, F1) is more informative than PSNR alone. However, the evidence rests on a single synthetic test volume, a hand-selected window size, and a compound degradation that mixes resolution loss with view-count reduction and missing beam-hardening correction, so the specific claim of 'super-resolution' improvement is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV (Datasets, Section IV-B)] The experimental design conflates super-resolution with artifact correction and view synthesis: the low-resolution inputs differ from the high-resolution targets not only by 4x detector binning but also by view count (1066 vs. 2132 for synthetic, 147 vs. 1066 for real) and by reconstruction pipeline (uncorrected FDK vs. MBIR with beam-hardening correction). The manuscript itself states in Section IV-B that 'the job of the networks, apart from super-resolving low-resolution images, is to remove the beam-hardening effect and match MBIR's texture,' which means the reported PSNR and defect-detection gains in Figures 3 and 4 may reflect artifact removal and view interpolation rather than spatial super-resolution. Please either (a) add a controlled synthetic experiment in which the input and target differ only by binning (same views, same reconstruction pipeline, matched or no beam-hardening correction) and re-run the comparisons, or (b) explicitly reframe the contribution as joint 2.5D restoration and temper the super-resolution-specific claims in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [IV (2.5D Super-Resolution, window size selection)] The choice of seven input slices is reported as 'selected because it gave the best results' without stating the validation protocol, the range of window sizes tested, or the performance for other window sizes. Since all quantitative comparisons are reported on a single synthetic test volume, selecting the window size on that same test data introduces a selection bias that is not quantified. Please report the window-size search on a held-out validation set and provide the PSNR and defect-detection metrics for at least one other window size.
  3. [IV-C (Preliminary Results on Real Dataset)] The real-data evidence is visual and limited to ESRGAN, with no quantitative PSNR or defect-detection metrics, yet the conclusion states that 'preliminary results on real data show that 2.5D outperforms 2D super-resolution and performs similarly to 3D super-resolution.' That statement is stronger than the evidence supports. Please either add quantitative real-data evaluation or soften the conclusion to something like 'qualitatively, on a single test volume, 2.5D appears to improve defect visibility compared to 2D and to approach 3D.'
  4. [IV-B (Results on Synthetic Dataset)] The synthetic comparison is based on one test volume, and the standard deviations in Figure 3 are computed over slices of that volume rather than over independent scans, reconstructions, or network training runs. This makes it difficult to assess whether the reported 2.5D-over-2D improvements are statistically meaningful. Please evaluate on multiple test volumes (for example, different CAD geometries, noise realizations, or scan parameters) and report per-volume or per-seed variability.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section I] In the introduction, 'a essential tool' should be 'an essential tool.'
  2. [Sections III and IV] The section numbering is confusing: Section III is titled 'Experimental Results' but contains dataset and architecture subsections (III-A, III-B), while Section IV is titled '2.5D Super-Resolution' and contains the actual implementation and results. Please renumber so that methods appear before results.
  3. [Section IV-A] In the synthetic dataset description, 'python's spekpy package' should be capitalized as 'Python's SpekPy package' for consistency with the package name.
  4. [Figure 5 caption] The caption states 'as denoted by the arrows,' but the figure as provided does not show arrows in the text; please ensure the arrows are visible in the final figure or describe the indicated regions in words.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports measured supervised-learning comparisons, with self-citations only as contextual prior work.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation chain in which a prediction is equivalent to an input by construction. It proposes a 2.5D architecture by altering the input stage of existing 2D super-resolution networks (7 contiguous slices in, center slice out) and then reports measured PSNR, recall, precision, and F1 scores on held-out synthetic and real XCT volumes compared against 2D and 3D baselines. These quantitative claims are empirical outcomes of training and evaluation, not consequences of a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The choice of 7 slices is a hyperparameter selected by observed performance, not a definition that forces the reported advantage. Self-citations (refs. 14–17, 20, 27) appear in related work and in descriptions of prior 2.5D CT reconstruction/denoising and beam-hardening correction; they are contextual and are not load-bearing for the central claim that 2.5D outperforms 2D. The paper itself acknowledges in Section IV that the low-resolution inputs and high-resolution targets differ not only in binning but also in view count and reconstruction pipeline (FDK vs. MBIR with beam-hardening correction), so the task is partly artifact correction and texture matching rather than pure spatial super-resolution. That is a construct-validity or correctness concern, not circularity, because the reported numbers are still measured rather than derived from the setup. No circular step was found, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison rests on paired CT volumes, a hand-selected 7-slice window, and standard deep-learning assumptions. No new physical entities, fitted physical constants, or exotic axioms are introduced; the main burden is the validity of the synthetic and real ground-truth targets.

free parameters (2)
  • number of input slices (window size) = 7
    Chosen by hand because it 'gave the best results' (Section IV); the paper does not state whether this selection was made on a validation set or the test set.
  • training patch size and stride = 128x128 voxels, stride 64
    Implementation choice with no sensitivity analysis; affects training but not the core comparison.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption High-resolution MBIR reconstructions are valid ground truth for super-resolution training and evaluation.
    Section IV-A treats the MBIR volumes with more views and beam-hardening correction as targets for the networks, without independent verification of their accuracy.
  • domain assumption The combined degradations of 4x binning, fewer views, and missing beam-hardening correction can be inverted by a single image-domain super-resolution network.
    The networks are expected to both up-sample and remove artifacts; this conflation is acknowledged but not tested separately.
  • domain assumption Defect ground-truth labels and diameters in the synthetic dataset are accurate.
    Recall/precision/F1 curves in Figure 4 depend on known defect locations and sizes, but the detection and labeling pipeline is not described.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 2.5D Super-Resolution Approaches for X-ray Computed Tomography-based Inspection of Additively Manufactured Parts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SAEXYPMN

@misc{pith2026241204525,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 2.5D Super-Resolution Approaches for X-ray Computed Tomography-based Inspection of Additively Manufactured Parts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SAEXYPMN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04525}
}
read the original abstract

X-ray computed tomography (XCT) is a key tool in non-destructive evaluation of additively manufactured (AM) parts, allowing for internal inspection and defect detection. Despite its widespread use, obtaining high-resolution CT scans can be extremely time consuming. This issue can be mitigated by performing scans at lower resolutions; however, reducing the resolution compromises spatial detail, limiting the accuracy of defect detection. Super-resolution algorithms offer a promising solution for overcoming resolution limitations in XCT reconstructions of AM parts, enabling more accurate detection of defects. While 2D super-resolution methods have demonstrated state-of-the-art performance on natural images, they tend to under-perform when directly applied to XCT slices. On the other hand, 3D super-resolution methods are computationally expensive, making them infeasible for large-scale applications. To address these challenges, we propose a 2.5D super-resolution approach tailored for XCT of AM parts. Our method enhances the resolution of individual slices by leveraging multi-slice information from neighboring 2D slices without the significant computational overhead of full 3D methods. Specifically, we use neighboring low-resolution slices to super-resolve the center slice, exploiting inter-slice spatial context while maintaining computational efficiency. This approach bridges the gap between 2D and 3D methods, offering a practical solution for high-throughput defect detection in AM parts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04525 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 2.5D Architectures for (a) SRCNN [6], (b) EDSR [10], and (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of (a) XY- and (b) XZ-slices of super-resolved synthetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mean and standard deviation of PSNR over XY- and XZ-slices of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Recall, precision, and F1 score curves for super-resolved volumes using 2D, 2.5D, and 3D architectures of (a) SRCNN, (b) EDSR, and (c) ESRGAN. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of XY-slices (top) and XZ-slices (bottom) from prelim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A comprehensive review of deep learning-based single image super-resolution,

    S. M. A. Bashir, Y . Wang, M. Khan, and Y . Niu, “A comprehensive review of deep learning-based single image super-resolution,” PeerJ Computer Science , vol. 7, p. e621, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    NTIRE 2024 challenge on image super- resolution: Methods and results,

    Z. Chen, Z. Wu, E. Zamfir, K. Zhang, Y . Zhang, R. Timofte, X. Yang, H. Yu, C. Wan, Y . Honget al., “NTIRE 2024 challenge on image super- resolution: Methods and results,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09790 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Beyond nyquist: A comparative analysis of 3d deep learning models enhancing mri resolution,

    S. Chatterjee, A. Sciarra, M. D ¨unnwald, A. B. T. Ashoka, M. G. C. Vasudeva, S. Saravanan, V . T. Sambandham, P. Tummala, S. Oeltze- Jafra, O. Speck et al. , “Beyond nyquist: A comparative analysis of 3d deep learning models enhancing mri resolution,” Journal of imaging , vol. 10, no. 9, p. 207, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Generating high- resolution CT slices from two image series using deep-learning-based resolution enhancement methods,

    H.-S. Chao, Y .-H. Wu, L. Siana, and Y .-M. Chen, “Generating high- resolution CT slices from two image series using deep-learning-based resolution enhancement methods,” Diagnostics, vol. 12, no. 11, p. 2725, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    From Diffusion to Resolution: Leveraging 2D Diffusion Models for 3D Super-Resolution Task

    B. Chen, Y . Zhang, Y . Lv, H. Han, and X. Chen, “From diffusion to resolution: Leveraging 2d diffusion models for 3d super-resolution task,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16792 , 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Image super-resolution using deep convolutional networks,

    C. Dong, C. C. Loy, K. He, and X. Tang, “Image super-resolution using deep convolutional networks,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 38, 12 2014

    2014

  7. [7]

    Real-time single image and video super- resolution using an efficient sub-pixel convolutional neural network

    W. Shi, J. Caballero, F. Huszar, J. Totz, A. P. Aitken, R. Bishop, D. Rueckert, and Z. Wang, “Real-time single image and video super- resolution using an efficient sub-pixel convolutional neural network.” in CVPR. IEEE Computer Society, 2016, pp. 1874–1883

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a generative adversarial network,

    C. Ledig, L. Theis, F. Huszar, J. Caballero, A. Cunningham, A. Acosta, A. Aitken, A. Tejani, J. Totz, Z. Wang, and W. Shi, “Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a generative adversarial network,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Patte...

    2017

  2. [10]

    Enhanced deep residual networks for single image super-resolution,

    B. Lim, S. Son, H. Kim, S. Nah, and K. Mu Lee, “Enhanced deep residual networks for single image super-resolution,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops, July 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,

    K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Esrgan: Enhanced super-resolution generative adversar- ial networks,

    X. Wang, K. Yu, S. Wu, J. Gu, Y . Liu, C. Dong, Y . Qiao, and C. Change Loy, “Esrgan: Enhanced super-resolution generative adversar- ial networks,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) Workshops , September 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    The relativistic discriminator: a key element missing from standard gan,

    A. Jolicoeur-Martineau, “The relativistic discriminator: a key element missing from standard gan,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.00734 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    2.5D deep learning for CT image reconstruction using a multi-gpu implementation,

    A. Ziabari, D. H. Ye, S. Srivastava, K. D. Sauer, J.-B. Thibault, and C. A. Bouman, “2.5D deep learning for CT image reconstruction using a multi-gpu implementation,” in 2018 52nd Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers . IEEE, 2018, pp. 2044–2049

    2018

  7. [15]

    Enabling rapid X- ray CT characterisation for additive manufacturing using CAD models and deep learning-based reconstruction,

    A. Ziabari, Z. Snow, A. Lisovich, M. Sprayberry, P. Brackman, C. Fred- erick, P. Bhattad, S. Graham, P. Bingham et al. , “Enabling rapid X- ray CT characterisation for additive manufacturing using CAD models and deep learning-based reconstruction,” npj Computational Materials ...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Simurgh: A framework for cad-driven deep learning based X-Ray CT reconstruction,

    A. Ziabari, S. Venkatakrishnan, A. Dubey, A. Lisovich, P. Brackman, C. Frederick, P. Bhattad, P. Bingham, A. Plotkowski, R. Dehoff et al. , “Simurgh: A framework for cad-driven deep learning based X-Ray CT reconstruction,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Image Process...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Mbir training for a 2.5 D DL network in X-ray CT,

    O. Rahman, M. Nagare, K. D. Sauer, C. A. Bouman, R. Melnyk, B. Nett, and J. Tang, “Mbir training for a 2.5 D DL network in X-ray CT,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13399, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Multi-slice fusion for sparse-view and limited-angle 4D CT reconstruc- tion,

    S. Majee, T. Balke, C. A. Kemp, G. T. Buzzard, and C. A. Bouman, “Multi-slice fusion for sparse-view and limited-angle 4D CT reconstruc- tion,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging , vol. 7, pp. 448– 462, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    LoDoInd: Introducing a benchmark low-dose industrial CT dataset and enhancing denoising with 2.5D deep learning techniques,

    J. Shi, O. Elkilany, A. Fischer, A. Suppes, D. M. Pelt, and K. J. Batenburg, “LoDoInd: Introducing a benchmark low-dose industrial CT dataset and enhancing denoising with 2.5D deep learning techniques,” in 13th Conference on Industrial Computed Tomography , 2024. Fig. 4. Recal...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Deep learning based workflow for accelerated industrial X-ray computed tomography,

    O. Rahman, S. V . Venkatakrishnan, L. Scime, P. Brackman, C. Frederick, R. Dehoff, V . Paquit, and A. Ziabari, “Deep learning based workflow for accelerated industrial X-ray computed tomography,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) . IEEE, 2023, pp...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Bridging 2D and 3D seg- mentation networks for computation-efficient volumetric medical image segmentation: An empirical study of 2.5D solutions,

    Y . Zhang, Q. Liao, L. Ding, and J. Zhang, “Bridging 2D and 3D seg- mentation networks for computation-efficient volumetric medical image segmentation: An empirical study of 2.5D solutions,” Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics , vol. 99, p. 102088, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Spekpy v2. 0—a software toolkit for modeling x-ray tube spectra,

    G. Poludniowski, A. Omar, R. Bujila, and P. Andreo, “Spekpy v2. 0—a software toolkit for modeling x-ray tube spectra,” Medical Physics, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 3630–3637, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    A validation of spekpy: A software toolkit for modelling x-ray tube spectra,

    R. Bujila, A. Omar, and G. Poludniowski, “A validation of spekpy: A software toolkit for modelling x-ray tube spectra,” Physica Medica , vol. 75, pp. 44–54, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Practical cone-beam algorithm,

    L. A. Feldkamp, L. C. Davis, and J. W. Kress, “Practical cone-beam algorithm,” JOSA A , vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 612–619, 1984

    1984

  17. [25]

    Fast model-based X-ray CT reconstruction using spatially nonhomogeneous ICD optimization,

    Z. Yu, J.-B. Thibault, C. A. Bouman, K. D. Sauer, and J. Hsieh, “Fast model-based X-ray CT reconstruction using spatially nonhomogeneous ICD optimization,” IEEE Transactions on image processing , vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 161–175, 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Direct iterative reconstruction of multiple basis material images in photon-counting spectral CT,

    O. Rahman and K. Sauer, “Direct iterative reconstruction of multiple basis material images in photon-counting spectral CT,” in The 6th International Conference on Image F ormation in X-Ray Computed Tomography, no. 1, 2020, pp. 462–465

    2020

  19. [27]

    Neural Network-based Single-material Beam Hardening Correction for X-ray CT in Addi- tive Manufacturing ,

    O. Rahman, S. V . Venkatakrishnan, Z. Snow, P. Brackman, T. Feld- hausen, R. Dehoff, V . Paquit, and A. Ziabari, “Neural Network-based Single-material Beam Hardening Correction for X-ray CT in Addi- tive Manufacturing ,” in 17th International Meeting on Fully Three- Dimensiona...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.