Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

Benchmarking learned algorithms for computed tomography image reconstruction tasks

T0 review · 1 major / 1 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 The paper claims that real experimental CT data, not simulations, can support a reproducible benchmark comparing learned reconstruction methods across five standardized tasks.

desk verdict A solid, useful real-data benchmark for learned CT reconstruction, with honest limitations; the AGD-target dependence is real but acknowledged, and the main fix is releasing exact scripts/models and adding sensitivity analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08350 v1 pith:BOURNU5J submitted 2024-12-11 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LG

Maximilian B. Kiss , Ander Biguri , Zakhar Shumaylov , Ferdia Sherry , K. Joost Batenburg , Carola-Bibiane Schönlieb , Felix Lucka This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CVcs.LG
keywords computedtomographyimagereconstructionlearnedbenchmarking2DeteCTdatasetlimited-anglesparse-anglebeam-hardeningcorrection
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

Computed tomography research lacks a large-scale, open, real-measurement dataset on which learned reconstruction algorithms can be compared fairly; most benchmarks use simulated data or private scans. This paper attempts to close that gap by building a benchmarking framework entirely on the 2DeteCT experimental dataset, with five standardized tasks — full-data, limited-angle, sparse-angle, low-dose, and beam-hardening-corrected reconstruction — and twelve supervised methods drawn from four method families: post-processing networks, learned or unrolled iterative methods, learned regularizers, and plug-and-play methods. The authors' central claim is that this combination of real measured data, standardized tasks, and an open pipeline makes results reproducible and lets any new method be added and compared on equal footing. If the framework works as intended, it gives the field a common yardstick and reduces the sim-to-real gap that has made published CT results hard to compare.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the benchmark pipeline itself, organized as a sinogram-to-image experiment: each method receives a sinogram as input and must output a 1024 by 1024 image, and every task is generated by choosing which sinogram to feed it. The source of realism is the 2DeteCT dataset's three physical acquisition modes — high-dose filtered, low-dose filtered, and unfiltered — which supply the clean targets, noisy inputs, and beam-hardening inputs respectively. The standard reference target for all tasks is the mode-2 reconstruction computed by accelerated gradient descent on a 2048 by 2048 grid and cropped to 1024 by 1024; that choice makes every method's score comparable because everyone is measured against the same image. Four method categories with three methods each, plus classical filtered-backprojection, accelerated-gradient-descent, and total-variation-regularized primal-dual baselines, form the comparison grid, and structural similarity (SSIM) and peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) averaged over a held-out test set quantify success.

What would settle it

Recompute the full benchmark tables using a different reference, such as a total-variation-regularized primal-dual reconstruction of the same mode-2 data, and check whether any method's ranking changes on the low-dose, limited-angle, or beam-hardening tasks; a ranking change would show that the conclusions depend on the choice of reference image rather than on the algorithms alone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a benchmark for learned CT reconstruction should be built on real experimental measurements rather than simulations, and that such a benchmark can cover the full range of common reconstruction tasks while keeping every method on identical data and preprocessing. Concretely, it defines five tasks from the three acquisition modes of the 2DeteCT dataset: full-data reconstruction from clean high-dose mode-2 sinograms, limited-angle and sparse-angle tasks by cropping or subsampling those sinograms, low-dose reconstruction from mode-1 sinograms, and beam-hardening correction from unfiltered mode-3 sinograms. All methods are trained in a sinogram-to-image setup and scored against the same target, the mode-2 iterative accelerated-gradient-descent reconstructions. On those tasks the paper reports that post-processing networks are consistently strong quantitatively despite lacking data-consistency guarantees, that the learned primal-dual unrolled method is the steadiest high performer, and that beam-hardening correction is the hardest task, with plug-and-play and adversarial-regularizer methods collapsing because the linear forward model cannot represent the nonlinear beam-hardening effect.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's weakest load-bearing premise is that the accelerated-gradient-descent reconstruction of the clean mode-2 scan is an acceptable stand-in for true ground truth for every task, because all PSNR and SSIM scores are measured relative to that single algorithm's output.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • New methods can be inserted into the open pipeline and compared directly against the same twelve learned baselines on the same real sinograms, making published CT results far easier to reproduce.
  • Post-processing networks, despite having no data-consistency mechanism, can match or exceed more complex model-based methods on most tasks while training in less time.
  • Beam-hardening correction is the clearest bottleneck: methods that rely on the linear forward model or on local denoisers fail, so progress on this task requires nonlinear modeling or learned artifact correction.
  • Learned or unrolled iterative methods such as learned primal-dual are the most balanced performers across all five tasks, but their training cost is high relative to post-processing.
  • Quantitative scores alone can mislead: on 60-degree limited-angle data, plug-and-play and adversarial-regularizer methods score similarly to better-looking reconstructions, so visual inspection remains necessary.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the benchmark's target choice is a sensitivity point, since all scores are distances to one algorithm's reconstruction; re-running the tables with a total-variation-regularized reference target would show whether relative rankings survive the change.
  • Beyond the paper: the released models and code make out-of-distribution evaluation immediate, and applying the trained models to a medical or different-geometry CT dataset would test whether the observed rankings transfer beyond the 2DeteCT scanner.
  • Beyond the paper: the framework omits transformer-based and diffusion-based reconstructions, so adding them is a straightforward next step, with diffusion methods mapping onto the plug-and-play slot and transformers onto the post-processing slot.
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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents a benchmarking study for learned computed tomography (CT) reconstruction methods using the 2DeteCT dataset, which contains real experimental X-ray measurements. Twelve learned methods are grouped into post-processing networks, learned/unrolled iterative methods, learned regularizer methods, and plug-and-play methods, alongside classical baselines (FBP, AGD, ChP). The authors define five reconstruction tasks (full data, limited-angle, sparse-angle, low-dose, and beam-hardening corrected), report PSNR and SSIM on a fixed test set, and release the pipeline in the open-source LION toolbox with trained models. The central claims are that this is the first benchmark combining real-world experimental CT data with a broad range of standardized tasks and method categories, and that the framework enables reproducible comparison and extension by the community.

Significance. If the benchmark is accepted as a community reference, it would fill a genuine gap: most existing CT reconstruction benchmarks use simulated data or a single task, whereas 2DeteCT provides real projection data with matching high-quality references. The open implementation in LION, the fixed train/validation/test split, the released models, and the explicit task definitions are practical strengths that lower the barrier for future method comparison. The paper is also candid about several limitations, including limited hyperparameter tuning and the fact that residual beam-hardening artifacts remain in the mode-2 references. However, the central quantitative conclusions are conditional on the choice of the AGD reconstructions as the reference for both training and evaluation, and on single training runs per method; the significance of the benchmark would be substantially strengthened by robustness checks against alternative references and repeated runs.

major comments (1)
  1. [Training Details; Tables 5-7] The rankings are based on a single training run per method with fixed hyperparameters, and the paper explicitly states that training was done "without extensive hyperparameter tuning." For the post-processing and unrolled methods, training runs took tens to over a hundred hours, so repeated runs may be costly, but without them the reported differences are not statistically grounded. For instance, in Table 5 the Full Data SSIM values of LPD (0.8447), FBP+MSDNet (0.8481), ACR (0.8518), DnCNN-PnP (0.8585), and DRUNet-PnP (0.8573) differ by amounts that are comparable to the reported standard deviations over test slices; these standard deviations encode slice-to-slice variability, not run-to-run variability. I ask the authors to either supply multiple training runs per method (at least for the leading contenders) or to add a sensitivity analysis showing that the conclusions are stable to seed and hyperparameter choices. Without this, the cross-method and cross-category comparisons are vulnerable to noise in training.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Table 5] On the Full Data task, FBP+U-Net has SSIM 0.6499, which is lower than plain FBP (0.7463) and well below the other post-processing methods; this is an interesting result that the text does not discuss, and it would be helpful to comment on why the U-Net post-processing degrades relative to its FBP input when the target is an AGD reconstruction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the benchmark's AGD-based reference is an acknowledged protocol choice, not a derived prediction that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical benchmarking study, not a derivation with predictions that could be circular. There is no equation chain in which an output quantity is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict. The quantitative results in Tables 5-7 are measured outcomes of independent training and evaluation runs, not quantities fitted to force a conclusion. The main potential concern is that all learned methods are supervised with the same AGD reference reconstructions that are also used as the evaluation target, and the paper explicitly says that 'the evaluated methods actually learn to mimic AGD for this task' and that 'all evaluated methods in the Full Data reconstruction are learning to produce AGD-like results, not the actual ground truth.' This is a real and openly stated limitation of the benchmark protocol, but it is not circular reasoning in the logical sense: the paper does not claim to derive reconstruction quality from the AGD definition, and it does not present the AGD target as ground truth. On the contrary, it states 'this is a choice, and not a definition of the ground truth' and explicitly acknowledges that a different regularized reference 'would change the numerical results of this work.' The claim being advanced is a reproducible comparison framework on real experimental data, and the rankings are empirical outputs whose dependence on the reference choice is disclosed rather than hidden. The only self-citations (to the 2DeteCT dataset and the LION toolbox) point to openly available, externally published data and code infrastructure; they are not used as the sole justification of a mathematical or empirical result. No self-definitional loop, fitted-value-renamed-as-prediction, or self-citation chain that forces the central claim was found.

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

The benchmark rests on hand-chosen experimental settings, the choice of AGD reconstructions as targets, and the assumption that the linear ASTRA operator is adequate for all tasks. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. These are the load-bearing premises that a reader would need to accept or question before using the reported numbers.

free parameters (3)
  • Training hyperparameters per method category = Post-processing and unrolled: Adam, lr=1e-4 (LG/LGTV 1e-5), 100 epochs; AR/ACR: 25 epochs, lr=1e-4; TDV: 10 epochs…
    All reported performance numbers depend on these hand-picked training settings. The authors state they prioritized adequate performance over extensive tuning, so the benchmark reflects these choices, not optimized performance.
  • PnP denoiser noise levels and per-task denoiser selection = Noise levels {0.001, 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.05, 0.07}; best denoiser per experiment chosen on validation set
    The plug-and-play results depend on which denoiser is selected and the range of noise levels it was trained on. This selection is model selection, not fitting to the test set, but it is a hand-made choice that affects PnP scores.
  • Task difficulty parameters = Limited-angle wedges 120, 90, 60 degrees; sparse-angle views 360, 120, 60; full data 3600 views
    The authors tested several candidate settings (150 degrees, 720/180/90 projection counts) and then chose these values. The chosen task difficulties shape the entire benchmark and are not derived from a theory.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Mode 2 AGD reference reconstructions are valid gold standards for all tasks
    Section 'CT Image Reconstruction Tasks' states 'we treat the reference reconstructions of the 2DeteCT dataset utilizing a cropped Nesterov gradient descent (AGD) as a ground truth or gold standard'. The paper later acknowledges this is a choice and not true ground truth.
  • domain assumption The discretized linear forward operator implemented with ASTRA ray-driven projection faithfully represents the real 2DeteCT acquisition for all tasks
    The Pipeline section describes using tomosipo and ASTRA for the forward operator. This linear model is used for all tasks including beam-hardening correction, where the authors note the operator mismatch is a source of artifacts.
  • domain assumption The training, validation, and test splits contain no shared scanned sample mixes
    Training Details states the dataset 'was split in a sophisticated way to ensure that no scanned sample mixes are shared between the training, validation, and test data'. This prevents sample-based leakage, but the exact split procedure is referenced to the dataset publication.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Benchmarking learned algorithms for computed tomography image reconstruction tasks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BOURNU5J

@misc{pith2026241208350,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Benchmarking learned algorithms for computed tomography image reconstruction tasks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BOURNU5J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08350}
}
read the original abstract

Computed tomography (CT) is a widely used non-invasive diagnostic method in various fields, and recent advances in deep learning have led to significant progress in CT image reconstruction. However, the lack of large-scale, open-access datasets has hindered the comparison of different types of learned methods. To address this gap, we use the 2DeteCT dataset, a real-world experimental computed tomography dataset, for benchmarking machine learning based CT image reconstruction algorithms. We categorize these methods into post-processing networks, learned/unrolled iterative methods, learned regularizer methods, and plug-and-play methods, and provide a pipeline for easy implementation and evaluation. Using key performance metrics, including SSIM and PSNR, our benchmarking results showcase the effectiveness of various algorithms on tasks such as full data reconstruction, limited-angle reconstruction, sparse-angle reconstruction, low-dose reconstruction, and beam-hardening corrected reconstruction. With this benchmarking study, we provide an evaluation of a range of algorithms representative for different categories of learned reconstruction methods on a recently published dataset of real-world experimental CT measurements. The reproducible setup of methods and CT image reconstruction tasks in an open-source toolbox enables straightforward addition and comparison of new methods later on. The toolbox also provides the option to load the 2DeteCT dataset differently for extensions to other problems and different CT reconstruction tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08350 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. CT Image Reconstruction Tasks. 5/22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Qualitative analysis of all evaluated methods for slice 182 of the test dataset in comparison to the “gold standard” iterative reference reconstruction of the 2DeteCT dataset (green box). 12/22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Revisiting $\Psi$DONet: microlocally inspired filters for incomplete-data tomographic reconstructions

    math.OC 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Microlocally inspired mask-shaped filters let ΨDONet match or slightly improve limited- and sparse-angle CT reconstructions with far fewer learnable parameters.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    & Hinton, G

    LeCun, Y ., Bengio, Y . & Hinton, G. Deep learning.Nature 521, 436–444 (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    & Haffner, P

    LeCun, Y ., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y . & Haffner, P. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition.Proc. IEEE 86, 2278–2324 (1998)

    1998

  3. [3]

    Krizhevsky, A., Hinton, G. et al. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. https://www.cs.toronto.edu/kriz/learning-features-2009-TR.pdf (2009)

    2009

  4. [4]

    Deng, J. et al. ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 248–255 (IEEE, 2009)

    2009

  5. [5]

    & Öktem, O

    Adler, J. & Öktem, O. Solving ill-posed inverse problems using iterative deep neural networks. Inverse Probl. 33, 124007 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    H., McCann, M

    Jin, K. H., McCann, M. T., Froustey, E. & Unser, M. Deep convolutional neural network for inverse problems in imaging. IEEE Transactions on Image Process. 26, 4509–4522 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    Chen, H. et al. Low-dose CT with a residual encoder-decoder convolutional neural network. IEEE Transactions on Med. Imaging 36, 2524–2535 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    C., Mueller, K

    Wang, G., Ye, J. C., Mueller, K. & Fessler, J. A. Image reconstruction is a new frontier of machine learning. IEEE Transactions on Med. Imaging 37, 1289–1296 (2018)

    2018

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    Würfl, T. et al. Deep learning computed tomography: Learning projection-domain weights from image domain in limited angle problems. IEEE Transactions on Med. Imaging 37, 1454–1463 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Yang, Q. et al. Low-dose CT image denoising using a generative adversarial network with Wasserstein distance and perceptual loss. IEEE Transactions on Med. Imaging 37, 1348–1357 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    S., Lee, S

    Park, H. S., Lee, S. M., Kim, H. P., Seo, J. K. & Chung, Y . E. CT sinogram-consistency learning for metal-induced beam hardening correction. Med. Phys. 45, 5376–5384 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    & Schönlieb, C.-B

    Arridge, S., Maass, P., Öktem, O. & Schönlieb, C.-B. Solving inverse problems using data-driven models. Acta Numer. 28, 1–174 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Shan, H. et al. Competitive performance of a modularized deep neural network compared to commercial algorithms for low-dose CT image reconstruction. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 269–276 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    & Haltmeier, M

    Li, H., Schwab, J., Antholzer, S. & Haltmeier, M. NETT: Solving inverse problems with deep neural networks. Inverse Probl. 36, 065005 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Leuschner, J. et al. Quantitative comparison of deep learning-based image reconstruction methods for low-dose and sparse-angle CT applications. J. Imaging 7, 44 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Brady, S. L.et al. Improving image quality and reducing radiation dose for pediatric ct by using deep learning reconstruction. Radiology 298, 180–188 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    S., McCollough, C

    Gong, H., Ren, L., Hsieh, S. S., McCollough, C. H. & Yu, L. Deep learning enabled ultra-fast-pitch acquisition in clinical x-ray computed tomography. Med. physics 48, 5712–5726 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Nikolenko, S. I. Synthetic-to-real domain adaptation and refinement. In Synthetic data for deep learning , 235–268 (Springer, 2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    & Meisen, T

    Weiss, M., Brierley, N., von Schmid, M. & Meisen, T. Simulation study: Data-driven material decomposition in industrial X-ray computed tomography. NDT 2, 1–15 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    & Lucka, F

    Kiss, M., Coban, S., Batenburg, K., van Leeuwen, T. & Lucka, F. 2DeteCT - A large 2D expandable, trainable, experimental Computed Tomography dataset for machine learning. Sci. Data 10, 10.1038/s41597-023-02484-6 (2023)

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    TU-FG-207A-04: overview of the low dose CT grand challenge

    McCollough, C. TU-FG-207A-04: overview of the low dose CT grand challenge. Med. Phys. 43, 3759–3760 (2016). 18/22

    2016

  14. [22]

    Moen, T. R. et al. Low-dose ct image and projection dataset. Med. physics 48, 902–911 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Leuschner, J., Schmidt, M., Baguer, D. O. & Maass, P. LoDoPaB-CT, a benchmark dataset for low-dose computed tomography reconstruction. Sci. Data 8, 1–12 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    & Mukherjee, S

    Biguri, A. & Mukherjee, S. Advancing the frontiers of deep learning for low-dose 3d cone-beam computed tomography (ct) reconstruction. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing Workshops (ICASSPW), 81–82 (IEEE, 2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Der Sarkissian, H. et al. A cone-beam X-ray computed tomography data collection designed for machine learning. Sci. Data 6, 215, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0235-y (2019)

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    & De Man, B

    Wang, G., Yu, H. & De Man, B. An outlook on x-ray CT research and development. Med. Phys. 35, 1051–1064 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    Ritman, E. L. Current status of developments and applications of micro-CT. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 13, 531–552 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Ginat, D. T. & Gupta, R. Advances in computed tomography imaging technology. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 16, 431–453 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    & Flohr, T

    Hsieh, J. & Flohr, T. Computed tomography recent history and future perspectives. J. Med. Imaging 8, 052109–052109 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Knoll, F. et al. fastMRI: A publicly available raw k-space and DICOM dataset of knee images for accelerated MR image reconstruction using machine learning. Radiol. Artif. Intell. 2, e190007, https://doi.org/10.1148/ryai.2020190007 (2020). PMID: 32076662, https://doi.org/10.114...

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    Armato III, S. G. et al. The lung image database consortium (lidc) and image database resource initiative (idri): a completed reference database of lung nodules on ct scans. Med. physics 38, 915–931 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    W., Hanke-Bourgeois, M

    Engl, H. W., Hanke-Bourgeois, M. & Neubauer, A. Regularization of Inverse Problems. No. 375 in Mathematics and Its Applications <Dordrecht> (Kluwer Acad. Publ, Dordrecht, 2000)

    2000

  25. [33]

    & Lenzen, F

    Scherzer, O., Grasmair, M., Grossauer, H., Haltmeier, M. & Lenzen, F. V ariational Methods in Imaging(Springer, 2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    & Dong, B

    Zhang, H.-M. & Dong, B. A review on deep learning in medical image reconstruction. J. Oper. Res. Soc. China 8, 311–340 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    C., Eldar, Y

    Ye, J. C., Eldar, Y . C. & Unser, M. A.Deep Learning for Biomedical Image Reconstruction (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Ravishankar, S., Ye, J. C. & Fessler, J. A. Image reconstruction: From sparsity to data-adaptive methods and machine learning. Proc. IEEE 108, 86–109 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Z., Cauley, S

    Zhu, B., Liu, J. Z., Cauley, S. F., Rosen, B. R. & Rosen, M. S. Image reconstruction by domain-transform manifold learning. Nature 555, 487–492 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    & De Man, B

    Fu, L. & De Man, B. Deep learning tomographic reconstruction through hierarchical decomposition of domain transforms. Vis. Comput. for Ind. Biomed. Art 5, 30 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Kang, E., Min, J. & Ye, J. C. A deep convolutional neural network using directional wavelets for low-dose X-ray CT reconstruction. Med. Phys. 44, e360–e375 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Han, Y . & Ye, J. C. Framing U-Net via deep convolutional framelets: Application to sparse-view CT.IEEE Transactions on Med. Imaging 37, 1418–1429 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    & Cao, G

    Zhang, Z., Liang, X., Dong, X., Xie, Y . & Cao, G. A sparse-view CT reconstruction method based on combination of densenet and deconvolution. IEEE Transactions on Med. Imaging 37, 1407–1417 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    H., Nguyen, H

    Gupta, H., Jin, K. H., Nguyen, H. Q., McCann, M. T. & Unser, M. CNN-based projected gradient descent for consistent CT image reconstruction. IEEE Transactions on Med. Imaging 37, 1440–1453 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    & Teboulle, M

    Beck, A. & Teboulle, M. A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems. SIAM J. on Imaging Sci. 2, 183–202 (2009). 19/22

    2009

  36. [44]

    & LeCun, Y

    Gregor, K. & LeCun, Y . Learning fast approximations of sparse coding. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Machine Learning, 399–406 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    Training an active random field for real-time image denoising

    Barbu, A. Training an active random field for real-time image denoising. IEEE Transactions on Image Process. 18, 2451–2462 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    & Eldar, Y

    Monga, V ., Li, Y . & Eldar, Y . C. Algorithm unrolling: Interpretable, efficient deep learning for signal and image processing. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 38, 18–44 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    & Burger, M

    Benning, M. & Burger, M. Modern regularization methods for inverse problems. Acta Numer. 27, 1–111 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    & Schönlieb, C.-B

    Mukherjee, S., Hauptmann, A., Öktem, O., Pereyra, M. & Schönlieb, C.-B. Learned reconstruction methods with convergence guarantees: a survey of concepts and applications. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 40, 164–182 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    & Needell, D

    Chen, G. & Needell, D. Compressed sensing and dictionary learning. Finite Fram. Theory: A Complet. Introd. to Overcompleteness 73, 201 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    & Ulyanov, D

    Lempitsky, V ., Vedaldi, A. & Ulyanov, D. Deep image prior. In2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 9446–9454, 10.1109/CVPR.2018.00984 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    & Reader, A

    Webber, G. & Reader, A. J. Diffusion models for medical image reconstruction. BJR| Artif. Intell. 1, ubae013 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    & Schönlieb, C.-B

    Shumaylov, Z., Budd, J., Mukherjee, S. & Schönlieb, C.-B. Weakly convex regularisers for inverse problems: Convergence of critical points and primal-dual optimisation (2024). ArXiv:2402.01052, 2402.01052

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    & Holler, M

    Habring, A. & Holler, M. Neural-network-based regularization methods for inverse problems in imaging. GAMM- Mitteilungen e202470004 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Dimakis, A. G. et al. Deep generative models and inverse problems. Math. Aspects Deep. Learn. 400–421 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Boyd, S. et al. Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers. F oundations Trends Mach. learning3, 1–122 (2011)

    2011

  48. [56]

    V ., Bouman, C

    Venkatakrishnan, S. V ., Bouman, C. A. & Wohlberg, B. Plug-and-play priors for model based reconstruction. In 2013 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing , 945–948 (IEEE, 2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    S., Bouman, C

    Kamilov, U. S., Bouman, C. A., Buzzard, G. T. & Wohlberg, B. Plug-and-play methods for integrating physical and learned models in computational imaging: Theory, algorithms, and applications. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 40, 85–97 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    & Haltmeier, M

    Ebner, A. & Haltmeier, M. Plug-and-play image reconstruction is a convergent regularization method. IEEE Transactions on Image Process. (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    & Sherry, F

    Hauptmann, A., Mukherjee, S., Schönlieb, C.-B. & Sherry, F. Convergent Regularization in Inverse Problems and Linear Plug-and-Play Denoisers. F oundations Comput. Math.10.1007/s10208-024-09654-x (2024)

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    Weber, L. M. et al. Essential guidelines for computational method benchmarking. Genome Biol. 20, 1–12 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    & Quinto, E

    Frikel, J. & Quinto, E. T. Characterization and reduction of artifacts in limited angle tomography. Inverse Probl. 29, 125007 (2013)

    2013

  54. [62]

    Barutcu, S., Aslan, S., Katsaggelos, A. K. & Gürsoy, D. Limited-angle computed tomography with deep image and physics priors. Sci. Reports 11, 17740 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    Joseph, P. M. & Schulz, R. A. View sampling requirements in fan beam computed tomography. Med. Phys. 7, 692–702 (1980)

    1980

  56. [64]

    Patton, J. A. & Turkington, T. G. SPECT/CT physical principles and attenuation correction. J. Nucl. Medicine Technol. 36, 1–10 (2008)

    2008

  57. [65]

    & Raman, E

    Van de Casteele, E., Van Dyck, D., Sijbers, J. & Raman, E. An energy-based beam hardening model in tomography. Phys. Medicine & Biol. 47, 4181 (2002)

    2002

  58. [66]

    & Öktem, O

    Adler, J., Kohr, H. & Öktem, O. Odl 0.6.0, 10.5281/zenodo.556409 (2017). 20/22

    2017 doi

  59. [67]

    Hendriksen, A. A. et al. Tomosipo: fast, flexible, and convenient 3d tomography for complex scanning geometries in python. Opt. Express 29, 40494–40513 (2021)

    2021

  60. [68]

    & Sijbers, J

    Palenstijn, W., Batenburg, K. & Sijbers, J. Performance improvements for iterative electron tomography reconstruction using graphics processing units (gpus). J. Struct. Biol. 176, 250–253, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsb.2011.07.017 (2011)

    2011 doi

  61. [69]

    van Aarle, W. et al. The astra toolbox: A platform for advanced algorithm development in electron tomography. Ultramicroscopy 157, 35–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2015.05.002 (2015)

    2015 doi

  62. [70]

    van Aarle, W. et al. Fast and flexible x-ray tomography using the astra toolbox. Opt. Express 24, 25129–25147, 10.1364/OE.24.025129 (2016)

    2016 doi

  63. [71]

    & Soleimani, M

    Biguri, A., Dosanjh, M., Hancock, S. & Soleimani, M. Tigre: a matlab-gpu toolbox for cbct image reconstruction. Biomed. Phys. & Eng. Express 2, 055010 (2016)

    2016

  64. [72]

    Biguri, A. et al. Arbitrarily large tomography with iterative algorithms on multiple gpus using the tigre toolbox. J. Parallel Distributed Comput. 146, 52–63 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    & Terris, M

    Tachella, J., Chen, D., Hurault, S. & Terris, M. Deepinverse: A deep learning framework for inverse problems in imaging (2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    Psychovisual aspects of image communication

    Girod, B. Psychovisual aspects of image communication. Signal Process. 28, 239–251 (1992)

    1992

  67. [75]

    C., Sheikh, H

    Wang, Z., Bovik, A. C., Sheikh, H. R. & Simoncelli, E. P. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Process. 13, 600–612 (2004)

    2004

  68. [76]

    R., Sabir, M

    Sheikh, H. R., Sabir, M. F. & Bovik, A. C. A statistical evaluation of recent full reference image quality assessment algorithms. IEEE Transactions on image processing 15, 3440–3451 (2006)

    2006

  69. [77]

    K., Wu, C., Bovik, A

    Venkataramanan, A. K., Wu, C., Bovik, A. C., Katsavounidis, I. & Shahid, Z. A hitchhiker’s guide to structural similarity. IEEE Access 9, 28872–28896 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    C., Jørgensen, J

    Hansen, P. C., Jørgensen, J. & Lionheart, W. R.Computed tomography: algorithms, insight, and just enough theory (SIAM, 2021)

    2021

  71. [79]

    Nesterov, Y . E. A method of solving a convex programming problem with convergence rateO(k2). In Doklady Akademii Nauk, vol. 269, 543–547 (Russian Academy of Sciences, 1983)

    1983

  72. [80]

    & Pock, T

    Chambolle, A. & Pock, T. A first-order primal-dual algorithm for convex problems with applications to imaging. J. Math. Imaging Vis. 40, 120–145 (2011)

    2011

  73. [81]

    & Brox, T

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P. & Brox, T. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18 , 234...

    2015

  74. [82]

    Pelt, D. M. & Sethian, J. A. A mixed-scale dense convolutional neural network for image analysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 254–259 (2018)

    2018

  75. [83]

    & Zhang, L

    Zhang, K., Zuo, W., Chen, Y ., Meng, D. & Zhang, L. Beyond a Gaussian denoiser: Residual learning of deep CNN for image denoising. IEEE Transactions on Image Process. 26, 3142–3155 (2017)

    2017

  76. [84]

    & Öktem, O

    Adler, J. & Öktem, O. Learned primal-dual reconstruction. IEEE Transactions on Med. Imaging 37, 1322–1332 (2018)

    2018

  77. [85]

    & Schönlieb, C.-B

    Lunz, S., Öktem, O. & Schönlieb, C.-B. Adversarial regularizers in inverse problems. In Bengio, S. et al. (eds.) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 31 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    & Pock, T

    Kobler, E., Effland, A., Kunisch, K. & Pock, T. Total deep variation for linear inverse problems. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 7549–7558 (2020)

    2020

  79. [87]

    Mukherjee, S. et al. Learned convex regularizers for inverse problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.02839 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Mukherjee, S. et al. Data-driven convex regularizers for inverse problems. In ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , 13386–13390 (IEEE, 2024). 21/22

    2024

  81. [89]

    Zhang, K. et al. Plug-and-play image restoration with deep denoiser prior. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis Mach. Intell. 44, 6360–6376, 10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3088914 (2022)

    2022

  82. [90]

    & Papadakis, N

    Hurault, S., Leclaire, A. & Papadakis, N. Gradient step denoiser for convergent plug-and-play. In International Conference on Learning Representations (2022)

    2022

  83. [91]

    & Kalender, W

    Beister, M., Kolditz, D. & Kalender, W. A. Iterative reconstruction methods in X-ray CT. Phys. Medica 28, 94–108 (2012)

    2012

  84. [92]

    Wang, D. et al. Ctformer: convolution-free token2token dilated vision transformer for low-dose ct denoising. Phys. Medicine & Biol. 68, 065012 (2023)

    2023

  85. [93]

    & Ermon, S

    Song, Y ., Shen, L., Xing, L. & Ermon, S. Solving inverse problems in medical imaging with score-based generative models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (2022)

    2022

  86. [94]

    Liu, J. et al. Dolce: A model-based probabilistic diffusion framework for limited-angle ct reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 10498–10508 (2023)

    2023

  87. [95]

    Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  88. [96]

    & Davros, W

    Reid, J., Gamberoni, J., Dong, F. & Davros, W. Optimization of kvp and mas for pediatric low-dose simulated abdominal ct: Is it best to base parameter selection on object circumference? Am. J. Roentgenol. 195, 1015–1020, 10.2214/AJR.09.3862 (2010). PMID: 20858833, https://doi....

    2010 doi

  89. [97]

    & März, M

    Genzel, M., Macdonald, J. & März, M. Solving inverse problems with deep neural networks – robustness included? IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis Mach. Intell. 45, 1119–1134 (2022)

    2022

  90. [98]

    & Dokmani´c, I

    Khorashadizadeh, A., Debarnot, V ., Liu, T. & Dokmani´c, I. Glimpse: Generalized local imaging with mlps. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00816 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  91. [99]

    B., Coban, S

    Kiss, M. B., Coban, S. B., Batenburg, K. J., van Leeuwen, T. & Lucka, F. 2DeteCT - A large 2D expandable, trainable, experimental Computed Tomography dataset for machine learning: Slices 1-1,000, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8014758 (2023). 22/22

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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