Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 38 references

AFIRE: Accurate and Fast Image Reconstruction Algorithm for Geometric-inconsistent Multispectral CT

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims geometric-inconsistent multispectral CT can be solved by a simplified Newton iteration whose Jacobian at zero factorizes into projection matrices and a tiny 2×2 matrix, with a convergence proof.

desk verdict Nice factorization-based simplified Newton method for geometric-inconsistent spectral CT, but the convergence theorem's key contraction condition is never checked for the experiments it claims to confirm. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24793 v2 pith:B6CJYZTA submitted 2025-05-30 math.NA cs.NAphysics.med-ph

Yu Gao , Chong Chen This is my paper
classification math.NAcs.NAphysics.med-ph MSC 65J2244A1292C55
keywords multispectralCTdual-energygeometricinconsistencysimplifiedNewtonmethodnonlinearinverseproblembasisimagedecompositionconvergenceanalysisfilteredback-projection
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

Multispectral CT reconstruction becomes hard when the scanning geometries of different energy spectra do not align, because the nonlinear forward map can no longer be split into independent per-ray equations. This paper shows that at special points, in particular at zero, the Jacobian of that map reduces to a block product of the per-spectrum projection matrices and a very small matrix that encodes the energy spectra and mass-attenuation coefficients. That factorization converts the large nonlinear inverse problem into a simplified Newton iteration: invert each spectrum's projection approximately, then combine the residual sinograms with a $2\times2$ matrix. The paper proves convergence of this iteration under a contraction condition and demonstrates numerically that in dual-energy CT it reaches high accuracy in fewer than fifty noiseless iterations and about fifteen noisy ones, outperforming NCPD, NKM, IFBP, and INTRPL in accuracy and speed. The same structure also covers geometric-consistent scans and tolerates different choices of the special point.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the identity $\nabla K(\hat f) = -P\otimes\phi$, where $\otimes$ denotes block multiplication: the $Q\times D$ matrix $\phi$ is applied to the $D$ basis-image updates after each per-spectrum projection matrix $P_q$ has acted on the residual. The matrix $\phi$ is defined by $\phi_d^{(q)} = (\hat w^{(q)})^T b_d$, i.e., the spectrum-weighted average of the mass-attenuation vector $b_d$ at the special point, making it a $Q\times D$ matrix (size $2\times2$ in the dual-energy tests). The actual iteration (29) applies an approximate inverse $P^{+}$ to each spectrum's residual and then mixes the results with the small inverse $\phi^{-1}$, so a single outer step costs about one filtered back-projection per spectrum. The convergence argument is carried by a uniform bound $\tilde\eta$ on how far the per-ray weight vector $w_j^{(q)}(f)$ can depart from $\hat w^{(q)}$, combined with the scaled condition number $\kappa_F(P\otimes\phi)$ to control the resulting perturbation of the Jacobian.

What would settle it

Estimate $\tilde\eta$ by maximizing $\bigl|b_d^T(w_j^{(q)}(f)-\hat w^{(q)})\bigr|/\bigl|b_d^T \hat w^{(q)}\bigr|$ over rays, unit-simplex weights, and $d$, and evaluate $\kappa_F(P\otimes\phi)$ for the actual $P$ built from the two inconsistent parallel-beam geometries. If $\gamma = \tilde\eta\,\kappa_F(P\otimes\phi)\ge 1$, or if the FBP-based residual bound (34) is violated at the reported iteration counts, then the hypotheses of Theorem 2 do not hold for the experiments that are used to demonstrate convergence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a factorization of the Jacobian of the discrete forward map at a point whose ray integrals are constant: $\nabla K(\hat f) = -P\otimes\phi$ (Eq. (26)), where $P = \operatorname{diag}(P_1,\ldots,P_Q)$ is the block-diagonal matrix of the projection matrices of the $Q$ spectra and $\phi$ is the small $Q\times D$ matrix with entries $\phi_d^{(q)} = (\hat w^{(q)})^T b_d$ (Eq. (25)). Because $\phi$ is tiny, the inverse of the Jacobian is effectively the per-spectrum inverse of the projections followed by a $D\times D$ matrix multiplication. This yields the simplified Newton iteration $f^{k+1} = f^k - \phi^{-1}\otimes P^{+}(g - K(f^k))$, where $P^{+}$ is any sufficiently accurate approximate inverse such as filtered back-projection. The paper proves global convergence to the unique solution of the discrete system when the approximate-inverse residual satisfies (34) and the contraction factor $\gamma = \tilde\eta\,\kappa_F(P\otimes\phi)$ is below one, and it reports numerical convergence in the tested DECT geometries within tens of iterations.

Load-bearing premise

The proof for the inconsistent case rests on the discrete theorem, which assumes an unquantified bound on how much the per-ray energy weights change and that this change times the scaled condition number of the block system stays below one; neither is checked for the test geometries.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In completely geometric-inconsistent dual-energy CT, AFIRE reconstructs the water and bone basis images to high accuracy in under 50 noiseless iterations and under 15 noisy iterations, while NCPD, NKM, IFBP, and INTRPL lag behind or diverge.
  • Each outer iteration costs essentially one approximate projection inversion per spectrum plus a $2\times2$ mixing step, so the algorithm combines the speed of analytic FBP with the accuracy of an iterative one-step method.
  • Theorem 2 guarantees convergence to the unique solution when $\gamma = \tilde\eta\,\kappa_F(P\otimes\phi) < 1$ and the approximate-inverse residual obeys the bound in (34); Corollary 1 covers the exact-inverse iteration (27).
  • The algorithm is not sensitive to the choice of the special point: three random choices of the constants $\{C_d^{(q)}\}$ give nearly identical convergence in the reported experiments, so no explicit knowledge of an image $\hat f$ is needed.
  • The same iteration solves the geometric-consistent case and outperforms the two-step DDD benchmark, and the module $P^{+}$ can be implemented by FBP, CG, or L-BFGS with a documented accuracy and efficiency trade-off.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the factorization only needs $Q=D$ and the same constant-ray condition, the scheme should carry over to photon-counting or three-material decompositions by resizing $\phi$; for $Q>D$ one would naturally invert the small normal system in a least-squares sense.
  • Editorial inference: the convergence hypotheses of Lemma 2 are never verified numerically; computing $\gamma = \tilde\eta\,\kappa_F(P\otimes\phi)$ for the reported 128$\times$128 and 256$\times$256 geometries would turn the proof into a testable prediction.
  • Editorial inference: the continuous theorem (Theorem 1) assumes geometric consistency ($T_q^n=T_n$), so the proof for the motivating inconsistent regime rests entirely on the discrete argument; a continuous proof allowing $T_q^n\neq T_n$ would be needed to close that gap.
  • Editorial inference: replacing $P^{+}$ with a regularized or learned reconstruction operator would adapt the same outer iteration to sparse-view or low-dose MSCT, since the convergence proof only requires the residual bound (34) to hold.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes AFIRE, a simplified Newton method for multispectral CT image reconstruction that is designed for scanning geometries that are inconsistent across different X-ray energy spectra. The core observation is that at special points such as the zero image the Jacobian of the nonlinear forward map factorizes as a block product of a diagonal operator of X-ray transforms and a small material/spectrum matrix, namely -P⊗φ in the discrete setting. This structure yields an iteration that requires only a small 2×2 matrix inversion and an approximate inversion of each projection matrix. The paper proves convergence for the continuous and discrete settings under uniform relative Lipschitz-type assumptions, and reports numerical experiments on simulated geometric-inconsistent dual-energy CT data showing fast convergence and improved accuracy over NCPD, NKM, IFBP, and INTRPL. Section 6 further demonstrates flexibility in the choice of the special point and of the approximate inverse, and extends the method to the geometric-consistent case.

Significance. If the convergence hypotheses were verified for the tested configurations, this would be a valuable contribution: the derivative factorization at zero is clean and correct, and the resulting algorithm is both conceptually simple and computationally attractive. The numerical results are consistent and show a clear advantage in speed and accuracy over existing methods. The paper also usefully identifies the algorithm as a framework with two adjustable modules, the special point and the approximate inverse. The main weakness is that the convergence theory is not connected to the experiments: the constants that control the discrete convergence theorem are never computed or bounded, and the continuous theorem explicitly assumes geometric consistency, so it does not cover the motivating inconsistent case. Closing this gap is necessary before the paper's central claim is fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Lemma 2 and Theorem 2, Eqs. (25)–(26), (33)–(34)] The convergence theorem for the discrete algorithm rests on an unquantified constant η̃ and on the approximate-inverse residual bound (34). The paper never computes or bounds η̃, κ_F(P⊗φ), γ, or ζ for the geometries in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. In particular, since ρ may be a vertex of the unit simplex, η̃ is at least max_{q,d,m} |b_dm/(b_d^T ŵ^q) − 1|, and κ_F(P⊗φ) is the ratio of the Frobenius norm to the minimum singular value of a 294,912×32,768 block matrix in the 128×128 experiment. Both quantities are plausibly large enough that the condition γ = η̃κ_F(P⊗φ) < 1 is not assured. Consequently, Theorem 2 does not, as written, certify the convergence reported in Figures 2 and 6, and the statement in Section 5.2 that the results confirm the convergence theory of Theorem 2 is unsupported. Please report numerical estimates of these constants for the actual spectra, MAC tables, and projection geometries, or replace the theorem with a condition that can be checked without computing spectral gaps of a huge ill-conditioned matrix.
  2. [§4.1, Lemma 1 and Theorem 1] Lemma 1 explicitly assumes T_n^q = T_n for all q, i.e., geometric consistency. Therefore Theorem 1's global convergence proof applies only to the geometric-consistent case, not to the geometric-inconsistent MSCT that motivates the paper. The continuous analysis cannot be used to justify Algorithm 1 for the stated problem; the discrete Theorem 2 is the only candidate covering the motivating case, and its hypotheses are unchecked as noted above. The paper should either extend the continuous proof to genuinely inconsistent sets T_n^q or revise the claims in Sections 4 and 7 to state clearly that the continuous convergence result requires geometric consistency.
  3. [§5.1 and Theorem 2, Eq. (34)] In the numerical experiments, P+ is implemented by FBP with a one-bandwidth Ram–Lak filter, and in Section 6 also by CG and L-BFGS. Theorem 2 requires the residual δ^k of the approximate inverse to satisfy ∥δ^k∥ ≤ ζ∥K(f^k)−g∥ with ζ < (1−γ)/(1+γ). No estimate of δ^k is given for FBP, or for CG and L-BFGS with their chosen inner-iteration counts, in the geometrically inconsistent full-scan setting. Without such an estimate, the convergence theorem does not cover the actual algorithm whose performance is reported. At minimum, the authors should state this as an explicit assumption and discuss how it could be validated numerically, or prove a version of the theorem that does not require a global ζ.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§3.1.2, Algorithm 1 line 5 and §3.2.2, Algorithm 2 line 5, Eq. (28)] The displayed update rules contain a spurious minus sign before the f^k term; the correct update from Eqs. (17) and (27) is f^{k+1} = f^k − (inverse Jacobian)(g − K(f^k)). Please fix the sign in both algorithms.
  2. [§3.2.2, Eq. (26)] The symbol ⊗ is used for a nonstandard block multiplication between P and φ and should be defined explicitly to avoid confusion with the usual Kronecker product, which has different block layout conventions.
  3. [§4.2, Lemma 2] Lemma 2 assumes that P has full column rank, but this rank condition is not verified for the rectangular projection matrices arising in the inconsistent geometries of Section 5. Please state how it is checked or argue it from the full-scan view coverage.
  4. [§5.3] The description of the noisy data is insufficient: it is not clear whether Gaussian noise is added to the line integrals before or after the logarithm, what noise level corresponds to 34.3 dB, and how many noise realizations are used. Please specify the exact generation procedure.
  5. [§5 and §6] The paper would benefit from a data and code availability statement, since the spectra, MAC tables, phantoms, and implementations of the compared methods are not released, making the numerical results difficult to reproduce.
  6. [§2.2 and §5] The term 'mildly full scan' is used in the abstract and Section 5 but is not defined until the experimental setup; please define it formally at first use.
  7. [§7, Conclusion] The sentence claiming this is the first literature to use derivative-structure-based algorithms for geometric-inconsistent MSCT is hard to verify and should be softened or supported by a more thorough literature search.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the AFIRE update is derived directly from the forward model (spectra and MAC tables), the convergence proof is a genuine contraction argument, and the unverified hypotheses in Section 4 are soundness gaps rather than circular reductions.

full rationale

The core derivation of AFIRE is self-contained. The Jacobian factorization at the zero image is computed from the forward model: equation (10) gives the Gâteaux derivative of the continuous map, and equation (26) writes the discrete Jacobian as -P ⊗ φ with φ defined in equation (25) directly from the energy spectra and MAC tables. The iteration (27)/(29) is the standard simplified/inexact Newton update; no parameter is fitted to projection data, and no predicted quantity is defined in terms of the algorithm's output. The convergence analysis in Section 4 is a genuine contraction proof: Lemma 2 states a Lipschitz-type assumption on the data model, and Theorem 2 derives uniqueness and convergence from the contraction factor γ < 1 and the residual bound (34). Those hypotheses—η̃, κF(P ⊗ φ), and ζ—are not numerically verified for the Section 5 geometries, and Lemma 1 assumes geometric consistency (Tn_q = Tn) so Theorem 1 does not cover the motivating inconsistent case; these are soundness/verification gaps, not circular reductions. The self-citations [16]-[18] are used only as background and comparison material, not as load-bearing support for the AFIRE derivation or its convergence result.

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

The central algorithm has no data-fitted free parameters: the 2 by 2 matrix phi is computed from the spectra and mass attenuation tables, not from the measurements, and C=0 is a convenient choice for the special point. The convergence theory relies on several unquantified assumptions, including a uniform relative Lipschitz bound in Lemma 2, gamma<1, residual bounds for the approximate inverse, and full-column-rank projection matrices. The continuous theorem further requires T^q_n = T_n, which is geometric consistency. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math X-ray transform P_q from H^{-1/2}_0(Omega) to L^2(T^q_n) is invertible when T^q_n meets every equatorial circle (Natterer-Wubbeling Theorem 2.11).
    Used in Proposition 2 and Remark 2 to justify P^{-1}; requires full-scan-like geometry.
  • standard math The forward map K is Frechet differentiable and the mean value theorem applies in the chosen Sobolev spaces.
    Proposition 1 proves Frechet differentiability; the convergence proofs in Section 4 use the integral form of the mean value theorem.
  • domain assumption Q=D, i.e., number of spectra equals number of basis images, and the discrete projection matrices P_q are full-column-rank or invertible in the square case.
    Used in Propositions 2-3 and Theorem 2; Q=D=2 holds in DECT, and the mildly full-scan overdetermined measurements make P_q full column rank plausible but it is not checked.
  • ad hoc to paper There exists a uniform eta such that |integral (rho-Phi_hat) b_d| <= eta |integral Phi_hat b_d| for every normalized spectrum rho, and eta kappa_F(phi) < 1.
    Lemma 1 in Section 4.1; this bound is assumed, never verified for the spectra and MAC in the experiments, and may fail when integral Phi_hat b_d is small.
  • ad hoc to paper There exists a uniform eta-tilde such that |b_d^T what^q - b_d^T rho| < eta-tilde |b_d^T what^q| for every rho in the unit simplex, and gamma = eta-tilde kappa_F(P⊗phi) < 1.
    Lemma 2 and Theorem 2 in Section 4.2; no values or checks of eta-tilde or kappa_F(P⊗phi) are reported, and the condition number of the 294,912 by 32,768 block matrix is likely large.
  • ad hoc to paper The chosen approximate inverse P+ (FBP, CG, or L-BFGS) produces residuals delta^k satisfying ||delta^k|| <= zeta ||K(f^k)-g|| with zeta < (1-gamma)/(1+gamma).
    Theorem 2 equation (34) and Remark 10; the paper does not demonstrate this bound for any of the implementations used in Section 6.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AFIRE: Accurate and Fast Image Reconstruction Algorithm for Geometric-inconsistent Multispectral CT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B6CJYZTA

@misc{pith2026250524793,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AFIRE: Accurate and Fast Image Reconstruction Algorithm for Geometric-inconsistent Multispectral CT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B6CJYZTA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24793}
}
read the original abstract

For nonlinear multispectral computed tomography (CT), accurate and fast image reconstruction is challenging when the scanning geometries under different X-ray energy spectra are inconsistent or mismatched. Motivated by this, we propose an Accurate and Fast Image REconstruction (AFIRE) algorithm to address such problems in the case of mildly full scan. From the continuous (resp. discrete) setting, we discover that the derivative operator (gradient) of the involved nonlinear mapping at some special points, for example, at zero, can be represented as a composition (block multiplication) of a diagonal operator (matrix) composed of X-ray transforms (projection matrices) and a very small-scale matrix. Based on these insights, the AFIRE algorithm is proposed by leveraging the simplified Newton method. Under proper conditions, we establish the convergence theory of the proposed algorithm. Furthermore, numerical experiments are also carried out to verify that the proposed algorithm can accurately and effectively reconstruct the basis images in completely geometric-inconsistent dual-energy CT with noiseless and noisy projection data. Particularly, the proposed algorithm significantly outperforms some state-of-the-art methods in terms of accuracy and efficiency. Finally, the flexibility and extensibility of the proposed algorithm are also demonstrated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24793 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The used energy spectra pair in tests which contains an 80-kV spectrum (red, solid) and a filtered 140-kV spectrum (blue, dashed dot). where f k represents the k-th iteration point computed by the used algorithm, f ∗ the given truth, and g the simulated noiseless/noisy data. Moreover, we use the following error metrics between adjacent iterations to further evaluate the numerical convergence of the proposed algorith… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Metrics REk f (left) and REk g (right) are plotted in semi-log scale as func￾tions of iteration numbers for reconstructing basis images of the forbild phantom by the proposed algorithm AFIRE, and NCPD, NKM, IFBP, INTRPL from the noiseless data. inverting noiseless data. The results also confirm the convergence theory estab￾lished in theorem 2. In contrast, NCPD and NKM are still far from convergence, and INTRPL can … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Metrics REk f (left) and REk g (right) are plotted in semi-log scale over time (in seconds) for reconstructing basis images of the forbild phantom by the proposed algorithm AFIRE, and NCPD, NKM, IFBP, INTRPL from the noiseless data. We further plot the curves of metrics ∆k f and ∆k g in fig. 4, which also demon￾strate the numerical convergence of the proposed algorithm AFIRE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Metrics ∆k f (left) and ∆k g (right) are plotted in semi-log scale as func￾tions of iteration numbers for reconstructing basis images of the forbild phantom by the proposed algorithm AFIRE from the noiseless data. Furthermore, as shown in fig. 5, the reconstructed basi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: From left to right: basis images of water and bone, VMIs at energies 60 keV and 100 keV of the forbild phantom. From top to bottom: the truths, the results after 100 iterations using the proposed algorithm AFIRE, and NCPD, NKM, INTRPL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Metrics REk f (left) and REk g (right) are plotted in semi-log scale as func￾tions of iteration numbers for reconstructing basis images of the real torso image by the proposed algorithm AFIRE, and NCPD, NKM, IFBP, IN￾TRPL from the noisy data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Metrics REk f (left) and REk g (right) are plotted in semi-log scale over time (in seconds) for reconstructing basis images of the real torso image by the proposed algorithm AFIRE, and NCPD, NKM, IFBP, INTRPL from the noisy data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Metrics ∆k f (left) and ∆k g (right) are plotted in semi-log scale as functions of iteration numbers for reconstructing basis images of the real torso image by the proposed algorithm AFIRE from the noisy data. Moreover, after 100 iterations, the reconstructed basis ima…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: From left to right: basis images of water and bone, VMIs at energies 60 keV and 100 keV of the realistic torso image. From top to bottom: the truths, the results after 100 iterations using the proposed algorithm AFIRE, and NCPD, NKM, INTRPL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/fu…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Metrics REk f (left) and REk g (right) are plotted in semi-log scale as func￾tions of iteration numbers for reconstructing basis images of a clinical image in fig. 11 by the proposed algorithm AFIRE with different selec￾tions of {C [q] d } D,Q d,q=1. algorithm using t…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: From left to right: basis images of water and bone, VMIs at energies 60 keV and 100 keV of a clinical image. From top to bottom: the truths, the results after 100 iterations by the proposed algorithm AFIRE with different selections of {C [q] d } D,Q d,q=1 [PITH_FULL_…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: From left to right: basis images of water and bone, VMIs at energies 60 keV and 100 keV of a clinical image. From top to bottom: the truths, the results after 100 iterations by the proposed algorithm AFIRE with the implementations of FBP, CG and L-BFGS for the approxi…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Metrics REk f (left) and REk g (right) are plotted in semi-log scale as func￾tions of iteration numbers for reconstructing basis images of a clinical image in fig. 12 by the proposed algorithm with different implementa￾tions of FBP, CG and L-BFGS for the approximated …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: From left to right: basis images of water and bone, VMIs at energies 60 keV and 100 keV of a clinical image. From top to bottom: the truths, the results by the proposed algorithm AFIRE after 100 iterations and the benchmark two-step DDD method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Metrics REk f (left) and REk g (right) are plotted in semi-log scale as functions of iteration numbers for the geometric-consistent MSCT re￾construction problem using the proposed algorithm AFIRE and the benchmark two-step DDD method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The scattered diagrams of the metrics of relative errors REk f (left) and REk g (right) for reconstructing the basis images generated by randomly sampled Gaussian distribution by using the proposed AFIRE algorithm after 100 iterations from the noiseless data. 7 Conclu…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adler, H

    J. Adler, H. Kohr, A. Ringh, J. Moosmann, B. Sebanert, M. J. Ehrhardt, G. R. Lee, K. Niinimaki, B. Gris, O. Verdier, J. Karlsson, G. Zickert, W. J. Palenstijn, O. ¨Oktem, C. Chen, H. A. Loarca, and M. Lohmann. odlgroup/odl: ODL 0.7.0. Zenodo, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Alkadhi, A

    H. Alkadhi, A. Euler, D. Maintz, and D. Sahani, editors. Spectral Imag- ing: Dual-Energy, Multi-Energy and Photon-Counting CT . Springer Cham, Cham, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    R. E. Alvarez. Invertibility of the dual energy x-ray data transform.Medical Physics, 46:93–103, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    R. E. Alvarez and A. Macovski. Energy-selective reconstructions in X-ray computerized tomography. Phys. Med. Biol. , 21(5):733–744, 1976

    work page 1976

  5. [5]

    Bal and F

    G. Bal and F. Terzioglu. Uniqueness criteria in multi-energy CT. Inverse Problems, 36(6):065006, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    R. F. Barber, E. Y. Sidky, T. G. Schmidt, and X. Pan. An algorithm for constrained one-step inversion of spectral CT data. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 61(10):3784–3818, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    T. Buzug. Computed Tomography: From Photon Statistics to Modern Cone-Beam CT. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    C. Cai, T. Rodet, S. Legoupil, and A. Mohammad-Djafari. A full-spectral Bayesian reconstruction approach based on the material decomposition model applied in dual-energy computed tomography. Medical physics , 40(11):111916, 2013

    work page 2013

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    B. Chen, Z. Zhang, E. Y. Sidky, D. Xia, and X. Pan. Image reconstruc- tion and scan configurations enabled by optimization-based algorithms in multispectral CT. Phys. Med. Biol. , 62:8763–8793, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    B. Chen, Z. Zhang, D. Xia, E. Sidky, and X. Pan. Non-convex primal-dual algorithm for image reconstruction in spectral CT. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics , 87:101821, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    C. Chen, R. Wang, C. Bajaj, and O. ¨Oktem. An efficient algorithm to com- pute the X-ray transform. International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 99(7):1325–1343, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Deuflhard

    P. Deuflhard. Newton Methods for Nonlinear Problems: Affine Invariance and Adaptive Algorithms . Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    Y. Ding, E. Clarkson, and A. Ashok. Invertibility of multi-energy X-ray transform. Medical Physics, 48(10):5959–5973, 2021. A Appendix 38

    2021

  6. [14]

    Dr´ abek and J

    P. Dr´ abek and J. Milota. Methods of nonlinear analysis: Applications to differential equations. Birkh¨ auser Basel, second edition, 01 2007

    2007

  7. [15]

    I. A. Elbakri and J. A. Fessler. Statistical image reconstruction for polyener- getic X-ray computed tomography. IEEE transactions on medical imaging , 21(2):89–99, 2002

    2002

  8. [16]

    Gao and C

    Y. Gao and C. Chen. Convergence Analysis of Nonlinear Kaczmarz Method for Systems of Nonlinear Equations with Componentwise Convex Mapping. SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences , 18(1):120–151, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Y. Gao, X. Pan, and C. Chen. An extended primal-dual algorithm frame- work for nonconvex problems: application to image reconstruction in spec- tral CT. Inverse Problems, 38(8):085011, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Y. Gao, X. Pan, and C. Chen. Analysis of Solution Existence, Uniqueness, and Stability of Discrete Basis Sinograms in Multispectral CT. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision , 66(4):741–757, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Greffier, N

    J. Greffier, N. Villani, D. Defez, D. Dabli, and S. Si-Mohamed. Spectral CT imaging: Technical principles of dual-energy CT and multi-energy photon- counting CT. Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, 104(4):167–177, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    G. N. Hounsfield. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography): Part 1. Description of system. Br. J. Radiol. , 46:1016–1022, 1973

    1973

  13. [21]

    J. Hsieh. Computed tomography: principles, design, artifacts, and recent advances. SPIE Press, Bellingham, Washington, third edition, 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    J. H. Hubbell and S. M. Seltzer. Tables of X-ray mass attenuation coeffi- cients and mass energy-absorption coefficients 1 keV to 20 MeV for elements Z= 1 to 92 and 48 additional substances of dosimetric interest. Technical report, National Inst. of Standards and Technology-PL...

    1995

  15. [23]

    Kaltenbacher, A

    B. Kaltenbacher, A. Neubauer, and O. Scherzer. Iterative regularization methods for nonlinear ill-posed problems . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2008

    2008

  16. [24]

    Leuschner, M

    J. Leuschner, M. Schmidt, D. O. Baguer, and P. Maass. LoDoPaB-CT, a benchmark dataset for low-dose computed tomography reconstruction. Scientific Data , 8(1):109, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Z. Levine. Nonuniqueness in dual-energy CT. Medical Physics, 44(9):e202– e206, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    M. Li, Y. Zhao, and P. Zhang. Accurate Iterative FBP Reconstruction Method for Material Decomposition of Dual Energy CT. IEEE Transac- tions on Medical Imaging , 38(3):802–812, 2019. A Appendix 39

    2019

  19. [27]

    Long and J

    Y. Long and J. A. Fessler. Multi-Material Decomposition Using Statistical Image Reconstruction for Spectral CT. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 33(8):1614–1626, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    Macovski, R

    A. Macovski, R. E. Alvarez, J. L.-H. Chan, J. P. Stonestrom, and L. M. Zatz. Energy dependent reconstruction in X-ray computerized tomography. Comput. Biol. Med. , 6:325–336, 1976

    1976

  21. [29]

    McCollough, S

    C. McCollough, S. Leng, L. Yu, and J. Fletcher. Dual- and Multi-Energy CT: Principles, Technical Approaches, and Clinical Applications. Radiol- ogy, 276(3):637–653, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    Mechlem, S

    K. Mechlem, S. Ehn, T. Sellerer, E. Braig, D. M¨ unzel, F. Pfeiffer, and P. B. No¨ el. Joint statistical iterative material image reconstruction for spectral computed tomography using a semi-empirical forward model. IEEE trans- actions on medical imaging , 37(1):68–80, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Natterer

    F. Natterer. The Mathematics of Computerized Tomography . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2001

    2001

  24. [32]

    Natterer and F

    F. Natterer and F. W¨ ubbeling. Mathematical Methods in Image Recon- struction. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2001

    2001

  25. [33]

    J. M. Ortega and W. C. Rheinboldt. Iterative Solution of Nonlinear Equa- tions in Several Variables . SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2000

    2000

  26. [34]

    Philippe

    D. Philippe. SpectrumGUI. https://sourceforge.net/projects/ spectrumgui/, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    L. A. Shepp and J. B. Kruskal. Computerized Tomography: The New Medical X-Ray Technology. American Mathematical Monthly , 85(6):420– 439, 1978

    1978

  28. [36]

    Zhang, J.-B

    R. Zhang, J.-B. Thibault, C. Bouman, K. Sauer, and J. Hsieh. Model-based iterative reconstruction for dual-energy X-ray CT using a joint quadratic likelihood model. IEEE transactions on medical imaging , 33(1):117–134, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Y. Zhao, X. Zhao, and P. Zhang. An extended algebraic reconstruction technique (E-ART) for dual spectral CT. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 34(3):761–768, 2015

    2015

  30. [38]

    Zou and M

    Y. Zou and M. D. Silver. Analysis of Fast kV-switching in Dual Energy CT using a Pre-reconstruction Decomposition Technique. In J. Hsieh and E. Samei, editors, Medical Imaging 2008: Physics of Medical Imaging , vol- ume 6913, page 691313. SPIE, 2008

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.