Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Bounded-Latency Spherical-Histogram Reconstruction for Compton Cameras

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A spherical-histogram state makes Compton-camera reconstruction cost independent of the accumulated event count.

desk verdict A real representational change for Compton reconstruction, backed by credible flat-latency timing; the main open question is whether image quality stays adequate within the fixed iteration budget as events accumulate. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27785 v1 pith:DZIBGKUR submitted 2026-07-30 physics.ins-det physics.med-ph

Francisco J. Albiol , Luis Caballero , José Escalante , Alberto Albiol , Salvador Tortajada , Elena Larrea Estrelles , José Luis Leganés-Nieto This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detphysics.med-ph
keywords Comptoncameragamma-rayimagingsphericalhistogramsimagereconstructionlist-modeMLEMboundedlatencyevent-countinvariancesparseprojectionoperator
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

Compton gamma cameras reconstruct a source from many Compton cones, but conventional list-mode methods re-process every event inside the inversion loop, so reconstruction cost grows with event count. This paper proposes encoding each event, as it arrives, into detector-centred spherical histograms, then reconstructing the volume from a frozen snapshot using a precomputed sparse projection operator. The central claim is that this detaches event accumulation from iterative inversion: once geometry, the sparse operator, and the iteration budget are fixed, the snapshot-to-volume transaction cost is effectively independent of how many events have accumulated, measured at about two seconds per snapshot. The authors support this with a measured linear scaling law for list-mode MLEM, bounded-latency timings over nine acquisition sessions and 305 snapshots, near-field Monte Carlo point-source localization of a few millimetres, and a qualitative three-sphere phantom result where the encoded state separates coherent source structure from diffuse cone background.

What carries the argument

The fly-eye spherical-histogram encoding: the detector surface is decomposed into spheres, and each Compton cone is projected as a circular support on each sphere, with anti-aliased bin updates. A sparse projection operator, precomputed once geometry and resolution are fixed, maps histogram bins to volume voxels using ray-tracing with voxel-intersection length, efficiency, and attenuation weights. Because the inversion runs as forward/backward passes over this fixed sparse operator rather than over event-specific cone/voxel interactions, the reconstruction state is bounded and event accumulation is decoupled from the iterative solver.

What would settle it

Count the number of iterations, or total reconstruction time, needed to reach a fixed image-quality target — such as a set centroid error or contrast-to-noise ratio — as accumulated events range from 10^2 to 10^7 in the same geometry. If the required iteration count or active sparse support grows with event count at a fixed quality target, the snapshot-to-volume cost is not truly event-count independent; conversely, an unchanged cost at 10^7 events with quality held fixed would support the claim. A second test is to repeat the phantom experiment with a matched list-mode implementation and acce

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the event stream of a Compton camera can be converted, online, into a bounded reconstruction state — a set of detector-centred spherical histograms — so that volumetric image reconstruction never has to replay the photon list. Each event's Compton cone is projected as a circle onto each sphere and its bins are incremented with normalized anti-aliased weights; a precomputed sparse operator then maps histogram bins to voxels, and MLEM runs as snapshot-based forward/backward passes over that operator. With geometry, sparse operator, and iteration budget fixed, the paper's cost decomposition gives reconstruction time as an online per-event encoding term plus a setup ter

Load-bearing premise

The bounded-latency result rests on the assumption that a fixed iteration budget (at most 20 MLEM iterations, stopping below 1e-4) continues to deliver adequate image quality as the accumulated event count grows; if more events demand more iterations or a larger active sparse support to reach the same quality, practical latency would grow even though the per-transaction cost stays flat.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Continuous acquisition can be decoupled from inversion: histogram states can be frozen and reconstructed asynchronously while new events keep being encoded.
  • Adding events changes only the online accumulation stage, so higher detection rates need not raise reconstruction latency, potentially enabling shorter acquisition windows or finer temporal sampling.
  • The encoded state is fixed-dimensional and tensor-compatible, so regularized or learning-based reconstruction methods could operate on the state rather than on raw event lists.
  • The precomputable sparse operator supports multi-view and multi-resolution operation with a natural per-sphere parallelization, localizing queue contention in online processing.
  • The representation separates coherent source structure from diffuse cone background, as shown qualitatively in the phantom sequence, a property not observed in the list-mode pipeline used for comparison.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the bounded-latency property persists at much larger event counts and with quality-matched stopping rules, Compton imaging could shift from batch reconstruction to continuous near-real-time volumetric monitoring, subject to detector readout capacity.
  • The same histogram-state abstraction may apply to other cone-based imaging modalities, since any inverse problem with continuously varying cone axes could be re-expressed through a fixed angular basis attached to the detector surface.
  • The phantom observation suggests a testable extension: multi-view angular consistency across spheres could suppress incoherent background before volumetric inversion, not only after it.
  • Because the paper's GPU claim is architectural rather than measured, a matched GPU implementation of the sparse forward/backward operator may reduce the two-second transaction substantially, making sub-second reconstruction feasible.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a spherical-histogram representation for Compton cameras: each event is encoded online into detector-centred angular histograms (a fly-eye structure), and volumetric reconstruction is performed from coherent histogram snapshots through a precomputed sparse projection operator. The central claim is that, after state formation, the snapshot-to-volume reconstruction transaction is effectively independent of the number of accumulated events, with cost dominated by the active sparse operator and iteration budget (Eq. 10). The authors support this with timing measurements across 305 snapshots from nine sessions (mean ≈2003 ms, CV 5.6%), showing a flat transaction cost while accumulated events grow from 55 to 243,543 raw events, and with a conventional list-mode MLEM benchmark exhibiting linear scaling (R²=0.9999987). Additional results include near-field point-source localization (3.5–3.8 mm centroid error for three of four snapshots) and a qualitative structured-phantom demonstration.

Significance. If the representational change holds, it provides a principled way to remove event-dependent cone/voxel processing from the iterative inversion loop, enabling bounded-latency reconstruction under continuous acquisition—a relevant goal for Compton imaging in medical and nuclear applications. The theoretical cost decomposition is sound and the extensive timing evidence directly supports the conditional claim: for fixed geometry, operator, and iteration budget, the transaction cost does not grow with event count. The paper is explicitly careful to scope its claims, disclaiming hardware comparisons and qualitative phantom results. Strengths include reproducible session-level statistics, clear presentation of the scaling contrast, and the conceptual reframing of the reconstruction state as a fixed-dimensional object. The main weakness is that the practical interpretation of 'bounded-latency reconstruction' requires demonstrating that a fixed iteration budget delivers adequate image quality as event counts grow, which is not provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III-D, Eq. (10), Table II] The paper demonstrates that the per-transaction reconstruction cost is flat under a fixed iteration cap (max 20 iterations, operational stop below 1e-4), but it never tests whether that fixed budget is sufficient to reach a fixed image-quality target as the accumulated event count grows. Table II contains only four snapshots, with one centroid error of 16.0 mm (session bddef1c6), and there is no systematic sweep of event count versus iteration budget or image quality. Section II-F leaves open the possibility that SNR-driven resolution selection enlarges the active sparse support E with statistics; if the required iteration count or E grows, the practical latency of a usable reconstruction would grow even though C_FB(E) is fixed. Please add a quality-versus-event-count analysis (e.g., localization error and convergence metric at 5/10/15/20 iterations across the reported event range), or e
  2. [§II-C, §II-H, §III-C] The central scaling and localization results depend on an unreleased internal implementation, and the paper does not specify the parameters that determine the sparse operator: the number, positions, and diameters of the fly-eye spheres; the angular bin count N per sphere; the definition of the active sparse support E; and the construction of M(j) in Eq. (6). Without these, the reported 2-s transaction cost and the linear list-mode fit (R²=0.9999987) cannot be independently reproduced or compared. Please provide a complete parameter table (or release the code) for the reported sessions, including the fly-eye geometry and angular resolution used in Tables II–V.
  3. [§III-C, Fig. 8] The headline scaling comparison is between a GPU list-mode implementation with 15 fixed iterations (Table IV) and a CPU bounded-state implementation with up to 20 iterations and an adaptive stop. Although the paper disclaims a hardware benchmark, the fit T_LM(N) ≈ 2.585 + 4.580×10^-3 N s is presented as the conventional baseline for the architectural contrast. Because the reference implementation is internal and described only as '15 fixed iterations,' it is difficult to assess whether the linear law is representative of list-mode MLEM generally or an artifact of that specific unoptimized code. A matched CPU/CPU comparison, or a reference to a publicly available list-mode implementation, would strengthen the central claim that the proposed representation changes the scaling law rather than merely reflecting implementation choices.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III-A, Table II] The text states 'No thresholding or dedicated volumetric post-processing was applied; volumes are analysed directly in the state produced by the iterative solver,' but Table II notes 'Centroid computed over voxels above 50% of peak value.' This is a threshold and should be described consistently.
  2. [§II-F] The claim that 'resolution adjustments can be executed at a unit computational cost' is vague. Specify what 'unit computational cost' means (e.g., constant-time access to precomputed multi-resolution states) and how the SNR-based resolution selection would work in practice.
  3. [§III-B] The difference between the first five snapshots (1,977 ms) and the last five (2,105 ms) is not tested for significance. A simple t-test or confidence interval would substantiate the claim that the slight upward trend is within noise and not a systematic event-count dependence.
  4. [§I, §IV] The 'computational hologram' analogy is used repeatedly but never defined operationally. Consider adding a sentence clarifying that it is an architectural analogy only, to avoid overinterpretation or confusion with optical holography.
  5. [§II-K] The detector-response convolutor is reported to have no visible effect on the reconstructions. This is surprising and would benefit from a supplementary figure showing the same reconstruction with and without the convolutor, since the chosen voxel and fly-eye scales may make the effect genuinely negligible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: bounded-latency split is a measured architectural property; caveats are validation gaps, not circular steps.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce any claimed result to its own input. The central bounded-latency claim rests on the explicit cost decomposition in Eq. (10), T_ours ≈ N·C_cone→sphere + T_setup + I·C_FB(E), which is an architectural statement about the two pipeline phases rather than a fitted prediction; the constant ~2 s transaction cost in Tables III and V is a measurement of that decomposition under fixed geometry, sparse operator, and iteration budget. The only least-squares fit in the paper is the list-mode reference T_LM(N) ≈ 2.585 + 4.580×10^-3 N s (Eq. 11), used descriptively to show a different scaling law, not fed back into the proposed reconstruction. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the only self-referential item is the patent disclosure in Conflict of Interest, which is not invoked as evidence. The paper itself flags the main caveats — the CPU-vs-GPU comparison 'is not a controlled GPU–CPU hardware benchmark,' and 'a dedicated study with matched implementations, stopping policies, image-quality targets, and accelerator configurations would be required' (Sec. III-C/D). Those are validation gaps (e.g., image quality under a fixed iteration budget as events accumulate), not circular steps. Accordingly, no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, but the fixed histogram state is purchased with several hand-chosen discretization parameters and unstated operator coefficients. The central cost claim depends on these being fixed; the localization and phantom claims depend on them being adequate.

free parameters (8)
  • Spherical angular bin count N per sphere = not stated
    Sets cone discretization via Δφ=2π/(N−1) (Section II-D). Hand-chosen resolution parameter; no selection rule or value is given, and it directly determines histogram size and sparse-support size.
  • Fly-eye decomposition (number, positions, diameters of spheres) = not stated
    Chosen by hand as a virtual decomposition of the detector (Section II-C). It controls the angular error and the size of the bounded state; the paper gives no recipe.
  • Voxel grid and voxel size = 33×33×29 voxels, 4 mm
    Reconstruction resolution used in Tables I and II; chosen for the study and not independently justified.
  • Iteration budget and stopping threshold = max 20 MLEM iterations; stop when successive-update metric < 1e-4
    Operational parameters in Table I; the bounded-latency times depend on them. Their adequacy at all event counts is not demonstrated.
  • Relative-bias subtraction threshold τ = 0, 0.7, 0.8 (phantom)
    Chosen after inspection in the phantom experiment (Eq. 12, Fig. 10); the three-sphere structure is only visible after τ is increased.
  • Detector-response convolution parameters = σ_E/E=8%, σ_xy=2 mm, σ_z=3 mm
    Used in the MC noise model (Section II-K2); plausible but not measured or validated for this geometry.
  • Detector-efficiency weight η_{s,v} in sparse operator = not stated
    Appears in Eq. (5) but its construction and calibration are never described; it is part of the precomputed operator and affects the forward model.
  • Additional cutoffs: boundary damping, selective camera subsets, running-statistics cutoffs = not stated
    Mentioned in Section II-I as implemented supports but their definitions and values are not given.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Compton scattering energy-angle relation (Eq. 1) gives the cone opening angle.
    Standard Compton kinematics; accepted as input, not derived.
  • domain assumption A cone whose axis passes through a sphere centre intersects the sphere in a circle; every bin on that circle is an equally possible source ray.
    Geometric basis of the histogram encoding (Section II-D); no event likelihood weighting beyond normalization is used.
  • domain assumption The fly-eye approximation error (shifting real detector pixels to sphere centres) is small enough for near-field localization at the chosen voxel and sphere scales.
    Acknowledged in Section II-C and Fig. 4; error depends on sphere size, source distance, and angle, but is never quantified for the reported configuration.
  • domain assumption The fixed-dimensional histogram snapshot preserves sufficient information for volumetric inversion.
    The central representational premise. No information-loss analysis or reconstruction-error bound is given; the paper relies on empirical localization.
  • domain assumption The sparse projection operator A_jv (Eqs. 5-6) with intersection lengths, efficiency weights, and attenuation is an adequate forward model.
    The operator is precomputed from geometry; detector efficiency η_{s,v} is unspecified, and the measured phantom uses a first-order uniform water attenuation model.
  • ad hoc to paper True sources create multi-view consistency across spheres while noise and background do not, making coherence a usable separator.
    Used qualitatively in Section III-E to explain why the phantom works, but never measured or compared with a noise-only control.
  • domain assumption The internal list-mode MLEM implementation is a fair representative of the conventional reconstruction path.
    The comparison depends on this in-house code, still under evaluation (Section III-C); no external baseline is used.
invented entities (2)
  • Compton Event Space (CES) / computational hologram state
    purpose: Conceptual container for the detector-centred spherical-histogram representation; intended as the bounded reconstruction state.
    It is a representational construct, not a physical object; no falsifiable prediction outside the paper is attached to it.
  • Fly-eye sphere decomposition of detector surfaces
    purpose: Virtual decomposition that maps each real pixel into a sphere-centre angular bin; enables the fixed histogram state.
    Chosen by hand (Section II-C); the approximation error is acknowledged but no external or independent calibration of the spheres is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bounded-Latency Spherical-Histogram Reconstruction for Compton Cameras." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DZIBGKUR

@misc{pith2026260727785,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bounded-Latency Spherical-Histogram Reconstruction for Compton Cameras},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DZIBGKUR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27785}
}
read the original abstract

Gamma-ray imaging with Compton cameras is computationally demanding because conventional reconstruction retains the list-mode acquisition inside the inversion loop: event-dependent cone/voxel interactions must be recomputed as the event count grows. We present a spherical-histogram framework in which each Compton event is encoded online into detector-centred angular histograms. Volumetric reconstruction is then performed from coherent histogram snapshots using a precomputed sparse projection operator. This turns the event stream into a bounded reconstruction state, decoupling event accumulation from iterative inversion. The method supports multi-view and multi-resolution operation, non-blocking acquisition, and iterative forward/backward reconstruction whose dominant cost depends.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27785 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the virtual decomposition of a Compton camera to represent the Compton Event Space with spherical histograms. This particular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Experimental measurement setup. The photographs show the PETsys-connected detector head, the source-positioning stage, and the shielding/background [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Two photons, coming from the same source, produce two hits in the scatter detector plane. The Compton cone containing the original source can be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An illustration of the angular error (red segment) for different fly-eye structures and sources at different distances. On the left, we can compare the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic illustration of the computation of the intersecting points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spherical histograms with different resolutions. All these resolutions are stored in memory, hence any resolution configuration is easily accessible. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The spherical histograms allow treating the Compton camera as a multi-view camera enabling the reconstruction of the volume. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Measured event-count scaling in the two operational reconstruction configurations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Physical three-sphere phantom configuration. Sources are spherical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: CES structured-phantom reconstruction after relative-bias background subtraction (axial view, iteration 14). Columns correspond to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A comprehensive review on Compton camera image reconstruction: from principles to AI innovations,

    S. M. Kim and J. S. Lee, “A comprehensive review on Compton camera image reconstruction: from principles to AI innovations,” Biomedical Engineering Letters, Sep. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13534-024-00418-8

    doi:10.1007/s13534-024-00418-8 2024

  2. [2]

    Development and Applications of Compton Camera—A Review,

    R. K. Parajuli, M. Sakai, R. Parajuli, and M. Tashiro, “Development and Applications of Compton Camera—A Review,”Sensors, vol. 22, no. 19, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    List-mode likelihood,

    H. H. Barrett, T. White, and L. C. Parra, “List-mode likelihood,”Journal of the Optical Society of America A Optics, image science, and vision, vol. 14, no. 11, p. 2914–2923, 1997

    1997

  4. [4]

    List-mode maximum likelihood reconstruction of Compton scatter camera images in nuclear medicine,

    S. Wilderman, N. Clinthorne, J. Fessler, and W. Rogers, “List-mode maximum likelihood reconstruction of Compton scatter camera images in nuclear medicine,” in1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Con- ference Record. 1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (Cat. No.98CH36255), vol. 3, 1998, pp. 1716–1720

    1998

  5. [5]

    Improved modeling of system response in list-mode EM reconstruction of Compton scatter camera images,

    S. Wilderman, J. Fessler, N. Clinthorne, J. LeBlanc, and W. Rogers, “Improved modeling of system response in list-mode EM reconstruction of Compton scatter camera images,”IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 111–116, 2001

    2001

  6. [6]

    Three- Dimensional Compton Imaging Using List-Mode Maximum Likelihood Expectation Maximization,

    S. R. Tornga, M. W. Rawool Sullivan, and J. P. Sullivan, “Three- Dimensional Compton Imaging Using List-Mode Maximum Likelihood Expectation Maximization,”IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 1372–1376, 2009

    2009

  7. [7]

    Evaluation of list-mode ordered subset expectation maximization image reconstruction for pixelated solid-state compton gamma camera with large number of channels,

    M. Kolstein, G. D. Lorenzo, and M. Chmeissani, “Evaluation of list-mode ordered subset expectation maximization image reconstruction for pixelated solid-state compton gamma camera with large number of channels,”Journal of Instrumentation, vol. 9, no. 04, pp. C04 034– C04 034, Apr. 2014. [Online]. Available: https://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1088/1748...

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/04/c04034 2014

  8. [8]

    An Extended List-Mode MLEM Algorithm for 3D Compton Image Reconstruction from Multi-View Data,

    N. Le, H. Snoussi, Z. Hmissi, A. Iltis, G. Lebonvallet, and G. Zeufack, “An Extended List-Mode MLEM Algorithm for 3D Compton Image Reconstruction from Multi-View Data,” inEuropean Physical Journal Web of Conferences, ser. European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, vol. 288, Nov. 2023, p. 06003

    2023

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Reconstruction of cone-beam projections from Compton scattered data,

    L. Parra, “Reconstruction of cone-beam projections from Compton scattered data,”IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 1543–1550, 2000

    2000

  2. [10]

    Image reconstruction from limited angle Compton camera data,

    T. Tomitani and M. Hirasawa, “Image reconstruction from limited angle Compton camera data,”Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 2129–2145, Jun. 2002

    2002

  3. [11]

    An analytical image reconstruction algorithm to compensate for scattering angle broadening in Compton cameras,

    M. Hirasawa and T. Tomitani, “An analytical image reconstruction algorithm to compensate for scattering angle broadening in Compton cameras,”Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 1009–1026, Apr. 2003. [Online]. Available: https://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1...

    2003 doi

  4. [12]

    Filtered Back-Projection in 4 $\pi$ Compton Imaging With a Single 3D Position Sensitive CdZnTe Detector,

    D. Xu and Z. He, “Filtered Back-Projection in 4 $\pi$ Compton Imaging With a Single 3D Position Sensitive CdZnTe Detector,”IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 2787–2796, Oct

  5. [13]

    The Mathematical Foundations of 3D Compton Scatter Emission Imaging,

    T. T. Truong, M. K. Nguyen, and H. Zaidi, “The Mathematical Foundations of 3D Compton Scatter Emission Imaging,”International Journal of Biomedical Imaging, vol. 2007, no. 1, p. 092780, Jan

    2007

  6. [14]

    3D image reconstruction for a Compton SPECT camera model,

    A. Sauve, A. Hero, W. Rogers, S. Wilderman, and N. Clinthorne, “3D image reconstruction for a Compton SPECT camera model,”IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 2075–2084, Dec

  7. [15]

    Fast EM-like methods for maximum

    A. De Pierro and M. Yamagishi, “Fast EM-like methods for maximum ”a posteriori” estimates in emission tomography,”IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 280–288, Apr. 2001. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/921477/

    2001

  8. [16]

    Globally convergent image reconstruction for emission tomography using relaxed ordered subsets algorithms,

    S. Ahn and J. Fessler, “Globally convergent image reconstruction for emission tomography using relaxed ordered subsets algorithms,”IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 613–626, May

  9. [17]

    Three-dimensional edge-preserving regularization for Compton camera reconstruction,

    S.-J. Lee, M. N. Lee, V .-G. Nguyen, S. M. Kim, and J. S. Lee, “Three-dimensional edge-preserving regularization for Compton camera reconstruction,” in2008 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. Dresden, Germany: IEEE, Oct. 2008, pp. 4223–4228. [Online]. Available: ...

    2008

  10. [18]

    Fast image reconstruction for Compton camera using stochastic origin ensemble approach,

    A. Andreyev, A. Sitek, and A. Celler, “Fast image reconstruction for Compton camera using stochastic origin ensemble approach,”Medical Physics, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 429–438, Jan. 2011. [Online]. Available: https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1118/1.3528170

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    Resolution recovery for Compton camera using origin ensemble algorithm: Resolution recovery for Compton camera,

    A. Andreyev, A. Celler, I. Ozsahin, and A. Sitek, “Resolution recovery for Compton camera using origin ensemble algorithm: Resolution recovery for Compton camera,”Medical Physics, vol. 43, no. 8Part1, pp. 4866–4876, Jul. 2016. [Online]. Available: http: //doi.wiley.com/10.1118...

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Development of convolutional neural networks for an electron-tracking Compton camera,

    T. Ikeda, A. Takada, M. Abe, K. Yoshikawa, M. Tsuda, S. Ogio, S. Sonoda, Y . Mizumura, Y . Yoshida, and T. Tanimori, “Development of convolutional neural networks for an electron-tracking Compton camera,”Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, vol. 2021, no. 8, p. 08...

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    Application of a deep learning algorithm to Compton imaging of radioactive point sources with a single planar CdTe pixelated detector,

    G. Daniel, Y . Gutierrez, and O. Limousin, “Application of a deep learning algorithm to Compton imaging of radioactive point sources with a single planar CdTe pixelated detector,”Nuclear Engineering and Technology, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 1747–1753, May

  14. [22]

    Towards machine learning aided real-time range imaging in proton therapy,

    J. Lerendegui-Marco, J. Balibrea-Correa, V . Babiano-Suarez, I. Ladarescu, and C. Domingo-Pardo, “Towards machine learning aided real-time range imaging in proton therapy,” Scientific Reports, vol. 12, p. 2735, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-...

    2022

  15. [23]

    GPU-accelerated iterative reconstruction from Compton scattered data using a matched pair of conic projector and backprojector,

    V .-G. Nguyen and S.-J. Lee, “GPU-accelerated iterative reconstruction from Compton scattered data using a matched pair of conic projector and backprojector,”Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 131, pp. 27–36, Jul. 2016. [Online]. Available: https://linkinghub.e...

    2016

  16. [24]

    Hartley and A

    R. Hartley and A. Zisserman,Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000

    2000

  17. [25]

    Quantities and units. part 2: Mathematics,

    “Quantities and units. part 2: Mathematics,” Geneva, CH, Standard ISO 80000-2:2019, 2019, https://www.iso.org/es/contents/data/standard/ 06/49/64973.html, accessed April 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //www.iso.org/es/contents/data/standard/06/49/64973.html

    2019

  18. [26]

    Geant4—a simulation toolkit,

    S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arceet al., “Geant4—a simulation toolkit,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, vol. 506, no. 3, pp. 250– 303, 2003. [O...

    2003

  19. [27]

    Geant4 developments and applications,

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce Duboiset al., “Geant4 developments and applications,”IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 270–278, 2006

    2006

  20. [28]

    Recent developments in geant4,

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, P. Arce, M. Asaiet al., “Recent developments in geant4,”Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, vol. 835, pp. 186–225, 2016. [Online]. Available: https...

    2016

  21. [1999]

    Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/819285/

    [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/819285/

  22. [2003]

    Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1207396/

    [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1207396/

  23. [2006]

    Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1710269/

    [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1710269/

  24. [2007]

    Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/ 2007/92780

    [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/ 2007/92780

    2007

  25. [2022]

    Available: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S173857332100615X

    [Online]. Available: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S173857332100615X

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.