Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 73 references

Splat-based Metal Artifact Reduction in Cone-Beam CT via Polychromatic Modeling

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A splat-based polychromatic model can remove metal beam-hardening streaks from cone-beam CT while reconstructing the volume, without masks or spectrum priors.

desk verdict Solid splat-based polychromatic CBCT reconstruction with a correct core derivation and real speed gains, but the real-data superiority claim rests on qualitative slices until quantitative metrics are added. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13159 v1 pith:44TLOEAF submitted 2026-08-13 cs.CV cs.GR

Kiseok Choi , Inchul Kim , Jaemin Cho , Hyeongjun Cho , Min H. Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.GR
keywords cone-beamCTmetalartifactreductionbeamhardeningGaussiansplattingpolychromaticforwardmodelsystemresponseself-calibrationphotoelectricattenuationCBCTreconstruction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the dark streaks and cupping artifacts of metal-induced beam hardening in cone-beam CT can be removed by replacing the monochromatic forward model used in Gaussian splatting with an energy-aware polychromatic one. Each Gaussian carries two densities: a constant Compton density and a photoelectric density that scales as $\bar{E}^{-3}$, and a global two-parameter system response $\eta(\bar{E})$ is optimized together with the volume, so no metal masks, known spectra, or paired training data are needed. It reports higher 3D PSNR and SSIM than FDK, LIMAR, NMAR, Polyner, the fan-beam neural baseline, and learning-based baselines on three synthetic phantoms, and qualitatively cleaner reconstructions on five real CBCT scans. It also runs in roughly 15 to 30 minutes per scan, about an order of magnitude faster than the compared neural representation baselines. If the claims hold, physics-based beam-hardening correction becomes practical on commodity GPUs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the discrete polychromatic forward projector, Eqs. (11)-(12): $P(\hat{x}) = \sum_i w_i(\hat{x})\rho^a_i - \log \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \eta_k \exp(-E_k^{-3} \sum_i w_i(\hat{x})\rho^b_i)$. Because the Compton term is energy-independent, it factors out of the exponential, leaving a monochromatic line integral plus an integral over the spectral response applied only to the photoelectric term. The system response $\eta(\bar{E})$ is modeled as a soft piecewise function: a linear decay into a constant plateau, with two trainable parameters (threshold $\bar{E}_{th}$ and intensity ratio $r$). This simple family is chosen to avoid overfitting and to keep self-calibration stable; jointly optimizing it with the Gaussian parameters eliminates the need for spectrum priors and metal masks.

What would settle it

Measure the X-ray spectrum of a scanner with a spectrometer (or scan a phantom with a known k-edge material such as a barium or lead foil) and compare it to the best-fit two-parameter response recovered by the method; if the true spectrum shows peaks or edges that the linear-decay-plateau family cannot express, the method's reconstructed attenuation coefficients will deviate systematically from NIST reference values and residual streak artifacts should reappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that beam hardening can be corrected jointly with reconstruction by endowing each Gaussian primitive with two energy-dependent densities — a constant Compton component $\rho^a_i$ and a photoelectric component $\rho^b_i / \bar{E}^3$ — and by fitting a global, two-parameter system response $\eta(\bar{E})$ whose only free parameters are the threshold energy and the plateau ratio. Putting these into the Beer-Lambert integral separates the Compton line integral from the energy integral, stabilizing the optimization. The same optimization adapts the Gaussian positions, covariances, and densities from FDK-based initialization, and the final volume is evaluated from the fitted Gaussians. On the three synthetic phantoms and five real scans tested, the method claims state-of-the-art artifact suppression and higher reconstruction accuracy than the baselines, while recovering attenuation coefficients for water and aluminum that match the NIST database at the center energy. This is presented as the first splat-based beam-hardening reduction method for CBCT.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the true X-ray system response—source spectrum, filter, and detector sensitivity combined—can be adequately represented by a soft linear decay into a constant plateau with only two free parameters; if the real system's response has structure outside that family, such as characteristic emission peaks, a thick filter, or strong energy-dependent detector nonlinearity, the self-calibration cannot recover it and beam-hardening correction will be incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the tested data, metal artifact suppression and volume fidelity improve over classical, learning-based, and physics-based baselines in the reported PSNR3D and SSIM3D metrics.
  • No metal mask or spectral prior is needed, so the same pipeline applies to new scan geometries and objects without retraining or manual annotation.
  • Per-scene runtime of roughly 15 to 30 minutes on an RTX A6000 makes the approach about an order of magnitude faster than the compared neural-rendering methods.
  • The method's reconstructed attenuation values for homogeneous water and aluminum regions agree with NIST reference coefficients, suggesting the corrected volumes are also quantitatively calibrated.
  • Release of synthetic and real CBCT datasets with severe metal artifacts gives the community standard test scenes for artifact-resilient reconstruction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because each Gaussian carries separate Compton and photoelectric densities, the same forward model could be extended to estimate material maps or to exploit dual-energy acquisitions, although the paper does not develop material decomposition.
  • Editorial inference: the fitted threshold and ratio parameters could act as a cheap spectrum sanity check; a drift between scans of a nominally stable tube would flag source or detector change, a use the paper does not mention.
  • Editorial inference: the two-parameter response family is linear-decay-to-plateau, so spectra with characteristic peaks or k-edges would push the self-calibration outside its representational range and should leave residual artifacts; a direct test would be scanning through a high-Z filter with a known k-edge.
  • Editorial inference: because no mask is required, the method may transfer to beam-hardening from dense bone, contrast agents, or other high-attenuation materials where a metal mask is hard to define, though only metallic inserts are tested here.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Gaussian-splatting CBCT reconstruction method that explicitly models polychromatic X-ray attenuation and self-calibrates the system response. Each Gaussian carries two densities, a constant Compton-like term rho^a and a photoelectric-like term rho^b / E_bar^3 (Eqs. 7-9), and the forward projector (Eqs. 10-12) integrates over normalized energy with a two-parameter piecewise-linear/plateau response (Eq. 6). The Gaussian parameters and the system-response parameters r and E_th are optimized jointly, without requiring metal masks or known spectra. The method is validated on simulated Lung/Teeth/Broccoli volumes (Table 3), on real scans of a walnut, metal rods, chicken, bell pepper, and broccoli (Figs. 8-9), on an OpenGATE Monte-Carlo projection comparison (32.94 dB), on a NIST attenuation comparison, and through ablations. The paper reports 15-30 minute runtimes and releases new datasets.

Significance. If the claims hold, the contribution is significant: this is the first splat-based treatment of beam hardening in CBCT, it removes the need for manual metal masks and spectral calibration, and the core derivation and ablation cleanly attribute the main gain to the polychromatic attenuation model (Lung: baseline 20.68 -> with attenuation model 27.73 -> with both modules 29.19). The OpenGATE validation and the NIST comparison are good-faith checks, and the supplied gradient derivations and GPU-memory measurements support reproducibility. However, the real-world superiority claim currently rests on qualitative slices, and the synthetic evaluation is partly in-domain, so the abstract's strongest claims are not yet fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.3 and Supplementary Section 7] The abstract claims "extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that our method outperforms ... in artifact suppression and reconstruction accuracy," but no quantitative metric is reported for any real scan. Supplementary Section 7 states: "Since there is no proper GT available for the real dataset, we do not conduct quantitative evaluations, but qualitative comparison evaluations are done instead." This directly undercuts the load-bearing real-data accuracy claim. Since Section 6.3 reports that every real scene except Metal Rods was also scanned without metal to serve as a reference, the authors could compute volume-level PSNR/SSIM against those metal-free proxies outside the metal-inserted regions, following standard MAR evaluation practice. Without such numbers, the visual comparisons in Figures 1, 8, and 9 may be affected by slice selection and display windowing, and the real-data claim in the abstract remains unsupported.
  2. [Section 5.1 and Table 3] The synthetic test data are produced by the same polychromatic Beer-Lambert integral and the same spectral approximations that the method uses for reconstruction, so the large margins in Table 3 (e.g., Lung PSNR 29.19 vs. 20.43 for Polyner) are partly in-domain. The OpenGATE Monte-Carlo validation (PSNR 32.94 dB between projections) is a useful independent check of the simulator, and Table 2 shows robustness across kV/filter/detector choices, but all of Table 2's response variants still lie within the linearly-decaying-plus-plateau family of Eq. (6). The paper should add a test in which the projections are generated by an independent Monte-Carlo simulator with a spectrum containing, for example, characteristic peaks or a thicker filter than the approximation family, and report reconstruction PSNR/SSIM; alternatively, the synthetic claims should be described explicitly as in-domain, with the real-data evidence carrying the generalization claim.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (6), and Table 1] The self-calibration claim rests entirely on the faithfulness of the two-parameter response model, yet Table 1 only compares this model with GMM and free-parameter alternatives on the synthetic Lung scene, which was generated by the same simulator family. Section 4.2 justifies the model by neglecting characteristic peaks, assuming a thin filter, and approximating the detector sensitivity as linear; Section 8 concedes that the method relies on approximations of the system response and material attenuation models. A concrete test is needed: either a real measured spectrum, or a synthetic spectrum with characteristic peaks and/or a 1-2 mm filter, run through the optimizer, with the recovered r and E_th compared against the true spectrum. Without such a test, the "self-calibrating system response" is only shown to fit the model's own assumptions, and the generalization to real hardware is not established quantitatively.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.1 vs. Supplementary Table 2] The main text states that all real acquisitions used a 0.5 mm aluminum filter, but Supplementary Table 2 lists 1.0 mm Al for Walnut and Chicken (Wire). Please reconcile this discrepancy, since the system-response calibration depends on the filter thickness.
  2. [Supplementary Section 7 and Table 3] The evaluation protocol says PSNR is measured excluding the metal-mask area, but Section 6.2 and Table 3 do not specify how the metal region was defined. Please state the mask-exclusion rule and confirm that the same rule was applied to all baselines.
  3. [Section 5.4] The real attenuation comparison against NIST is reported at the single center energy of 50 keV for water and aluminum. Given the polychromatic model, reporting the reconstructed mu over the full energy range, or at least at two energies, would better substantiate the claim of real attenuation estimation.
  4. [Figures 8-9 and Supplementary Figures 4-6] The colorbars are repeated in each panel and the intensity ranges differ across methods; adding a shared colorbar and stating the display windowing would strengthen the qualitative comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the polychromatic forward model is fitted against projection data and independently checked against Monte-Carlo, NIST, and real scans; the only caveat is an under-supported real-data quantification claim, which is a missing-support issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's core derivation (Eqs. 6-12) is a forward model, not a prediction derived from its own inputs: the polychromatic Beer-Lambert integral is the standard physics of the problem, and the per-Gaussian photoelectric/Compton decomposition (Eqs. 7-9) is an assumption whose parameters are optimized against projection data rather than defined to equal the target volumes. The only place where a circularity concern could arise is the synthetic evaluation: Section 5.1 builds a TIGRE/XrayPhysics simulator and validates it against the OpenGATE Monte-Carlo package (32.94 dB PSNR), and Section 6.1 then uses that simulator to generate the Table 3 synthetic datasets. Because both the simulator and the method assume the same polychromatic Beer-Lambert model family, the synthetic PSNR gains are in-domain evidence rather than an independent confirmation of the core physics assumption. However, this is a benchmark-design limitation, not a by-construction reduction: the simulator is a separate voxel-based implementation, the Monte-Carlo check is external, and the method still must fit Gaussian parameters and system-response parameters to the data. The real-data comparisons (Section 6.3, Figures 8-9) and the NIST attenuation coefficient validation (Section 5.4) provide external grounding outside the fitted values. The one explicit missing-support statement is Supplementary Section 7: "Since there is no proper GT available for the real dataset, we do not conduct quantitative evaluations, but qualitative comparison evaluations are done instead." This undercuts the abstract's broad real-world accuracy claim, but it is a missing-support or overclaim issue, not circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or fitted-parameter-renamed-as-prediction step is present, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The central claim rests on two physics approximations: the E^{-3} plus constant attenuation model and the two-parameter system response, plus standard CT assumptions. The only fitted parameters are the system response slope and threshold, gamma, N, and initialization scales; the first two are genuinely optimized on data, making the self-calibrating claim real but dependent on the assumed functional form.

free parameters (4)
  • System response slope r and threshold E_th = not reported; initialized r=0.2, E_th=1.0
    Optimized jointly during training (Section 4.4); final values not disclosed. These two parameters absorb the unknown X-ray spectrum shape.
  • Energy half-range gamma = 0.8 for 90 kVp, assuming a 10 keV minimum photon energy
    Set by hand from Emax (Section 4.5). Ablation Table 9 shows reconstruction quality depends on gamma matching the true spectrum range.
  • Number of spectral components N = 15
    Selected by ablation (Section 7.2, Table 6); performance degrades for N=7, 31, and 63.
  • Density initialization multipliers = 0.075 for rho_a, 0.0075 for rho_b
    Hand-chosen scaling factors in Section 4.5 that affect convergence and the final reconstruction.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math X-ray attenuation follows the Beer-Lambert law and the polychromatic projection integral (Eq. 3).
    Fundamental physics, standard in CT; stated in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Total attenuation decomposes into a constant Compton component and an E^{-3} photoelectric component (Eq. 7).
    Assumed in Section 4.2; valid for CBCT energies below 120 keV per [Spr12, WCW*23], but an approximation.
  • domain assumption System response can be approximated by a two-parameter linear decay plus plateau (Eq. 6).
    Modeling choice in Section 4.2 justified by Bremsstrahlung, thin filter, and detector sensitivity arguments; also the weakest load-bearing approximation.
  • domain assumption The R2-Gaussian projected Gaussian integral formula (Eq. 5) accurately approximates the line integral of the attenuation field.
    Inherited from [ZLC*24] and used in Eq. (11) to convert continuous integrals to Gaussian sums.
  • ad hoc to paper The minimum photon energy is 10 keV when setting gamma (Section 4.5).
    Hand-set assumption to normalize the energy range; not derived from data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Splat-based Metal Artifact Reduction in Cone-Beam CT via Polychromatic Modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/44TLOEAF

@misc{pith2026260813159,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Splat-based Metal Artifact Reduction in Cone-Beam CT via Polychromatic Modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/44TLOEAF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13159}
}
read the original abstract

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) enables volumetric reconstruction from X-ray projections, but suffers from severe artifacts--especially beam hardening--when imaging materials with high attenuation such as metals. These artifacts arise from the polychromatic nature of X-rays and are not properly addressed by conventional monochromatic reconstruction algorithms. While recent neural representation-based methods offer improved reconstruction quality, they are computationally expensive and often impractical for deployment. We propose a novel physics-inspired, self-calibrating metal artifact reduction method that efficiently reconstructs 3D CBCT volumes while correcting beam hardening artifacts. Our method integrates a polychromatic X-ray projection model, material-dependent attenuation profiles, and system response modeling into a Gaussian Splatting framework. Unlike prior work, we eliminate the need for manual metal masks or strong prior assumptions, and we optimize both reconstruction parameters and X-ray spectral characteristics jointly during training. We further introduce a high-fidelity synthetic CBCT dataset generation pipeline validated on Monte-Carlo x-ray simulation toolbox and release new datasets with severe metal-induced artifacts to support the community. This is the first splat-based method for reducing beam hardening in CBCT. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that our method outperforms state-of-the-art approaches in artifact suppression and reconstruction accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13159 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Qualitative comparison of CBCT reconstruction results for a real walnut object with inserted metal pins. The leftmost column shows the optical photograph of the walnut, where the blue and red planes denote the positions of the horizontal and vertical cuts for visualization. Each reconstruction method is visualized with two slices: a horizontal slice (top row) and a vertical slice (bottom row) from the reconstructed … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Method overview diagram. Our method consists of two types of integrals: projection and reconstruction. In the projection phase, the Gaussians are aggregated using our differentiable polychromatic forward projector, and the resulting projections are compared against ground-truth measurements acquired from the CT system. Importantly, while the per-Gaussian parameters are optimized, the global X-ray system response 𝜂(𝐸… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of our polychromatic attenuation model. The material-dependent linear attenuation coefficient 𝜇(x,𝐸¯) is decom￾posed into two components: a constant Compton term 𝜇𝑎 (x) and an energy-dependent photoelectric term 𝜇𝑏 (x)𝐸¯−3 . Each Gaussian primitive is assigned these parameters to model spatially varying material attenuation. where ℓ𝐸¯ 𝑡ℎ,𝑟 models the linear decay of the response with increasing energy, … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Validation of our synthetic projection image against one generated by Monte Carlo (MC) simulation using the OpenGATE package. A PSNR of 32.94 dB indicates strong agreement between the two results. © 2026 Eurographics - The European Association for Computer Graphics and…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Bruker SKYSCAN 1273 CBCT system. We validate our method both on synthetic datasets and real datasets. For the synthetic evaluation, we utilize the LIDC dataset [AIMB∗11], the X-plant dataset [VDH∗22], and the ZCB100 dataset [LSZ∗16]. We evaluate our method on three syn…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Validation of reconstructed attenuation coefficients against the NIST database [SHS88]. All values are reported in mm−1 6. Results 6.1. Dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparison on synthetic CBCT datasets. Reconstruction results on Lung, Teeth, and Broccoli scenes with metallic implants of different materials. Our method achieves superior artifact suppression and structural fidelity compared to prior methods [PITH_FULL_…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative comparison on real CBCT datasets. Reconstruction results for walnut and Metal Rods phantoms. Reference volumes are obtained from either separate scans or synthetic generation. Our method achieves clearer structures and stronger artifact suppression compared…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative comparison on real CBCT datasets. The slicing locations are displayed on each picture of the real objects in the first row. Odd columns show representative slices reconstructed by each method, with red boxes highlighting regions of interest. Even columns di…
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of our optimization pipeline. © 2026 Eurographics - The European Association for Computer Graphics and John Wiley & Sons Ltd [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: provides additional qualitative results that support the ablation experiments reported by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The objects used for our additional results. The type of metallic objects used for each scene is shown in the parentheses. © 2026 Eurographics - The European Association for Computer Graphics and John Wiley & Sons Ltd [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison on the real dataset: Chicken (Wire). The odd columns show the sampled slices from the reconstructed volumes by each algorithm, and the red boxes indicate the close-up regions. The even columns show the zoom-in patches from the corresponding slice…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison on the real dataset: Bell Pepper (Rivet). The odd columns show the sampled slices from the reconstructed volumes by each algorithm, and the red boxes indicate the close-up regions. The even columns show the zoom-in patches from the corresponding …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison on the real dataset: Broccoli (Rivet). The odd columns show the sampled slices from the reconstructed volumes by each algorithm, and the red boxes indicate the close-up regions. The even columns show the zoom-in patches from the corresponding sli…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J. M. Buhmann and D. W. Fellner and M. Held and J. Ketterer and J. Puzicha , TITLE =. 1998 , PAGES =. doi:10.1111/1467-8659.00269 , NOTE =

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    and Helmberg, Christoph , TITLE =

    Fellner, Dieter W. and Helmberg, Christoph , TITLE =. 1993 , PAGES =

    1993

  3. [3]

    Kobbelt and M

    L. Kobbelt and M. Stamminger and H.-P. Seidel , title =. doi:10.1111/1467-8659.16.3conferenceissue.36 , note =

    doi:10.1111/1467-8659.16.3conferenceissue.36

  4. [4]

    Lafortune and Sing-Choong Foo and Kenneth E

    Eric P. Lafortune and Sing-Choong Foo and Kenneth E. Torrance and Donald P. Greenberg , title =. Proc. SIGGRAPH '97 , volume = 31, pages =

  5. [5]

    W. C. Röntgen , title =. Sitzungsberichte der Physikalisch-Medizinischen Gesellschaft zu Würzburg , volume =

  6. [6]

    Computer Graphics and Image Processing , volume=

    The reconstruction of fan-beam data by filtering the back-projection , author=. Computer Graphics and Image Processing , volume=. 1979 , publisher=

    1979

  7. [7]

    Journal of the Optical Society of America A , volume=

    Practical cone-beam algorithm , author=. Journal of the Optical Society of America A , volume=. 1984 , publisher=

    1984

  8. [8]

    2001 , publisher=

    Principles of computerized tomographic imaging , author=. 2001 , publisher=

    2001

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    , author=

    Reduction of CT artifacts caused by metallic implants. , author=. Radiology , volume=

  2. [10]

    Medical physics , volume=

    Normalized metal artifact reduction (NMAR) in computed tomography , author=. Medical physics , volume=. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  3. [11]

    Unsupervised Polychromatic Neural Representation for

    Qing Wu and Lixuan Chen and Ce Wang and Hongjiang Wei and S Kevin Zhou and Jingyi Yu and Yuyao Zhang , booktitle=. Unsupervised Polychromatic Neural Representation for

  4. [12]

    Medical Physics , publisher=

    Implicit neural representation-based method for metal-induced beam hardening artifact reduction in X-ray CT imaging , author=. Medical Physics , publisher=

  5. [13]

    IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , volume=

    EWA splatting , author=. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , volume=. 2002 , publisher=

    2002

  6. [14]

    Medical physics , volume=

    A streak artifact reduction algorithm in sparse-view CT using a self-supervised neural representation , author=. Medical physics , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  7. [15]

    Physics in Medicine & Biology , volume=

    Metal artifact reduction method based on a constrained beam-hardening estimator for polychromatic x-ray CT , author=. Physics in Medicine & Biology , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  8. [16]

    International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages=

    NAF: neural attenuation fields for sparse-view CBCT reconstruction , author=. International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages=. 2022 , organization=

    2022

  9. [17]

    CVPR , year=

    Structure-Aware Sparse-View X-ray 3D Reconstruction , author=. CVPR , year=

  10. [18]

    ECCV , year=

    Radiative gaussian splatting for efficient x-ray novel view synthesis , author=. ECCV , year=

  11. [19]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year=

    R ^2 -Gaussian: Rectifying Radiative Gaussian Splatting for Tomographic Reconstruction , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year=

  12. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05801 , year=

    Differentiable forward projector for X-ray computed tomography , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05801 , year=

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Ultramicroscopy , volume=

    The ASTRA Toolbox: A platform for advanced algorithm development in electron tomography , author=. Ultramicroscopy , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  14. [22]

    Optics express , volume=

    Fast and flexible X-ray tomography using the ASTRA toolbox , author=. Optics express , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  15. [23]

    Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express , volume=

    TIGRE: a MATLAB-GPU toolbox for CBCT image reconstruction , author=. Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  16. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03126 , year=

    Gaspct: Gaussian splatting for novel ct projection view synthesis , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03126 , year=

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages=

    Intratomo: self-supervised learning-based tomography via sinogram synthesis and prediction , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages=

  18. [26]

    GS-CPR: Efficient Camera Pose Refinement via 3D Gaussian Splatting , author=

  19. [27]

    NeurIPS , year=

    Sparse-view Pose Estimation and Reconstruction via Analysis by Generative Synthesis , author=. NeurIPS , year=

  20. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09563 , year=

    Self-Calibrating Gaussian Splatting for Large Field of View Reconstruction , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09563 , year=

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19800 , year=

    No Parameters, No Problem: 3D Gaussian Splatting without Camera Intrinsics and Extrinsics , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19800 , year=

  22. [30]

    , author=

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. , author=. ACM Trans. Graph. , volume=

  23. [31]

    Medical physics , volume=

    Empirical cupping correction: a first-order raw data precorrection for cone-beam computed tomography , author=. Medical physics , volume=. 2006 , publisher=

    2006

  24. [32]

    and Slaney, Malcolm , title =

    Kak, Avinash C. and Slaney, Malcolm , title =. 2001 , doi =

    2001

  25. [33]

    Online Geometric Calibration of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for Arbitrary Imaging Objects , year=

    Meng, Yuanzheng and Gong, Hui and Yang, Xiaoquan , journal=. Online Geometric Calibration of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for Arbitrary Imaging Objects , year=

  26. [34]

    A. H. Andersen and A. C. Kak , title =. Ultrasonic Imaging , volume =

  27. [35]

    Journal of Theoretical Biology , volume=

    Iterative methods for the three-dimensional reconstruction of an object from projections , author=. Journal of Theoretical Biology , volume=. 1972 , publisher=

    1972

  28. [36]

    1970 , issn =

    Algebraic Reconstruction Techniques (ART) for three-dimensional electron microscopy and X-ray photography , journal =. 1970 , issn =

    1970

  29. [37]

    Physics in Medicine & Biology , volume=

    Image reconstruction in circular cone-beam computed tomography by constrained, total-variation minimization , author=. Physics in Medicine & Biology , volume=. 2008 , publisher=

    2008

  30. [38]

    2012 , month =

    Liu, Yan and Ma, Jianhua and Fan, Yi and Liang, Zhengrong , title =. 2012 , month =

    2012

  31. [39]

    Amir Beck and Marc Teboulle , title =

  32. [40]

    ICCV , year =

    Yoonwoo Jeong and Seokjun Ahn and Christopher Choy and Animashree Anandkumar and Minsu Cho and and Jaesik Park , title =. ICCV , year =

  33. [41]

    2020 , booktitle=

    NeRF: Representing Scenes as Neural Radiance Fields for View Synthesis , author=. 2020 , booktitle=

    2020

  34. [42]

    ACM Trans

    Thomas M\"uller and Alex Evans and Christoph Schied and Alexander Keller , title =. ACM Trans. Graph. , issue_date =. 2022 , pages =

    2022

  35. [43]

    Attention is All you Need , volume =

    Vaswani, Ashish and Shazeer, Noam and Parmar, Niki and Uszkoreit, Jakob and Jones, Llion and Gomez, Aidan N and Kaiser, ukasz and Polosukhin, Illia , booktitle =. Attention is All you Need , volume =

  36. [44]

    MedNeRF: Medical Neural Radiance Fields for Reconstructing 3D-aware CT-Projections from a Single X-ray , booktitle =

    Abril Corona. MedNeRF: Medical Neural Radiance Fields for Reconstructing 3D-aware CT-Projections from a Single X-ray , booktitle =. 2022 , url =. doi:10.1109/EMBC48229.2022.9871757 , timestamp =

    2022

  37. [45]

    proceedings of Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention -- MICCAI 2024 , year =

    Liu, Jiachen and Bai, Xiangzhi , title =. proceedings of Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention -- MICCAI 2024 , year =

    2024

  38. [46]

    2015 , month =

    Ferrucci, Massimiliano and Leach, Richard K and Giusca, Claudiu and Carmignato, Simone and Dewulf, Wim , title =. 2015 , month =. doi:10.1088/0957-0233/26/9/092003 , url =

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    Yang, Kai and Kwan, Alexander L. C. and Miller, DeWitt F and Boone, John M , title =. Medical Physics , issn =. 2006 , month =. doi:10.1118/1.2198187 , url =

    2006 doi

  40. [48]

    2023 , issn =

    Geometry calibration for a dental cone-beam CT system with an offset detector , journal =. 2023 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2022.11.004 , url =

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    Xu, Jingyan and Tsui, Benjamin M. W. , journal=. An Analytical Geometric Calibration Method for Circular Cone-Beam Geometry , year=

  42. [50]

    2016 , month =

    Ouadah, S and Stayman, J W and Gang, G J and Ehtiati, T and Siewerdsen, J H , title =. 2016 , month =. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/61/7/2613 , url =

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    2008 , month =

    Kyriakou, Y and Lapp, R M and Hillebrand, L and Ertel, D and Kalender, W A , title =. 2008 , month =. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/53/22/001 , url =

    2008 doi

  44. [52]

    and Pfister, H

    Zwicker, M. and Pfister, H. and van Baar, J. and Gross, M. , journal=. EWA splatting , year=

  45. [53]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01537 , year=

    A micro lie theory for state estimation in robotics , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01537 , year=

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba , editor =

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba , editor =. Adam:. 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations,. 2015 , url =

    2015

  47. [55]

    PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library , author =

  48. [56]

    Physical Principles of Medical Imaging , pages=

    Interaction of radiation with matter , author=. Physical Principles of Medical Imaging , pages=

  49. [57]

    2024 , publisher=

    Emerging Radiation Detection: Technology and Applications , author=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  50. [58]

    and Azevedo, Stephen G

    Champley, Kyle M. and Azevedo, Stephen G. and Seetho, Isaac M. and Glenn, Steven M. and McMichael, Larry D. and Smith, Jerel A. and Kallman, Jeffrey S. and Brown, William D. and Martz, Harry E. , journal=. Method to Extract System-Independent Material Properties From Dual-Ener...

  51. [59]

    Kevin and Luo, Jiebo , journal=

    Liao, Haofu and Lin, Wei-An and Zhou, S. Kevin and Luo, Jiebo , journal=. ADN: Artifact Disentanglement Network for Unsupervised Metal Artifact Reduction , year=

  52. [60]

    DICDNet: Deep Interpretable Convolutional Dictionary Network for Metal Artifact Reduction in CT Images , year=

    Wang, Hong and Li, Yuexiang and He, Nanjun and Ma, Kai and Meng, Deyu and Zheng, Yefeng , journal=. DICDNet: Deep Interpretable Convolutional Dictionary Network for Metal Artifact Reduction in CT Images , year=

  53. [61]

    OSCNet: Orientation-Shared Convolutional Network for CT Metal Artifact Learning , year=

    Wang, Hong and Xie, Qi and Zeng, Dong and Ma, Jianhua and Meng, Deyu and Zheng, Yefeng , journal=. OSCNet: Orientation-Shared Convolutional Network for CT Metal Artifact Learning , year=

  54. [62]

    The 31st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , year=

    Adaptive Convolutional Dictionary Network for CT Metal Artifact Reduction , author=. The 31st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , year=

  55. [63]

    International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages=

    InDuDoNet: An Interpretable Dual Domain Network for CT Metal Artifact Reduction , author=. International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages=. 2021 , organization=

    2021

  56. [64]

    Medical physics , volume=

    The lung image database consortium (LIDC) and image database resource initiative (IDRI): a completed reference database of lung nodules on CT scans , author=. Medical physics , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  57. [65]

    www. X-plant. org-The CT database of plant organs , author=. 6th Symposium on X-ray Computed Tomography: Inauguration of the KU Leuven XCT Core Facility, Location: Leuven, Belgium , year=

  58. [66]

    PloS one , volume=

    Automatic synthesis of panoramic radiographs from dental cone beam computed tomography data , author=. PloS one , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  59. [67]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages=

    Dudonet: Dual domain network for ct metal artifact reduction , author=. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages=

  60. [68]

    IEEE transactions on medical imaging , volume=

    Convolutional neural network based metal artifact reduction in X-ray computed tomography , author=. IEEE transactions on medical imaging , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  61. [69]

    NVIDIA, July , volume=

    Cuda c programming guide , author=. NVIDIA, July , volume=

  62. [70]

    OpenGATE Documentation , year =

  63. [71]

    Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables , volume=

    X-ray attenuation cross sections for energies 100 eV to 100 keV and elements Z= 1 to Z= 92 , author=. Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables , volume=. 1988 , publisher=

    1988

  64. [72]

    Sains Malaysiana , volume=

    A review of common beam hardening correction methods for industrial X-ray computed tomography , author=. Sains Malaysiana , volume=

  65. [73]

    Physics in Medicine & Biology , volume=

    MicroCT with energy-resolved photon-counting detectors , author=. Physics in Medicine & Biology , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.