Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Joint phase reconstruction and magnitude segmentation from velocity-encoded MRI data

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Joint MRI reconstruction cuts velocity error versus sequential methods.

desk verdict A coherent extension of joint reconstruction-and-segmentation to velocity-encoded MRI, but the headline claim that joint reconstruction improves velocity is not actually supported by the reported quantitative results. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05285 v1 pith:7BKYH2FZ submitted 2019-08-14 eess.IV cs.NAmath.NA

Veronica Corona , Martin Benning , Lynn F. Gladden , Andi Reci , Andrew J. Sederman , Carola-Bibiane Schoenlieb This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.NAmath.NA
keywords velocity-encodedMRIphasereconstructionmagnitudesegmentationjointvariationalmodelBregmaniterationnon-convexoptimizationtotalvariationregularizationbubblyflowimaging
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

Velocity-encoded MRI is magnetic resonance imaging that encodes flow motion into the phase of the measured signal, but recovering that phase from undersampled data is a nonlinear inverse problem, and conventional pipelines reconstruct magnitude and phase in separate steps. This paper argues that those steps should be solved together: one non-convex optimization that recovers the magnitude image, the motion-encoding phase, and a two-region segmentation of the image from the four measurements of a velocity-encoded acquisition. The payoff is that edges learned for segmentation sharpen the magnitude, which in turn improves the phase that becomes the velocity estimate. On synthetic bubble data the joint model lowers mean-squared error for phases and magnitudes relative to the sequential baseline, and on real bursting-bubble data it gives noise-reduced velocity fields with sharper fluid/air boundaries.

What carries the argument

The central object is the joint variational energy of Eq. (20), which couples a Fourier-domain data-fidelity term $\tfrac{1}{2}\|A(u_j e^{i\varphi_j})-f_j\|_2^2$ for each of the four acquisitions with a two-region segmentation term $\delta\sum_n [v_{nj}(c_1-u_{nj})^2+(1-v_{nj})(c_2-u_{nj})^2]$ on the magnitude images. The optimizer is an alternating Bregman iteration in which total variation (a penalty on local intensity changes) regularizes magnitude and segmentation, while an $H^1$-type penalty smooths the phase difference, so the velocity—recovered afterwards from Eq. (12)—is regularized directly without assuming known phase structure. The Bregman distance, the difference between a functional and its linearization at a previous iterate, is what lets the scheme handle non-smooth and non-convex terms in an inverse-scale-space manner.

What would settle it

Take a straight-tube phantom with known steady flow and acquire the four-measurement velocity-encoded sequence twice, changing only the background magnetic field between runs. If the joint method returns different velocity maps while the physical flow is unchanged, the zero-flow cancellation of Eq. (12) is not complete, and the claimed improvement is in phase consistency rather than true velocity measurement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the four measurements of a velocity-encoded MRI acquisition—two gradient polarities in the flow-on state plus their zero-flow references—can be inverted as one joint problem rather than as separate magnitude and phase reconstructions. The proposed model is the non-convex energy of Eq. (20), in which each magnitude image $u_j$ and phase map $\varphi_j$ must explain the undersampled k-space data through $A(u_j e^{i\varphi_j})$, while a binary segmentation $v_j$ pulls the magnitudes toward two intensity levels $c_1$ and $c_2$. Alternating Bregman iteration with total variation on magnitudes and segmentations and an $H^1$ penalty on the phase difference solves the system. Afterward the velocity component is computed from the four recovered phases via Eq. (12). The paper reports that this joint approach lowers mean-squared error for magnitudes and phases relative to the sequential baseline on simulated bubble-rise data and produces visually cleaner velocity fields, magnitudes, and segmentations on real bursting-bubble data.

Load-bearing premise

The whole velocity estimate rests on the assumption that subtracting the zero-flow reference from the two opposite-polarity measurements cancels every background phase contribution exactly, leaving only motion-induced phase; if any field imperfection fails to cancel, the reconstructed phase differences are not the true velocities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 11 percent k-space sampling on simulated data, the joint approach lowers mean-squared error for both magnitude images and phase maps compared with the sequential baseline, so the same reconstruction quality becomes available at lower sampling fractions.
  • Because the model regularizes the phase difference rather than each phase separately, smoothness is imposed directly on the quantity that becomes velocity.
  • On real bubble-burst data, the joint approach produces noise-reduced velocity fields and sharp fluid/air boundaries in magnitude and segmentation, compared with zero-filling and the sequential pipeline.
  • The four-measurement model, with velocity recovered from Eq. (12), applies to any single-component velocity-encoded MRI acquisition, not only bubbly flows.
  • Early stopping of the Bregman iteration acts as iterative regularization, so the algorithm does not need a global minimizer of the non-convex energy to produce useful reconstructions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the largest joint-versus-sequential differences should occur at bubble edges, because that is where the segmentation term changes the reconstruction; the paper reports global MSE only, so a per-pixel error map on the synthetic data would make this prediction testable.
  • Editorial inference: the method reconstructs each time frame independently, and the paper notes that the lack of a 4D dataset prevents joint space-time reconstruction; a simulated dynamic phantom with known time-varying flow could test the expected gains before new real acquisitions.
  • Editorial inference: the fixed two-level segmentation constants tie the model to bimodal images; generalizing to multiple regions or data-driven intensity levels would extend the coupling idea to medical settings such as cardiac blood flow, where the same joint phase-magnitude structure holds.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a joint variational approach for reconstructing magnitude, phase, and segmentation from undersampled velocity-encoded MRI. It models the acquired k-space signal as A(u e^{i\phi}) and defines velocity as a phase difference over four acquisitions (two flow polarities and two zero-flow references). The authors introduce a non-convex Bregman iteration algorithm (Eq. 21) with TV regularization on magnitude/segmentation and H1-type smoothing on the phase-difference velocity. They report synthetic experiments on a rising-bubble phantom (32 frames, 11% sampling) comparing a joint model to a sequential CS-TV approach, and visual results on real bubble-burst data. The central claim is that the joint model improves velocity, magnitude, and segmentation.

Significance. If the claimed improvements hold, the approach offers a practically useful way to exploit structure in undersampled velocity-encoded MRI, and the extension of non-convex Bregman iteration to velocity-regularized phase reconstruction is methodologically interesting. The paper includes a physically motivated forward model and a concrete algorithmic scheme with synthetic and real-data demonstrations. However, the quantitative support for the headline velocity claim is incomplete: Table 1 reports MSE for only two of the four phases and two magnitudes, with no velocity MSE, no variance estimates, and no parameter values. The real-data evaluation is visual only. The significance is therefore conditional on substantial additional quantitative evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, Table 1] The central claim that the joint method improves velocity is not quantitatively demonstrated, because Table 1 reports averaged MSE only for u1, u2, phi1, and phi2; no MSE is given for the velocity field defined in Eq. (12) as v = 1/2((phi1 - phi2) - (phi3 - phi4)), nor for the omitted u3, u4, phi3, and phi4. Please add per-frame velocity MSE, and ideally the full set of magnitude and phase errors, with standard deviations or confidence intervals; without this, the abstract's "improves velocity" assertion is unsupported by the synthetic experiment.
  2. [Sections 4 and 5] The numerical results are not reproducible because no parameter values are reported: alpha, beta, delta, eta, tau, c1, c2, the early-stopping iteration number, and the PDHG inner-loop settings are all unspecified. Please provide these values and either the tuning procedure or a sensitivity analysis; if space permits, releasing code would address this fully.
  3. [Section 5.1, baseline description] The sequential baseline is described only as a "classic CS-TV-regularised approach" followed by the phase method of [37] and [44], which are the authors' own prior works; no algorithmic details, regularization weights, or stopping rules are given. Because every quantitative comparison in the paper is against this baseline, a substantial description (or a reference to a standardized implementation) is needed to rule out that the reported gains are due to a weak or undertuned comparator.
  4. [Sections 2.3, 2.4, and 5.2] The velocity interpretation depends on Eq. (12), which assumes exact cancellation of background, off-resonance, and eddy-current phase between flow-on and zero-flow acquisitions; the paper provides no validation of this cancellation on the real data, where no independent velocity ground truth exists. The comparative claim may survive this concern (both methods use the same phase combination), but the absolute velocity accuracy on real data is not established and should be stated as a limitation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (20)] The fidelity term uses phi_i while the sum is over j; it should be phi_j.
  2. [Eq. (20) and Eq. (21)] Eq. (20) is presented as the joint cost, but the TV and H1 regularizers enter only through the Bregman distances in Eq. (21); please state explicitly that the overall model is E + J_u + J_v + J_phi and that Eq. (21) is an iterative regularization scheme for it.
  3. [Section 3.2] The admissible set for the segmentation variable v (for example, v in [0,1] or binary) is not specified; please state it.
  4. [Section 5.1, Fig. 1] The text says that visual differences are not significant while MSE improves; showing error maps would help the reader judge where the improvement occurs.
  5. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption contains a typo: "Bottow" should be "Bottom".
  6. [Figs. 3-6] The figures would benefit from colorbars and explicit display windows for the velocity and phase maps.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the joint model and its comparisons are self-contained, with only non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The phase/velocity forward model is derived from the Bloch equations (Eqs. 9-16), and the velocity map is defined by the standard two-polarity/zero-flow subtraction in Eq. (12). The joint variational model in Eq. (20) combines a data-fidelity term, a Chan-Vese segmentation term, and a Bregman-iteration scheme; the velocity regularity is introduced explicitly in Eq. (22) as an H1 penalty on (φ1−φ2)−(φ3−φ4), the same phase difference that defines velocity in Eq. (12). This is a modelling choice, not a hidden fit: the synthetic experiments use an independent ground truth and report MSE, so the claimed improvements are not equivalent to the model's inputs by construction. The paper does cite the authors' own prior work as motivation and as baselines: Section 3.2 builds on [15], and Section 5.1 uses 'the method proposed in [37] and presented in [44]' as the sequential comparator, where [37] and [44] are by overlapping author groups. These self-citations are not load-bearing for the central claim, because the joint method's superiority is demonstrated numerically against that baseline rather than assumed from the citations. The main weaknesses are evidentiary: Table 1 reports average MSE only for φ1, φ2, u1, and u2 and omits a velocity-map MSE, and the weights α, β, δ, η, τ and constants c1, c2 are not reported. Missing evidence and unspecified tuning are not circularity. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted parameter or to a self-referential definition.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central claim rests on a standard MRI forward model, a phase-difference velocity relation, a two-region segmentation prior, and an unproven hybrid Bregman optimization scheme. The main unquantified inputs are five regularization or segmentation parameters whose values are not reported.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (magnitude TV weight) = not reported
    Defined in Eq. (22) as Ju = alpha TV(u); the reported results depend on it, but no value or selection procedure is given.
  • beta (segmentation TV weight) = not reported
    Defined in Eq. (22) as Jv = beta TV(v); no value or selection procedure is given.
  • delta (segmentation coupling weight) = not reported
    Appears in Eq. (20) weighting the segmentation term against reconstruction fidelity; no value is reported.
  • eta (velocity smoothness weight) = not reported
    Appears in J_phi as the weight on the H1 norm of the phase difference; no value is reported.
  • c1, c2 (region intensity means) = not reported
    Eq. (20) assumes two regions with mean intensities c1 and c2; the paper never states how these are chosen or updated, and the segmentation and magnitude results depend on them.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Forward model f = A(u e^{i phi}) + eta (Eq. 16) with Gaussian zero-mean noise; the continuous derivation is replaced by a discrete model that assumes phase is constant during readout and ignores T2* decay and uncorrected field inhomogeneities.
    The reconstruction and all experiments are built on this model; it is standard in MRI but is not validated against the real spiral acquisition model.
  • domain assumption Velocity is recoverable from phase differences of four measurements via Eq. (12), requiring the background phase and system artefacts to cancel exactly between flow-on and zero-flow acquisitions.
    The entire velocity estimation procedure depends on this cancellation, which is assumed without experimental validation.
  • domain assumption The segmentation term in Eq. (20) assumes the image consists of two regions with known intensity means c1 and c2.
    Bubbly flow images are treated as piecewise constant air-liquid images; the sensitivity of results to c1 and c2 is not assessed.
  • ad hoc to paper The alternating Bregman iteration (21) with early stopping finds useful approximate minimizers of (20).
    Convergence is asserted by reference to [37] and [15], but the combined non-convex objective is not analyzed and the stopping criterion is not specified.
  • standard math The total variation and H1 penalties chosen in Eq. (22) and J_phi are proper, lower semi-continuous, convex functions, so generalized Bregman distances are well-defined.
    This is a standard requirement for the Bregman iteration framework and is not in question.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Joint phase reconstruction and magnitude segmentation from velocity-encoded MRI data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7BKYH2FZ

@misc{pith2026190805285,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Joint phase reconstruction and magnitude segmentation from velocity-encoded MRI data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7BKYH2FZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05285}
}
read the original abstract

Velocity-encoded MRI is an imaging technique used in different areas to assess flow motion. Some applications include medical imaging such as cardiovascular blood flow studies, and industrial settings in the areas of rheology, pipe flows, and reactor hydrodynamics, where the goal is to characterise dynamic components of some quantity of interest. The problem of estimating velocities from such measurements is a nonlinear dynamic inverse problem. To retrieve time-dependent velocity information, careful mathematical modelling and appropriate regularisation is required. In this work, we propose an optimisation algorithm based on non-convex Bregman iteration to jointly estimate velocity-, magnitude- and segmentation-information for the application of bubbly flow imaging. Furthermore, we demonstrate through numerical experiments on synthetic and real data that the joint model improves velocity, magnitude and segmentation over a classical sequential approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05285 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Phase reconstructions for the sequential approach and our joint approach [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Schematic of experimental setup. (b) Pulse sequence used for MR ve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Phase reconstructions for the sequential approach and our joint approach [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Magnitude reconstructions (top row) and corresponding segmentations (bot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Magnitude reconstructions (top row) and corresponding segmentations (bot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Phase reconstructions for the sequential approach and our joint approach com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Full time sequence. Longitudinal view. The bubble burst event sees the bubble [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Full time sequence. Transversal view through the middle of the bubble. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    Choose your path wisely: gradient descent in a Bregman distance framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.04045, 2017

    Martin Benning, Marta M Betcke, Matthias J Ehrhardt, and Carola-Bibiane Schönlieb. Choose your path wisely: gradient descent in a Bregman distance framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.04045, 2017

    arXiv 2017

  2. [44]

    Signal sampling and processing inmagnetic resonance applications

    Andi Reci. Signal sampling and processing inmagnetic resonance applications. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [1]

    C.T. Burt. NMR measurements and flow.Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 23(11):1044–1045,

    work page

  4. [2]

    Blood flow effects in magnetic resonance imaging.American Journal of Roentgenol- ogy, 143(6):1157–1166, dec 1984

    L Axel. Blood flow effects in magnetic resonance imaging.American Journal of Roentgenol- ogy, 143(6):1157–1166, dec 1984

    work page 1984

  5. [3]

    P. T. Callaghan.Translational Dynamics and Magnetic Resonance. Oxford University Press, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    Elkins and Marcus T

    Christopher J. Elkins and Marcus T. Alley. Magnetic resonance velocimetry: applications of magnetic resonance imaging in the measurement of fluid motion.Experiments in Fluids, 43(6):823–858, Dec 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [6]

    RecentadvancesinflowMRI

    LynnF.GladdenandAndrewJ.Sederman. RecentadvancesinflowMRI. JournalofMagnetic Resonance, 229:2 – 11, 2013. Frontiers of In Vivo and Materials MRI Research

    work page 2013

  8. [7]

    Gatehouse, Jennifer Keegan, Lindsey A

    Peter D. Gatehouse, Jennifer Keegan, Lindsey A. Crowe, Sharmeen Masood, Raad H. Mohi- addin, Karl-Friedrich Kreitner, and David N. Firmin. Applications of phase-contrast flow and velocity imaging in cardiovascular mri.European Radiology, 15(10):2172–2184, Oct 2005

    work page 2005

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Rheo-NMR: nuclear magnetic resonance and the rheology of complex fluids.Reports on Progress in Physics, 62(4):599, 1999

    Paul T Callaghan. Rheo-NMR: nuclear magnetic resonance and the rheology of complex fluids.Reports on Progress in Physics, 62(4):599, 1999

    1999

  2. [9]

    Structure-flowcorrelationsinpacked beds

    AJSederman,MLJohns,PAlexander,andLFGladden. Structure-flowcorrelationsinpacked beds. Chemical Engineering Science, 53(12):2117–2128, 1998. 18 Corona et al. (a) Zero-filled (b) Sequential (c) Joint (d) Zero-filled (e) Sequential (f) Joint Fig. 5: Magnitude reconstructions (top row...

    1998

  3. [10]

    Magneticresonancevelocityimaging ofliquidandgastwo-phaseflowinpackedbeds

    MHSankey,DJHolland,AJSederman,andLFGladden. Magneticresonancevelocityimaging ofliquidandgastwo-phaseflowinpackedbeds. JournalofMagneticResonance ,196(2):142– 148, 2009

    2009

  4. [11]

    Reducingdataacquisitiontimesinphase-encodedvelocityimagingusingcompressedsensing

    DanielJHolland,DmitryMMalioutov,AndrewBlake,AndrewJSederman,andLFGladden. Reducingdataacquisitiontimesinphase-encodedvelocityimagingusingcompressedsensing. Journal of magnetic resonance, 203(2):236–246, 2010

    2010

  5. [12]

    Nuclearmagneticresonanceasatooltostudyflow

    EiichiFukushima. Nuclearmagneticresonanceasatooltostudyflow. AnnualReviewofFluid Mechanics, 31(1):95–123, 1999

    1999

  6. [13]

    Spatially resolved measurement of anisotropic granular temperature in gas-fluidized beds

    Daniel J Holland, Christoph R Müller, John S Dennis, Lynn F Gladden, and Andrew J Se- derman. Spatially resolved measurement of anisotropic granular temperature in gas-fluidized beds. Powder Technology, 182(2):171–181, 2008

    2008

  7. [14]

    Exploring the origins of turbulence in multiphase flow using compressed sensing MRI.Physical review letters, 108(26):264505, 2012

    Alexander B Tayler, Daniel J Holland, Andrew J Sederman, and Lynn F Gladden. Exploring the origins of turbulence in multiphase flow using compressed sensing MRI.Physical review letters, 108(26):264505, 2012

    2012

  8. [15]

    Enhancingjointreconstructionandsegmentationwithnon-convexBregmaniteration

    Veronica Corona, Martin Benning, Matthias Joachim Ehrhardt, Lynn Faith Gladden, Richard Mair, Andi Reci, Andrew J Sederman, Stefanie Reichelt, and Carola-Bibiane SchÃűnlieb. Enhancingjointreconstructionandsegmentationwithnon-convexBregmaniteration. Inverse Problems, 2019

    2019

  9. [16]

    Velocity encoding and flow imaging

    Michael Markl. Velocity encoding and flow imaging. 2006

    2006

  10. [17]

    Robust uncertainty principles: Ex- act signal reconstruction from highly incomplete frequency information

    Emmanuel Candes, Justin Romberg, and Terence Tao. Robust uncertainty principles: Ex- act signal reconstruction from highly incomplete frequency information. arXiv preprint math/0409186, 2004. Joint phase reconstruction and magnitude segmentation 19 (a) Zero-filled (b) Sequentia...

    2004 arXiv

  11. [18]

    IEEETransactionsoninformationtheory ,52(4):1289– 1306, 2006

    DavidL.Donoho.Compressedsensing. IEEETransactionsoninformationtheory ,52(4):1289– 1306, 2006

    2006

  12. [19]

    MichaelLustig,DavidDonoho,andJohnMPauly.SparseMRI:Theapplicationofcompressed sensing for rapid MR imaging.Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 58(6):1182–1195, 2007

    2007

  13. [20]

    Highly k-t- space–acceleratedphase-contrastMRI.MagneticResonanceinMedicine:AnOfficialJournal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 60(5):1169–1177, 2008

    Bernd Jung, Matthias Honal, Peter Ullmann, Jürgen Hennig, and Michael Markl. Highly k-t- space–acceleratedphase-contrastMRI.MagneticResonanceinMedicine:AnOfficialJournal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 60(5):1169–1177, 2008

    2008

  14. [21]

    Ultrafastmicroscopyofmicrofluidics:compressedsensing and remote detection.Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 50(23):5258–5260, 2011

    EvaPaciokandBernhardBlümich. Ultrafastmicroscopyofmicrofluidics:compressedsensing and remote detection.Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 50(23):5258–5260, 2011

    2011

  15. [22]

    Compressed sensing of remotely detectedMRIvelocimetryinmicrofluidics

    Jeffrey Paulsen, Vikram S Bajaj, and Alexander Pines. Compressed sensing of remotely detectedMRIvelocimetryinmicrofluidics. JournalofMagneticResonance ,205(2):196–201, 2010

    2010

  16. [23]

    Quantitative single point imaging with compressed sensing.Journal of Magnetic resonance, 201(1):72–80, 2009

    P Parasoglou, D Malioutov, AJ Sederman, J Rasburn, H Powell, LF Gladden, A Blake, and ML Johns. Quantitative single point imaging with compressed sensing.Journal of Magnetic resonance, 201(1):72–80, 2009

    2009

  17. [24]

    Cooley and John W

    James W. Cooley and John W. Tukey. An algorithm for the machine calculation of complex fourier series.Mathematics of Computation, 19(90):297–301, 1965

    1965

  18. [25]

    Nonuniformfastfouriertransformsusingmin-maxinterpolation

    J.A.FesslerandB.P.Sutton. Nonuniformfastfouriertransformsusingmin-maxinterpolation. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 51(2):560–574, Feb 2003

    2003

  19. [26]

    Phase reconstruction from velocity-encoded MRI measurements–a survey of sparsity- promoting variational approaches.Journal of Magnetic Resonance, 238:26–43, 2014

    MartinBenning,LynnGladden,DanielHolland,Carola-BibianeSchönlieb,andTuomoValko- nen. Phase reconstruction from velocity-encoded MRI measurements–a survey of sparsity- promoting variational approaches.Journal of Magnetic Resonance, 238:26–43, 2014. 20 Corona et al

    2014

  20. [27]

    J. A. Fessler and D. C. Noll. Iterative image reconstruction in MRI with separate magnitude and phase regularization. InProc. 2nd IEEE Int. Symp. Biomedical Imaging: Nano to Macro (IEEE Cat No. 04EX821), pages 209–212 Vol. 1, April 2004

    2004

  21. [28]

    M. V. W. Zibetti and A. R. De Pierro. Separate magnitude and phase regularization in MRI with incomplete data: Preliminary results. InProc. IEEE Int. Symp. Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro, pages 736–739, April 2010

    2010

  22. [29]

    Separatemagnitudeandphaseregularization viacompressedsensing

    F.Zhao,D.C.Noll,J.Nielsen,andJ.A.Fessler. Separatemagnitudeandphaseregularization viacompressedsensing. IEEETransactionsonMedicalImaging ,31(9):1713–1723,September 2012

    2012

  23. [30]

    A primal–dual hybrid gradient method for nonlinear operators with appli- cations to mri.Inverse Problems, 30(5):055012, 2014

    Tuomo Valkonen. A primal–dual hybrid gradient method for nonlinear operators with appli- cations to mri.Inverse Problems, 30(5):055012, 2014

    2014

  24. [31]

    Zibetti and Alvaro R

    Marcelo V. Zibetti and Alvaro R. Pierro. Improving compressive sensing in mri with sepa- rate magnitude and phase priors.Multidimensional Syst. Signal Process., 28(4):1109–1131, October 2017

    2017

  25. [32]

    Gladden and Andrew J

    Lynn F. Gladden and Andrew J. Sederman. Magnetic resonance imaging and velocity map- ping in chemical engineering applications.Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, 8(1):227–247, 2017. PMID: 28592175

    2017

  26. [33]

    Chan and Luminita A

    Tony F. Chan and Luminita A. Vese. Active contours without edges.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 10(2):266–277, 2001

    2001

  27. [34]

    SIAMjournalonappliedmathematics ,66(5):1632– 1648, 2006

    TonyF.Chan,SelimEsedoglu,andMilaNikolova.Algorithmsforfindingglobalminimizersof imagesegmentationanddenoisingmodels. SIAMjournalonappliedmathematics ,66(5):1632– 1648, 2006

    2006

  28. [35]

    Lev M Bregman. The relaxation method of finding the common point of convex sets and its application to the solution of problems in convex programming.USSR computational mathematics and mathematical physics, 7(3):200–217, 1967

    1967

  29. [36]

    Proximal minimization methods with generalized bregman functions

    Krzysztof C Kiwiel. Proximal minimization methods with generalized bregman functions. SIAM journal on control and optimization, 35(4):1142–1168, 1997

    1997

  30. [38]

    YangyangXuandWotaoYin. Ablockcoordinatedescentmethodforregularizedmulticonvex optimization with applications to nonnegative tensor factorization and completion.SIAM Journal on imaging sciences, 6(3):1758–1789, 2013

    2013

  31. [39]

    Proximalalternatinglinearizedminimiza- tionfornonconvexandnonsmoothproblems

    JérômeBolte,ShohamSabach,andMarcTeboulle. Proximalalternatinglinearizedminimiza- tionfornonconvexandnonsmoothproblems. MathematicalProgramming,146(1-2):459–494, 2014

    2014

  32. [40]

    An efficient primal-dual hybrid gradient algorithm for total variation image restoration.UCLA CAM Report, 34, 2008

    Mingqiang Zhu and Tony Chan. An efficient primal-dual hybrid gradient algorithm for total variation image restoration.UCLA CAM Report, 34, 2008

    2008

  33. [41]

    An algorithm for minimizing the mumford-shah functional

    Thomas Pock, Daniel Cremers, Horst Bischof, and Antonin Chambolle. An algorithm for minimizing the mumford-shah functional. In2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1133–1140. IEEE, 2009

    2009

  34. [42]

    A general framework for a class of first order primal-dualalgorithmsforconvexoptimizationinimagingscience

    Ernie Esser, Xiaoqun Zhang, and Tony F Chan. A general framework for a class of first order primal-dualalgorithmsforconvexoptimizationinimagingscience. SIAMJournalonImaging Sciences, 3(4):1015–1046, 2010

    2010

  35. [43]

    AntoninChambolleandThomasPock.Afirst-orderprimal-dualalgorithmforconvexproblems with applications to imaging.Journal of mathematical imaging and vision, 40(1):120–145, 2011

    2011

  36. [45]

    Exploring the origins of turbulence in multiphase flow using compressed sensing MRI.Physical review letters, 108(26):264505, 2012

    AlexanderB.Tayler,DanielJ.Holland,AndrewJ.Sederman,andLynnF.Gladden. Exploring the origins of turbulence in multiphase flow using compressed sensing MRI.Physical review letters, 108(26):264505, 2012. Joint phase reconstruction and magnitude segmentation 21 Appendix In this sect...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.