Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

3D Gaussian Adaptive Reconstruction for Fourier Light-Field Microscopy

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 3DGAT reconstructs Fourier light-field microscopy volumes at higher resolution than RL deconvolution, without paired training data.

desk verdict A solid FLFM + 3DGS methods paper with real novelty but a synthetic evaluation that is partially an inverse crime. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12875 v1 pith:K7EF6JRK submitted 2025-05-19 eess.IV

Chenyu Xu , Zhouyu Jin , Chengkang Shen , Hao Zhu , Zhan Ma , Bo Xiong , You Zhou , Xun Cao
show 1 more author
Ning Gu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IV
keywords Fourierlight-fieldmicroscopy3DGaussiansplattingadaptivetomographyself-supervisedreconstructionvolumetricfluorescenceimagingpointspreadfunctionfrequency-domainlosseffectiverankregularization
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

Fourier light-field microscopy captures 3D fluorescence volumes in a single shot, but recovering the volume from the 2D light-field image is an ill-posed inverse problem; the standard iterative deconvolution used today (RL) blurs the axial direction and loses signal. This paper proposes 3DGAT, a self-supervised reconstruction that represents the unknown volume as a set of learnable 3D Gaussian ellipsoids, projects them through the FLFM point-spread-function model, and optimizes the Gaussians against the raw measurement with a combined spatial and frequency-domain loss. The paper argues that this Gaussian parameterization resolves finer structures than RL deconvolution—down to 0.72 µm line spacing in simulations, versus roughly 0.96 µm for RL—while improving axial sectioning, and that it stays computationally feasible compared with NeRF-based alternatives. If correct, FLFM users could obtain higher-resolution 3D reconstructions without any paired high-resolution training data, using only the measured light-field image and the system PSF.

What carries the argument

The method's load-bearing mechanism is the differentiable combination of a 3D Gaussian volume representation with the FLFM physical forward model. Each Gaussian kernel $G_i(\mathbf{x}\mid\rho_i,\boldsymbol{\mu}_i,\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_i)=\rho_i\exp\!\left(-\frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{x}-\boldsymbol{\mu}_i)^{\mathsf{T}}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_i^{-1}(\mathbf{x}-\boldsymbol{\mu}_i)\right)$ defines a localized fluorescence ellipsoid; a tile-based intensity voxelizer converts the Gaussian cloud into voxels, and the discretized FLFM convolution $\mathbf{I}=\sum_j \mathbf{H}_j\ast\mathbf{O}_j$ projects the voxel volume to a synthetic 2D light-field image. A Wiener-filtered reconstruction initializes the Gaussians, and the loss $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{MSE}}+\alpha\,\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{FDL}}$ compares the projection with the raw measurement in space and frequency. Adaptive refine, split, clone, and prune steps adjust the number, size, and position of kernels during optimization; an effective-rank regularizer is added for experimental data.

What would settle it

Acquire a real FLFM dataset from a calibrated sample—for instance, fluorescent beads or line pairs of known dimensions—together with a PSF measured experimentally under the same system, and compare 3DGAT with RL deconvolution on resolved feature size and axial full-width at half-maximum; if 3DGAT does not resolve features RL cannot, or its axial width is not smaller, the claimed reconstruction advantage is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a 3D Gaussian Splatting-style representation can serve as the unknown fluorescence volume for FLFM and, when optimized self-supervisely through the FLFM forward model, outperforms conventional RL deconvolution in both lateral and axial resolution. Instead of solving for voxels directly, 3DGAT fits a collection of Gaussian kernels, each with a density, position, and covariance decomposed into scale and rotation, voxelizes them efficiently, and simulates the measured light-field image by convolution with the FLFM PSF. The resulting reconstruction matches the ground truth more closely on simulated beads, resolves 0.72 μm line pairs that RL misses, and, with an effective-rank regularizer, preserves more structural detail on real zebrafish data than RL deconvolution while suppressing needle-like noise artifacts.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the wave-optics FLFM model used to generate the simulated benchmarks and as 3DGAT's physics projector faithfully represents the real FLFM system; if it does not, the simulated resolution gains are partly a self-consistency artifact and the real-data support is only qualitative.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Self-supervised reconstruction means a raw FLFM frame plus the system PSF is enough to train a per-sample volume estimate; no paired high-resolution ground truth is required.
  • Axial resolution and optical sectioning improve over RL deconvolution, so structures hidden in x-z maximum-intensity projections become visible on simulated and real samples.
  • Under the wave-optics model, lateral line pairs at 0.72 µm spacing can be resolved where RL deconvolution misses them, implying a resolution gain for line-like fluorescent structures.
  • Because the Gaussian representation and tile-based voxelizer are efficient, the method avoids the dense-sampling memory and compute burden of NeRF-based reconstruction while remaining physics-informed and self-supervised.
  • Adding effective-rank regularization suppresses needle-like artifacts on noisy experimental data, making the method usable on real FLFM images without sacrificing detail.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The simulated resolution numbers should be treated as upper bounds: since the same wave-optics model generates the benchmarks and acts as the projector, a measured-PSF calibration on real beads of known size is the natural stress test.
  • Because the Gaussian cloud grows, splits, and prunes during optimization, the representation functions as an implicit shape prior; this may make 3DGAT attractive for low-signal or sparse-view FLFM, a regime the paper does not explicitly test.
  • The paper notes that voxelizing the Gaussians before projecting adds overhead; deriving an analytic FLFM projection for anisotropic Gaussian ellipsoids would directly reduce reconstruction time and could also improve accuracy by removing discretization error.
  • The same self-supervised pattern—Gaussian volume, physics projector, frequency-domain loss—appears ready to transfer to other multi-view microscopy modalities, such as light-sheet or ptychographic setups, by swapping the forward model.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes 3DGAT, a self-supervised 3D reconstruction method for Fourier light-field microscopy (FLFM) based on 3D Gaussian splatting. The object is represented as a set of 3D Gaussian kernels; a custom CUDA intensity voxelizer converts the Gaussians to a voxel grid, which is then projected with the FLFM wave-optics forward model (Eq. (2)) to produce a simulated measurement. The Gaussian parameters are optimized by minimizing a pixel-space MSE term plus a Fourier-domain loss (Eq. (5)), with a Wiener-filtered volume used for initialization and split/clone/prune/refine operations for adaptive density control. Synthetic experiments on fluorescent beads, line pairs, and a dandelion sample compare 3DGAT with Richardson-Lucy deconvolution, and a real zebrafish experiment compares RL deconvolution with 3DGAT and an effective-rank-regularized variant. The paper claims improved volumetric resolution, better accuracy, and maintained computational efficiency relative to prior reconstruction methods.

Significance. If the reported results are accepted, 3DGAT would be a practically valuable alternative to RL deconvolution and NeRF-based FLFM reconstruction: it is self-supervised, requires no paired training data, and leverages the GPU-efficient 3D Gaussian representation. The paper includes a candid limitation statement about the overhead of the voxelization step and cites the relevant prior Gaussian-splatting works (R2-Gaussian, 4DRGS). However, the quantitative evidence is currently weakened by the model-consistency design of the synthetic experiments, the absence of error bars, the lack of a code release, and the qualitative nature of the real-data validation, so the significance is conditional on an independent validation of the forward model.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, synthetic experiments] The simulated ground-truth volumes are projected using the same wave-optics FLFM model [18] that Eq. (2) uses as the physics projector during training, so the reported PSNR and resolution gains in Figs. 2 and 3 may be partly an inverse-crime artifact of model self-consistency rather than evidence of accurate physical modeling. Please add validation with an independently computed or measured PSF, with deliberately mismatched PSF parameters, and with realistic noise, or demonstrate on a physical resolution target, before claiming a significant resolution improvement for real FLFM.
  2. [Section 3, real zebrafish data] There is no ground-truth volume; FRC-QE in Fig. 4(f) is computed on the reconstructions themselves and reports their frequency support, not fidelity to the object, and the intensity profile in Fig. 4(e) only compares the methods against each other. Please provide an independent quantitative check (e.g., a bead phantom with known positions, a comparison with a high-resolution modality, or synthetic structures added to a real acquisition) or restrict the real-data claims to qualitative observations.
  3. [Sections 2.2 and 3, method specification] Equation (5) defines the objective as MSE+FDL, but the real-data experiments use an effective-rank regularization term that does not appear in Eq. (5) and whose weight is not reported; the raw 3DGAT output in Fig. 4 exhibits needle-like artifacts that the regularized variant removes. The evaluated method is therefore incompletely specified. Please state the full objective, list all hyperparameters (alpha, Wiener parameter w, effective-rank weight, density-control thresholds), and report a sensitivity analysis.
  4. [Section 3, quantitative claims without uncertainty] The PSNR values in Fig. 3 and the resolution judgments in Fig. 2 come from single synthetic realizations, with no noise realizations, random initialization trials, or error bars. Please repeat the comparisons over multiple trials and report mean ± standard deviation, and state how many trials were run.
  5. [Abstract and Section 2.3, computational efficiency claim] The paper states that 3DGAT maintains computational efficiency, but no training time, wall-clock time, iteration count, or GPU memory usage is reported, and no comparison is made against NeRF-based or RL methods. Please add quantitative runtime and memory measurements to support the efficiency claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2] The figure panels include a label 'GS-FLARe' that is never defined or discussed in the text or caption; please clarify or remove it.
  2. [Figs. 2 and 3] The RL deconvolution iteration count is inconsistent across experiments (100 iterations in Fig. 2 vs. 20 iterations in Fig. 3); please state the criterion used to select iteration numbers and show corresponding performance curves.
  3. [Reproducibility] The paper includes no data-availability or code-availability statement; in view of the many free parameters (alpha, w, effective-rank weight, density-control thresholds), releasing the code or at least a precise pseudocode would materially improve reproducibility.
  4. [References] Reference [21] is formatted inconsistently ('HYUNG, J.' with uppercase surname); please unify the reference style.
  5. [Conclusion] The conclusion candidly notes that the voxelization step adds overhead relative to analytic 3DGS rendering; this limitation should be moved to the experimental section with a quantitative estimate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Synthetic validation is partially circular because the same FLFM wave-optics operator both generates the benchmark images and serves as the 3DGAT physics projector; real-data validation is independent but only qualitative.

  1. other [Section 2.1-2.2, Eq. (2); Section 3, synthetic-data evaluation (Figs. 2-3)]
    "Using the wave optics model of FLFM[18], we project the 3D images into 2D Fourier light-field images, with the FLFM parameters set to seven perspective views and a 20×/0.45 NA objective lens. ... The voxelized data are then projected through the FLFM system's physics model to produce the final imaging results, as depicted in Eq. (2)."

    The benchmark measurements are synthesized with the same discretized FLFM PSF operator H_j (Eq. 2) that 3DGAT uses as its differentiable physics projector when computing I_proj and the loss L = L_MSE(I_proj, I) + alpha L_FDL(I_proj, I). Consequently, the synthetic tests in Figs. 2 and 3 evaluate only whether the Gaussian optimizer can invert the assumed forward model; if H_j deviates from the true FLFM system (wrong PSF, aberrations, noise model), both training and evaluation share the same error and the reported resolution gains are partly self-consistency artifacts.

full rationale

The paper's core algorithm is not definitionally circular: 3DGAT optimizes Gaussian parameters against the raw measurement through a physics-based loss, and no ground-truth volume or fitted constant is fed into the training process. The Wiener-filter initialization and the MSE+FDL loss are standard self-supervised ingredients. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is used; references [18], [19], and [21] are external prior work. The one concrete circularity is in the synthetic evaluation: Eq. (2) defines H_j as the discretized FLFM PSF, and Section 3 states that the synthetic ground-truth volumes are projected into measurements 'using the wave optics model of FLFM[18]' — the same model 3DGAT uses as its forward projector. Thus the synthetic resolution comparison is a test of self-consistency with the assumed operator, not of physical fidelity, and the reported super-resolution gains may be overstated if the simulated PSF does not match the real instrument. The real zebrafish data provides independent, externally falsifiable evidence, but its assessment is qualitative (MIPs, intensity profiles, FRC-QE of the reconstruction), so it limits rather than eliminates the partial circularity. Overall score 4 reflects one partial reduction of an evaluation claim, with the central method still retaining independent content.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The method relies on the assumed accuracy of the FLFM forward model, Gaussian representational sufficiency, and several hand-set hyperparameters. The synthetic evaluation shares the forward model with the inversion, so the ledger is dominated by modeling assumptions rather than fitted physical constants.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (Fourier domain loss weight) = ~1e-3 (set empirically)
    Eq. (5); chosen by hand, not swept or independently justified.
  • Wiener parameter w = not reported
    Eq. (4); used for initialization; value and selection procedure not given.
  • effective rank regularization weight = not reported
    Used for 3DGAT-erank on real data (Fig. 4); coefficient and schedule not specified.
  • 3DGS density-control hyperparameters = inherited from Kerbl et al. and R2-Gaussian
    Split, clone, prune thresholds and learning rates are not stated for the FLFM setting.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption FLFM is a linear convolution system: I = sum_j H_j * O_j (Eq. 2).
    Underpins both the forward projector and the inverse problem; ignores noise, sample-induced aberrations, and nonlinearities not captured in H.
  • domain assumption The PSF model of Liu et al. [18] accurately describes the FLFM systems used in simulation and experiment.
    Used to generate synthetic datasets and as the physics projector in training; no experimental PSF is measured or compared.
  • domain assumption A finite set of 3D Gaussian ellipsoids can represent the fluorescence volume of interest.
    Gaussian kernels plus density control are assumed sufficient; no representational error bound is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Wiener-filtered volume provides robust initialization.
    Stated without analysis; if the initialization is poor, density control may still fail.
  • domain assumption The intensity voxelizer based on R2-Gaussian is differentiable and accurate enough for gradient training.
    No numerical accuracy comparison with an analytic projection is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3D Gaussian Adaptive Reconstruction for Fourier Light-Field Microscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K7EF6JRK

@misc{pith2026250512875,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3D Gaussian Adaptive Reconstruction for Fourier Light-Field Microscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K7EF6JRK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12875}
}
read the original abstract

Compared to light-field microscopy (LFM), which enables high-speed volumetric imaging but suffers from non-uniform spatial sampling, Fourier light-field microscopy (FLFM) introduces sub-aperture division at the pupil plane, thereby ensuring spatially invariant sampling and enhancing spatial resolution. Conventional FLFM reconstruction methods, such as Richardson-Lucy (RL) deconvolution, exhibit poor axial resolution and signal degradation due to the ill-posed nature of the inverse problem. While data-driven approaches enhance spatial resolution by leveraging high-quality paired datasets or imposing structural priors, Neural Radiance Fields (NeRF)-based methods employ physics-informed self-supervised learning to overcome these limitations, yet they are hindered by substantial computational costs and memory demands. Therefore, we propose 3D Gaussian Adaptive Tomography (3DGAT) for FLFM, a 3D gaussian splatting based self-supervised learning framework that significantly improves the volumetric reconstruction quality of FLFM while maintaining computational efficiency. Experimental results indicate that our approach achieves higher resolution and improved reconstruction accuracy, highlighting its potential to advance FLFM imaging and broaden its applications in 3D optical microscopy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12875 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Principle of 3D Gaussian Adaptive Tomography (3DGAT). (a) The optical set-up and forward imaging process of the FLFM system. (b) The schematic of the training pipeline of 3DGAT. NOP, native object plane; OBJ, objective lens; TL, tube lens; NIP, native image plane; FL, Fourier lens; MLA, microlens array; CAM, camera. Operation flow Gradient flow NOP OBJ TL NIP FL MLA CAM (a) FLFM image Initialization Wiener filtering… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance and resolution evaluation of 3DGAT on synthetic data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between RL deconvolution and 3DGAT with different loss functions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reconstruction on experimentally captured zebrafish data. (a) Raw Fourier light-field image of zebrafish data acquired from [20] . (b) x-y MIP images of results obtained by RL deconvolution, raw 3DGAT and effective-rank￾regularized 3DGAT (3DGAT-erank). (c) Enlarged vie…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Three-Step Conditional Diffusion 3D Reconstruction for Light-Field Microscopy

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Proposes TCD, a three-step conditional diffusion model with ICD module, claiming superior fidelity and generalization for LFM 3D reconstruction.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [18]

    Fourier light-field imaging of human organoids with a hybrid point-spread function

    Liu, W., Kim, G.R., Takayama, S., et al. "Fourier light-field imaging of human organoids with a hybrid point-spread function". Biosens Bioelectron 208, 114201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Light field microscopy

    Levoy, M., Ng, R., Adams, A., et al. "Light field microscopy". ACM Trans. Graph. 25, 924– 934 (2006)

    work page 2006

  3. [2]

    Simultaneous whole-animal 3D imaging of neuronal activity using light-field microscopy

    Prevedel, R., Yoon, Y.-G., Hoffmann, M., et al. "Simultaneous whole-animal 3D imaging of neuronal activity using light-field microscopy". Nat. Methods 11, 727-730 (2014). 14

    work page 2014

  4. [3]

    Aberration Modeling in Deep Learning for Volumetric Reconstruction of Light-Field Microscopy

    Zhou, Y., Jin, Z., Zhao, Q. , et al. "Aberration Modeling in Deep Learning for Volumetric Reconstruction of Light-Field Microscopy". Laser Photonics Rev. 17, 2300154 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Light-field micro-endoscopy using a fiber bundle: a snapshot 3D epi-fluorescence endoscope

    Zhou, Y., Xiong, B., Song, W. , et al. "Light-field micro-endoscopy using a fiber bundle: a snapshot 3D epi-fluorescence endoscope". Photonics Res. 10, 2247-2260 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    Wave optics theory and 3 -D deconvolution for the light field microscope

    Broxton, M., Grosenick, L., Yang, S. , et al. "Wave optics theory and 3 -D deconvolution for the light field microscope". Opt Express 21, 25418-25439 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [6]

    Fourier light-field microscopy

    Guo, C., Liu, W., Hua, X. , et al. "Fourier light-field microscopy". Opt Express 27, 25573- 25594 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    An iterative technique for the rectification of observed distributions

    Lucy, L.B. "An iterative technique for the rectification of observed distributions". The Astronomical Journal 79, 745-754 (1974)

    work page 1974

Show all 26 references
  1. [8]

    Bayesian -Based Iterative Method of Image Restoration

    Richardson, W.H. "Bayesian -Based Iterative Method of Image Restoration". Journal of the Optical Society of America 62, 55-59 (1972)

    1972

  2. [9]

    Video-rate 3D imaging of living cells using Fourier view - channel-depth light field microscopy

    Yi, C., Zhu, L., Sun, J. , et al. "Video-rate 3D imaging of living cells using Fourier view - channel-depth light field microscopy". Commun. Biol. 6, 1259 (2023)

    2023

  3. [10]

    Recovery of continuous 3D refractive index maps from discrete intensity -only measurements using neural fields

    Liu, R., Sun, Y., Zhu, J. , et al. "Recovery of continuous 3D refractive index maps from discrete intensity -only measurements using neural fields". Nat. Mach. Intell. 4, 781 -791 (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

    Fourier ptychographic microscopy image stack reconstruction using implicit neural representations

    Zhou, H., Feng, B.Y., Guo, H. , et al. "Fourier ptychographic microscopy image stack reconstruction using implicit neural representations". Optica 10, 1679-1687 (2023)

    2023

  5. [12]

    Coordinate-based neural representations for computational adaptive optics in widefield microscopy

    Kang, I., Zhang, Q., Yu, S.X. , et al. "Coordinate-based neural representations for computational adaptive optics in widefield microscopy". Nat. Mach. Intell. 6, 714-725 (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    Physics-Informed Ellipsoidal Coordinate Encoding Implicit Neural Representation for high -resolution volumetric wide -field microscopy

    Zhou, Y., Xu, C., Jin, Z. , et al. "Physics-Informed Ellipsoidal Coordinate Encoding Implicit Neural Representation for high -resolution volumetric wide -field microscopy". bioRxiv, 2024.2010.2017.618813 (2024)

    2024

  7. [14]

    INeAT: an artifact -suppressed and resolution -enhanced computed tomography through iterative neural adaptive tomography

    Xiong, B., Su, C., Lin, Z. , et al. "INeAT: an artifact -suppressed and resolution -enhanced computed tomography through iterative neural adaptive tomography". Opt Express 32, 32336- 32353 (2024)

    2024

  8. [15]

    3D Gaussian Splatting for Real -Time Radiance Field Rendering

    Kerbl, B., Kopanas, G., Leimkuehler, T. , et al. "3D Gaussian Splatting for Real -Time Radiance Field Rendering". ACM Trans. Graph. 42, Article 139 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    R $^ 2$-Gaussian: Rectifying Radiative Gaussian Splatting for Tomographic Reconstruction

    Zha, R., Lin, T.J., Cai, Y., et al. "R $^ 2$-Gaussian: Rectifying Radiative Gaussian Splatting for Tomographic Reconstruction". Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37, 44907-44934 (2025)

    2025

  10. [17]

    4DRGS: 4D Radiative Gaussian Splatting for Efficient 3D Vessel Reconstruction from Sparse -View Dynamic DSA Images

    Liu, Z., Zha, R., Zhao, H., et al. "4DRGS: 4D Radiative Gaussian Splatting for Efficient 3D Vessel Reconstruction from Sparse -View Dynamic DSA Images". arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12919 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Free-depths reconstruction with synthetic impulse response in integral imaging

    Llavador, A., Sá nchez-Ortiga, E., Saavedra, G. , et al. "Free-depths reconstruction with synthetic impulse response in integral imaging". Opt Express 23, 30127-30135 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Fast light-field 3D microscopy with out- of-distribution detection and adaptation through conditional normalizing flows

    Page Vizcaí no, J., Symvoulidis, P., Wang, Z., et al. "Fast light-field 3D microscopy with out- of-distribution detection and adaptation through conditional normalizing flows". Biomed Opt Express 15, 1219-1232 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Effective Rank Analysis and Regularization for Enhanced 3D Gaussian Splatting

    HYUNG, J., Hong, S., Hwang, S. , et al. "Effective Rank Analysis and Regularization for Enhanced 3D Gaussian Splatting". in Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2024). 15

    2024

  14. [22]

    Multiview light-sheet microscope for rapid in toto imaging

    Krzic, U., Gunther, S., Saunders, T.E. , et al. "Multiview light-sheet microscope for rapid in toto imaging". Nat. Methods 9, 730-733 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    DaXi—high-resolution, large imaging volume and multi-view single-objective light-sheet microscopy

    Yang, B., Lange, M., Millett -Sikking, A. , et al. "DaXi—high-resolution, large imaging volume and multi-view single-objective light-sheet microscopy". Nat. Methods 19, 461-469 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Multiview confocal super-resolution microscopy

    Wu, Y., Han, X., Su, Y., et al. "Multiview confocal super-resolution microscopy". Nature 600, 279-284 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Iterative tomography with digital adaptive optics permits hour- long intravital observation of 3D subcellular dynamics at millisecond scale

    Wu, J., Lu, Z., Jiang, D., et al. "Iterative tomography with digital adaptive optics permits hour- long intravital observation of 3D subcellular dynamics at millisecond scale". Cell 184, 3318- 3332.e3317 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Fast and accurate three -dimensional point spread function computation for fluorescence microscopy

    Li, J., Xue, F. & Blu, T. "Fast and accurate three -dimensional point spread function computation for fluorescence microscopy". J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 34, 1029-1034 (2017). Caption List Fig. 1 Principle of 3D Gaussian Adaptive Tomography (3DGAT). Fig. 2 Performance a...

    2017

Pith tools

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