Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Incomplete Data Multi-Source Static Computed Tomography Reconstruction with Diffusion Priors and Implicit Neural Representation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An incomplete-data multi-source static CT reconstruction pipeline that combines a diffusion prior, affine-set projection, implicit neural representation, and self-supervised refinement is claimed to produce structurally accurate 3D…

desk verdict Plausible engineering combination for multi-source static CT, but the 'posterior sampling' claim leans on an unproved heuristic and the experiments are narrower than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01013 v1 pith:P3CGKZU3 submitted 2025-01-02 physics.med-ph

Ziju Shen , Haimiao Zhang , Bin Dong , Jun Qiu , Yunxiang Li , Zhili Cui This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-ph MSC 68U1092C5594A0835R60
keywords Multi-sourcestaticCTSparse-viewreconstructionLimitedangleDiffusionpriorImplicitneuralrepresentationStochasticdifferentialequationSelf-supervisedlearningAffinesetprojection
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 tries to establish that incomplete-data 3D CT reconstruction on a multi-source static scanner can be solved by a conditional diffusion loop that never needs paired ground-truth training data. The loop denoises the current reverse-time sample with a pretrained score function, projects the estimate onto the set of volumes matching the measured projections, represents the volume continuously with an implicit neural network, and refines it by a self-supervised fit to the projection data. In numerical tests on three phantoms, the proposed DIP-ASPINS model attains the highest SSIM among compared methods in most sparse-view settings, for example 0.8801 at 240 views on the Abdomen phantom versus 0.8691 for the DPER baseline. If the claim holds, CT scans could use far fewer views and a fraction of the radiation dose while still producing structurally accurate volumes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the conditional generation step that carries one reverse-time diffusion state $x_t$ to $x_{t-1}$. It combines four mechanisms: a closed-form MMSE clean estimate $\tilde{x}_{0t} = x_t + \sigma_t^2 s_{\theta^*}(x_t,t)$; the affine projector $P_C(\tilde{x}_{0t}) = \tilde{x}_{0t} + P^\top(PP^\top)^{-1}(Y - P\tilde{x}_{0t})$, implemented with conjugate gradients to enforce consistency with measured data; an implicit neural representation (a multilayer perceptron with hash-encoded position embedding) that parameterizes the volume and permits arbitrary-resolution resampling; and a self-supervised refinement that fits the network to the projection $Y$ directly. Without the INR and self-supervised stages the algorithm reduces to DIP-ASP, which only projects; with them, DIP-ASPINS is the version that reports the best structural similarity.

What would settle it

Keep the INR and self-supervised stages fixed but replace the pseudo-forward transition $x_{t-1} = \bar{x}_0 + \sigma_{t-1} z$ with the standard reverse-time SDE update; if the SSIM and PSNR advantages over DIP-ASP largely disappear, those reported gains depend on the unproven marginal transition rather than on the rest of the pipeline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is an approximate posterior sampling strategy for the multi-source static CT inverse problem $Y = Pu + n$. Between ordinary reverse-time diffusion steps, the method inserts a data-consistency stage: a closed-form MMSE clean estimate $\tilde{x}_{0t} = x_t + \sigma_t^2 s_{\theta^*}(x_t,t)$ is computed from the noisy diffusion sample, projection onto the affine set $\{x : Px = Y\}$ is carried out by conjugate gradient, an MLP with hash encoding fits the projected volume, and a self-supervised loss $\min_{\Phi} \|P F(\epsilon_0;\Phi) - Y\|^2 + R_\lambda(\Phi)$ refines it. The refined volume $\bar{x}_0$ is returned to the diffusion chain through the pseudo-forward transition $x_{t-1} = \bar{x}_0 + \sigma_{t-1} z$. Reported numbers show DIP-ASPINS leading in SSIM for most tested sparse-view settings on the Abdomen, Pancreas, and SAA phantoms, with PSNR sometimes below NAF and DPER; quality improves as projection noise falls and as SDE discretization steps increase.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the pseudo-forward transition: after self-supervised refinement, adding Gaussian noise at the scheduled level is treated as a true sample from the reverse-time diffusion marginal, but no derivation or convergence argument supports that equivalence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If DIP-ASPINS is correct, sparse-view MSCT scans with 48 to 240 views can produce volumes with better structural similarity than tuned iterative, NAF, and DPER baselines, supporting lower-dose clinical protocols.
  • The method needs no paired ground-truth volumes for the reconstruction itself; a pretrained score function plus a self-supervised projection fit is enough, so new scan geometries can be handled without retraining a conditional network.
  • Because the phantom is represented implicitly, the fitted network can be resampled to a finer grid to produce higher-resolution slices than the training representation.
  • The reported curves imply a direct trade-off: larger SDE discretization step counts improve PSNR and SSIM but increase runtime, so deployment would choose a step count by available compute.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the pseudo-forward transition is the piece most worth attacking: replacing it with a principled approximate posterior update could give the method a convergence guarantee and better noisy-measurement behavior.
  • The same four-step loop should transfer to other linear inverse problems with explicit forward operators, such as MRI or coded-aperture imaging, since the diffusion prior acts on slices and the projector is generic.
  • The PSNR-versus-SSIM gap suggests the method emphasizes edge structure over high-frequency fidelity; a frequency-resolved error analysis would show whether the remaining error is noise-like or anatomical.
  • The paper uses a slice-wise 2D score; a genuinely 3D diffusion prior might improve inter-slice coherence, at the cost of much heavier pretraining.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a reconstruction method for multi-source static CT (MSCT) from incomplete measurements, combining a pre-trained diffusion score model, affine-set projection for data consistency, an implicit neural representation (INR) for continuous 3D phantom representation, and a self-supervised learning (SSL) refinement step. The resulting algorithm, DIP-ASPINS, is evaluated against classical iterative methods, NAF, and DPER on non-uniform sparse-view projections of three phantoms (Abdomen, Pancreas, SAA), at multiple noise levels and SDE discretization steps. The authors claim that this is a new approximate posterior sampling strategy for MSCT volume reconstruction.

Significance. If the method's effectiveness were fully established, the combination of diffusion priors with INR and SSL would be a useful contribution to incomplete-data CT reconstruction, particularly because the MSCT hardware system with 24 static sources is a concrete application context. The paper includes several strengths: the imaging geometry of the CompoundEyeCT system is described in detail; the method is evaluated against a reasonable set of baselines; and the experiments cover sparse-view counts, noise levels, and SDE step sizes. However, the central methodological claim about approximate posterior sampling rests on an unproved state-transition heuristic, and the evaluation omits the limited-angle setting advertised in the abstract and includes a test phantom drawn from the same dataset used to train the diffusion prior. These issues need to be addressed before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract and introduction state that the method is designed for 'sparse view and limited angle data', but Section 4 contains no limited-angle experiment. All sparse-view experiments use non-uniformly distributed views around the full circle (#views = 48, 72, 120, 240), and the noise-level and SDE-step experiments also use a 120-view full-circle setting. The limited-angle claim is therefore unsupported by the reported results and should either be backed by an actual limited-angle simulation or removed from the claims.
  2. [Section 3.1.4 and Algorithm 3.1] The pseudo-forward state transition x_{t-1} = \bar{x}_0 + \sigma_{t-1} z is introduced without derivation or error bound. Here \bar{x}_0 is the result of an INR/SSL minimization of \|P F(\epsilon_0;\Phi)-Y\|^2, so it is a data-dependent point estimate, not a sample from the reverse conditional marginal p_{t-1}(x_{t-1}|x_t,Y). Because this replacement is applied every K steps, the same measurement Y is injected at multiple noise levels, which can over-emphasize the likelihood relative to the prior. The paper explicitly calls the scheme 'approximate' but gives no convergence argument and no quantitative control of the introduced mismatch, so the central claim that DIP-ASPINS is a posterior sampling strategy is not established.
  3. [Section 4.3 and Section 4 (first paragraph)] The Abdomen test phantom is taken from the same '2016 NIH-AAPM-Mayo Clinic Low Dose CT Grand Challenge' dataset on which the diffusion prior (score function) was trained in the first paragraph of Section 4. No train/test separation is described. Consequently, the Abdomen rows in Table 1 are partially self-referential and the reported SSIM improvements over the baselines on Abdomen may reflect the diffusion prior having memorized the test distribution. The Pancreas and SAA phantoms are external and provide more reliable evidence; the paper should retrain on a disjoint dataset or report results on a hold-out set.
  4. [Algorithm 3.1 and Section 3.1.2] The INR input tensor \epsilon_0 is defined as a 3D mesh grid in Section 3.1.2, but Algorithm 3.1 sets \epsilon_0 \sim N(0,I) and draws a fresh noise tensor \epsilon_{00} for the evaluation F(\epsilon_{00};\Phi^*). This discrepancy makes it unclear which encoding is actually used in the experiments and affects reproducibility. The paper should state the exact input encoding and whether the reported results use the grid encoding or random noise.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 3.2] Algorithm 3.2 uses the variable \bar{x}_0 in the line 'Next image prior x_{t-1} = \bar{x}_0 + \sigma_{t-1} \cdot z', but \bar{x}_0 is not defined in that algorithm; it should likely be \tilde{x}_0 from the affine projection step.
  2. [Figure 9 and Section 4.4.3] The text in Section 4.4.3 says the test phantom is 'a 10 slices of Pancreas', while the caption of Figure 9 first repeats that phrase and then states 'The test phantom is the Abdomen from the AAPM dataset'. These statements contradict each other and should be corrected.
  3. [Section 4.4.1, Table 1] The statement that DIP-ASPINS has the best SSIM 'except the case #views = 48' is not accurate: at #views=48 on Abdomen, DIP-ASP has SSIM 0.7980 versus 0.7924 for DIP-ASPINS, and on SAA DIP-ASP has SSIM 0.8899 versus 0.8762 for DIP-ASPINS. The text should be revised to describe the actual pattern in the table.
  4. [Table 1] No standard deviations or repeated runs are reported for the stochastic diffusion-based methods. Since the sampling process is random, a single run per setting is insufficient to support the ranking of methods, especially when the differences are small (e.g., Abdomen at #views=72: DIP-ASPINS 0.8226 vs DIP-ASP 0.8220).
  5. [Equation (4.1)] The noise term in Eq. (4.1) is written as '\eta \cdot \epsilon, \epsilon \sim N(0, \eta^2 I)', which implies a variance of \eta^4. This is likely a typo; the intended Gaussian noise level and its scaling should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DIP-ASPINS is a defined data-consistency plus diffusion-prior algorithm, and its approximate pseudo-forward transition is an unproved heuristic rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain: Tweedie denoising (Eq. 3.1), affine projection (Eq. 3.3), INR fitting (Eq. 3.5), SSL refinement (Eq. 3.7), and the pseudo-forward state transition (Section 3.1.4). Each step is a defined operation on the current state and the measurement Y, and no equation defines its output in terms of the final reported reconstruction. The pseudo-forward transition x_{t-1} = xbar_0 + sigma_{t-1} z replaces the reverse marginal with a point estimate plus noise; the paper explicitly labels the resulting strategy 'approximate,' so this is an omitted convergence proof or correctness risk, not a circularity, because the transition is not claimed to be derived from the target posterior and the final image is not a renamed training loss. The score prior is pre-trained on the AAPM dataset and one test phantom is from that same dataset; this is a train/test overlap concern for the Abdomen column, but it does not force the reported SSIM by construction, and the Pancreas and SAA phantoms provide external benchmarks. Self-citations in the related-work sections are not load-bearing for the central algorithm. I find no circular step that reduces a prediction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method contributes no new physical entities. It relies on standard diffusion-SDE theory, a domain-specific imaging model, and an unproved heuristic transition. The main free parameters are algorithm hyperparameters; the regularization weights are not reported, which weakens reproducibility.

free parameters (6)
  • SDE discretization steps N = N=2000 (tested 200,500,1000,1500,2000)
    Chosen by hand; larger N improves PSNR/SSIM at the cost of runtime (Section 4.4.3).
  • Conditional update interval K = K=25 or 50 depending on t and N
    Chosen by hand; controls how often the measurement constraint is applied (Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2).
  • INR update steps N_INR = 10
    Chosen by hand for the INR fitting stage (Section 4.4.1).
  • SSL update steps N_SSL = 50
    Chosen by hand for the self-supervised refinement stage (Section 4.4.1).
  • Regularization weights (lambda, mu) = not reported numerically
    Present in objective functions (3.5), (3.7), (3.9) but no values are given, making exact reproduction impossible.
  • Learning rate = 1e-4 (Adam)
    Set for SSL training; a standard choice, but still a hand-set hyperparameter.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Tweedie's formula gives the MMSE estimate E[x0|xt] = xt + sigma_t^2 grad log p_t(xt)
    Used in Section 3.1.1 to obtain denoised estimate x0_t before projection; assumes the score function is exact.
  • domain assumption The score function pre-trained on AAPM data approximates the true score for all test phantoms
    Central to the diffusion prior; the Abdomen test phantom is drawn from the same AAPM dataset used for training.
  • domain assumption The forward operator P of the MSCT system and the CG solution to (PP^T)y = (Y - P x0_t) accurately model the imaging physics and the projection step
    Invoked in Section 3.1.1; the CG inversion is iterative and its accuracy is not measured.
  • ad hoc to paper Adding Gaussian noise sigma_{t-1} z to the refined reconstruction yields a sample from p_{t-1}
    Section 3.1.4 pseudo-forward transition; no derivation, the load-bearing assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Incomplete Data Multi-Source Static Computed Tomography Reconstruction with Diffusion Priors and Implicit Neural Representation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P3CGKZU3

@misc{pith2026250101013,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Incomplete Data Multi-Source Static Computed Tomography Reconstruction with Diffusion Priors and Implicit Neural Representation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P3CGKZU3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01013}
}
read the original abstract

The dose of X-ray radiation and the scanning time are crucial factors in computed tomography (CT) for clinical applications. In this work, we introduce a multi-source static CT imaging system designed to rapidly acquire sparse view and limited angle data in CT imaging, addressing these critical factors. This linear imaging inverse problem is solved by a conditional generation process within the denoising diffusion image reconstruction framework. The noisy volume data sample generated by the reverse time diffusion process is projected onto the affine set to ensure its consistency to the measured data. To enhance the quality of the reconstruction, the 3D phantom's orthogonal space projector is parameterized implicitly by a neural network. Then, a self-supervised learning algorithm is adopted to optimize the implicit neural representation. Through this multistage conditional generation process, we obtain a new approximate posterior sampling strategy for MSCT volume reconstruction. Numerical experiments are implemented with various imaging settings to verify the effectiveness of our methods for incomplete data MSCT volume reconstruction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01013 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Forward diffusion and the conditional generation process. The reverse time diffusion process with a measurement constraint can be formulated by an SDE as (2.11) dx(t) = f(xt , t) − g(t) 2∇xt log pt(xt |y)  dt + g(t)dw¯. Note that this SDE does not directly correspond to the original forward diffusion model in (2.4). Even though the modification is straightforward, the exact posterior sampling for the diffusion mode… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multi-Source Static CT System. 2.4.1. Scanning Mode. Short scan settings in the CT imaging system can reduce the radiation dose and scanning time. The mechanical structure of the MSXS CompoundEyeCT equipment makes it a flexible system that controls the scanning direction/range and speed. Therefore, we can obtain a sparse view and limited angle projection with the scanning tra￾jectory as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sparse and non-uniform scanning trajectory. The small blue circle disk indicates the start position of the X-ray source.The arc edge of the white fan-shaped area are not scanned in the short scan mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The flow chart of the diffusion posterior sampling scheme in the reverse time diffusion process p(xt−1|xt). 3.1.1. Projection onto Affine Set. Given an image sample xt at timestamp t, the pos￾terior expectation of the noiseless image can be computed by Tweedie’s formul…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The reconstructed transverse plane image slices of Abdomen phantom. The numbers of sparse views is 240. From left to right, the first row shows the compared methods: ADMM, NAF, and DPER. The second row shows the compared methods: DIP-ASP, DIP-ASPINS, and the ground tru…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The visualization of coronal plane image slices of Abdomen phantom. From left to right, the first row shows the compared methods: L2TV-ADMM, NAF, and DPER. The second row shows the compared methods: DIP-ASP, DIP-ASPINS, and the ground truth. The display window is [0.1,…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The PSNR (left subfigure) and SSIM (right subfigure) curves with respect to different noise levels. The test phantom is SAA with 20 slices, and the number of projection views is 120 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The SAA phantom slices reconstructed by DIP-ASPINS at different noise levels. From left to right, the noise level at the top row is I0 = 104 , 5 × 104 , 5 × 105 . In the second row, the noise levels from left to right are I0 = 1 × 106 , 5 × 106 , and the ground truth. …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The PSNR (left subfigure) and SSIM (right subfigure) curves with respect to different SDE discretization steps N. The test phantom is a 10 slices of Pancreas. The number of sparse views is 72. The test phantom is the Abdomen from the AAPM dataset. The image slices reco…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Reconstructed image slices of the Abdomen phantom by DIP-ASPINS with different SDE dis￾cretization step N. The values of N at the top row from left to right are 200, 500, and1000. In the second row, the values of N from left to right are set to 1500 and 2000. The last…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adler and O.¨Oktem, Learned primal-dual reconstruction, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 37 (2018), pp

    J. Adler and O.¨Oktem, Learned primal-dual reconstruction, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 37 (2018), pp. 1322–1332

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Aitchison, A unified theory of adaptive stochastic gradient descent as bayesian filtering , arXiv: 1807.07540, (2018)

    L. Aitchison, A unified theory of adaptive stochastic gradient descent as bayesian filtering , arXiv: 1807.07540, (2018)

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    B. D. Anderson, Reverse-time diffusion equation models , Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 12 (1982), pp. 313–326

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    T. Bai, H. Yan, X. Jia, S. Jiang, G. W ang, and X. Mou, Z-index parameterization for volumetric CT image reconstruction via 3-D dictionary learning , IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 36 (2017), pp. 2466–2478, https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2017.2759819

    work page arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    H. H. Bauschke and P. L. Combettes, Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces, New York: Springer, 2nd ed., 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Bengio, I

    Y. Bengio, I. Goodfellow, and A. Courville, Deep learning, vol. 1, MIT press Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato, J. Eckstein, et al., Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers , Foundations and Trends ® in Machine learning, 3 (2011), pp. 1–122

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Buades, B

    A. Buades, B. Coll, and J.-M. Morel, A non-local algorithm for image denoising , in 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’05), vol. 2, 2005, pp. 60–65, https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2005.38

    doi:10.1109/cvpr.2005.38 2005

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    J.-F. Cai, X. Jia, H. Gao, S. B. Jiang, Z. Shen, and H. Zhao, Cine cone beam CT reconstruction using low-rank matrix factorization: Algorithm and a proof-of-principle study , IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 33 (2014), pp. 1581–1591, https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2014.2319055

    2014

  2. [10]

    Chambolle and T

    A. Chambolle and T. Pock, A first-order primal-dual algorithm for convex problems with applications to imaging , Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 40 (2011), pp. 120–145

    2011

  3. [11]

    J. Choi, S. Kim, Y. Jeong, Y. Gwon, and S. Yoon, IL VR: Conditioning method for denoising diffusion probabilistic models, in 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2021, pp. 14347–14356, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV48922.2021.01410

    2021

  4. [12]

    Chung, J

    H. Chung, J. Kim, M. T. Mccann, M. L. Klasky, and J. C. Ye, Diffusion posterior sampling for general noisy inverse problems , in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Chung, B

    H. Chung, B. Sim, D. Ryu, and J. C. Ye, Improving diffusion models for inverse problems using manifold constraints, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, 2022, pp. 25683– 25696

    2022

  6. [14]

    Chung, B

    H. Chung, B. Sim, and J. C. Ye, Come-closer-diffuse-faster: Accelerating conditional diffusion models for inverse problems through stochastic contraction , in The IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 12413–12422

    2022

  7. [15]

    Chung and J

    H. Chung and J. C. Ye, Score-based diffusion models for accelerated MRI, Medical Image Analysis, 80 (2022), p. 102479

    2022

  8. [16]

    Dabov, A

    K. Dabov, A. Foi, V. Katkovnik, and K. Egiazarian, Image denoising by sparse 3-D transform- domain collaborative filtering , IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 16 (2007), pp. 2080–2095, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2007.901238

    2007

  9. [17]

    Dhariwal and A

    P. Dhariwal and A. Nichol, Diffusion models beat GANs on image synthesis , in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, 2021, pp. 8780–8794

    2021

  10. [18]

    The Mathematics of Image Processing

    B. Dong and Z. Shen, MRA-based wavelet frames and applications , IAS Lecture Notes Series, Summer Program on “The Mathematics of Image Processing”, Park City Mathematics Institute, 19 (2010), pp. 9–158

    2010

  11. [19]

    D. L. Donoho, Compressed sensing, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 52 (2006), pp. 1289– 1306

    2006

  12. [20]

    Dou and Y

    Z. Dou and Y. Song, Diffusion posterior sampling for linear inverse problem solving: A filtering per- spective, in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    C. Du, X. Lin, Q. Wu, X. Tian, Y. Su, Z. Luo, H. Wei, S. K. Zhou, J. Yu, and Y. Zhang, DPER: Diffusion prior driven neural representation for limited angle and sparse view CT reconstruction , arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.17890, (2024). MSCT RECONSTRUCTION WITH DIFFUSION PRIORS AND INR 25

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Efron, Tweedie’s formula and selection bias , Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106 (2011), pp

    B. Efron, Tweedie’s formula and selection bias , Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106 (2011), pp. 1602–1614

    2011

  15. [23]

    Y. C. Eldar and G. Kutyniok, Compressed sensing: theory and applications , Cambridge university press, 2012

    2012

  16. [24]

    L. C. Evans, An introduction to stochastic differential equations , vol. 82, American Mathematical Soc., 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    L. A. Feldkamp, L. C. Davis, and J. W. Kress, Practical cone-beam algorithm, Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 1 (1984), pp. 612–619

    1984

  18. [26]

    Geman and C

    D. Geman and C. Yang, Nonlinear image recovery with half-quadratic regularization, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 4 (1995), pp. 932–946

    1995

  19. [27]

    Goodfellow, J

    I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. W arde-F arley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio, Generative adversarial nets , Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 27 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Gordon, A tutorial on ART (algebraic reconstruction techniques) , IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 21 (1974), pp

    R. Gordon, A tutorial on ART (algebraic reconstruction techniques) , IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 21 (1974), pp. 78–93

    1974

  21. [29]

    Gupta, A

    S. Gupta, A. Jalal, A. Parulekar, E. Price, and Z. Xun, Diffusion posterior sampling is computa- tionally intractable , arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12727, (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    D. Ha, A. M. Dai, and Q. V. Le, Hypernetworks, in International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2017. ICLR poster

    2017

  23. [31]

    Hanson and L

    S. Hanson and L. Pratt, Comparing biases for minimal network construction with back-propagation , in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 1, 1988

    1988

  24. [32]

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, Denoising diffusion probabilistic models , in Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, vol. 33, 2020, pp. 6840–6851

    2020

  25. [33]

    Hore and D

    A. Hore and D. Ziou, Image quality metrics: PSNR vs. SSIM , in 2010 20th international conference on pattern recognition, IEEE, 2010, pp. 2366–2369

    2010

  26. [34]

    Hyv¨arinen and P

    A. Hyv¨arinen and P. Dayan, Estimation of non-normalized statistical models by score matching. , Journal of Machine Learning Research, 6 (2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    Jalal, M

    A. Jalal, M. Arvinte, G. Daras, E. Price, A. G. Dimakis, and J. Tamir, Robust compressed sensing MRI with deep generative priors , in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, 2021, pp. 14938–14954

    2021

  28. [36]

    Jiang and G

    M. Jiang and G. W ang, Convergence of the simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (SART) , IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 12 (2003), pp. 957–961

    2003

  29. [37]

    Karchev, N

    K. Karchev, N. A. Montel, A. Coogan, and C. Weniger, Strong-lensing source reconstruction with denoising diffusion restoration models , in NeurIPS Workshop on Machine Learning and the Physical Sciences, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Kawar, M

    B. Kawar, M. Elad, S. Ermon, and J. Song, Denoising diffusion restoration models , in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, 2022, pp. 23593–23606

    2022

  31. [39]

    D. P. Kingma, Auto-encoding variational bayes, arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  32. [40]

    D. P. Kingma and B. Jimmy, Adam: A method for stochastic optimization , in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2015

    2015

  33. [41]

    LeCun, Y

    Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, Deep learning, Nature, 521 (2015), pp. 436–444

    2015

  34. [42]

    Li and C

    J. Li and C. W ang, DiffFPR: Diffusion prior for oversampled fourier phase retrieval , in International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR 235, 2024, pp. 1–15

    2024

  35. [43]

    Loshchilov and F

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, Decoupled weight decay regularization, in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Mildenhall, P

    B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoorthi, and R. Ng, NeRF: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis , Communications of the ACM, 65 (2021), pp. 99–106

    2021

  37. [45]

    Monga, Y

    V. Monga, Y. Li, and Y. C. Eldar, Algorithm unrolling: Interpretable, efficient deep learning for signal and image processing , IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 38 (2021), pp. 18–44

    2021

  38. [46]

    M¨uller, A

    T. M¨uller, A. Evans, C. Schied, and A. Keller, Instant neural graphics primitives with a multires- olution hash encoding , ACM Transactions on Graphics, 41 (2022), pp. 1–15

    2022

  39. [47]

    Romano, M

    Y. Romano, M. Elad, and P. Milanfar, The little engine that could: Regularization by denoising (RED), SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 10 (2017), pp. 1804–1844, https://doi.org/10.1137/ 26 SHEN, ZHANG, DONG, QIU, CUI, AND LI 16M1102884

    2017

  40. [48]

    Rombach, A

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer, High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models , in The IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 10684–10695

    2022

  41. [49]

    L. I. Rudin, S. Osher, and E. F atemi, Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms, Physica D: nonlinear phenomena, 60 (1992), pp. 259–268

    1992

  42. [50]

    E. Y. Sidky and X. Pan, Image reconstruction in circular cone-beam computed tomography by con- strained, total-variation minimization , Physics in Medicine & Biology, 53 (2008), p. 4777

    2008

  43. [51]

    Sohl-Dickstein, E

    J. Sohl-Dickstein, E. Weiss, N. Maheswaranathan, and S. Ganguli, Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics , in International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, 2015, pp. 2256–2265

    2015

  44. [52]

    J. Song, A. V ahdat, M. Mardani, and J. Kautz, Pseudoinverse-guided diffusion models for inverse problems, in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    J. Song, Q. Zhang, H. Yin, M. Mardani, M.-Y. Liu, J. Kautz, Y. Chen, and A. V ahdat, Loss- guided diffusion models for plug-and-play controllable generation , in International Conference on Ma- chine Learning, PMLR, 2023, pp. 32483–32498

    2023

  46. [54]

    Y. Song, S. Garg, J. Shi, and S. Ermon, Sliced score matching: A scalable approach to density and score estimation, in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, PMLR, 2020, pp. 574–584

    2020

  47. [55]

    Y. Song, L. Shen, L. Xing, and S. Ermon, Solving inverse problems in medical imaging with score- based generative models , in NeurIPS 2021 Workshop on Deep Generative Models and Downstream Applications, 2021

    2021

  48. [56]

    Y. Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P. Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Ermon, and B. Poole, Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations, in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  49. [57]

    K. J. Strauss and S. C. Kaste, The ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) concept in pediatric interventional and fluoroscopic imaging: striving to keep radiation doses as low as possible during fluoroscopy of pediatric patients—a white paper executive summary , Radiology, 24...

    2006

  50. [58]

    Ulyanov, A

    D. Ulyanov, A. Vedaldi, and V. Lempitsky, Deep image prior, in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 9446–9454

    2018

  51. [59]

    V an Aarle, W

    W. V an Aarle, W. J. Palenstijn, J. Cant, E. Janssens, F. Bleichrodt, A. Dabravolski, J. De Beenhouwer, K. Joost Batenburg, and J. Sijbers, Fast and flexible X-ray tomography using the astra toolbox , Optics express, 24 (2016), pp. 25129–25147

    2016

  52. [60]

    S. V. Venkatakrishnan, C. A. Bouman, and B. Wohlberg, Plug-and-play priors for model based reconstruction, in 2013 IEEE global conference on signal and information processing, IEEE, 2013, pp. 945–948

    2013

  53. [61]

    W ang, K

    C. W ang, K. Shang, H. Zhang, Q. Li, and S. K. Zhou, DuDoTrans: dual-domain transformer for sparse-view CT reconstruction , in International Workshop on Machine Learning for Medical Image Reconstruction, Springer, 2022, pp. 84–94

    2022

  54. [62]

    W ang, H

    C. W ang, H. Zhang, Q. Li, K. Shang, Y. Lyu, B. Dong, and S. K. Zhou, Improving generalizability in limited-angle CT reconstruction with sinogram extrapolation , in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbour...

    2021

  55. [63]

    W ang, J

    G. W ang, J. C. Ye, and B. De Man, Deep learning for tomographic image reconstruction , Nature Machine Intelligence, 2 (2020), pp. 737–748

    2020

  56. [64]

    W ang, Y

    H. W ang, Y. Li, H. Zhang, J. Chen, K. Ma, D. Meng, and Y. Zheng, InDuDoNet: An interpretable dual domain network for CT metal artifact reduction , in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbourg, France, Sep...

    2021

  57. [65]

    W ang, Y

    H. W ang, Y. Li, H. Zhang, D. Meng, and Y. Zheng, InDuDoNet+: A deep unfolding dual domain network for metal artifact reduction in CT images , Medical Image Analysis, 85 (2023), p. 102729

    2023

  58. [66]

    W ang, A

    Z. W ang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli, Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity , IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13 (2004), pp. 600–612

    2004

  59. [67]

    Q. Xu, H. Yu, X. Mou, L. Zhang, J. Hsieh, and G. W ang, Low-dose X-ray CT reconstruction MSCT RECONSTRUCTION WITH DIFFUSION PRIORS AND INR 27 via dictionary learning , IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 31 (2012), pp. 1682–1697, https: //doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2012.2195669

    2012

  60. [68]

    Y. Yang, J. Sun, H. Li, and Z. Xu, Deep ADMM-Net for compressive sensing MRI , in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 29, 2016

    2016

  61. [69]

    Y. Yang, J. Sun, H. Li, and Z. Xu, ADMM-CSNet: A deep learning approach for image compressive sensing, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 42 (2018), pp. 521–538

    2018

  62. [70]

    R. Zha, Y. Zhang, and H. Li, NAF: neural attenuation fields for sparse-view CBCT reconstruc- tion, in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Springer, 2022, pp. 442–452

    2022

  63. [71]

    Zhang, B

    H. Zhang, B. Dong, and B. Liu, JSR-Net: A deep network for joint spatial-radon domain ct recon- struction from incomplete data , in ICASSP 2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), IEEE, 2019, pp. 3657–3661

    2019

  64. [72]

    Zhang, B

    H. Zhang, B. Liu, H. Yu, and B. Dong, MetaInv-Net: Meta inversion network for sparse view CT image reconstruction, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 40 (2020), pp. 621–634

    2020

  65. [73]

    Zhang and B

    H.-M. Zhang and B. Dong, A review on deep learning in medical image reconstruction , Journal of the Operations Research Society of China, 8 (2020), pp. 311–340

    2020

  66. [74]

    Zhang, Y

    K. Zhang, Y. Li, W. Zuo, L. Zhang, L. V an Gool, and R. Timofte, Plug-and-play image restoration with deep denoiser prior, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44 (2021), pp. 6360–6376

    2021

  67. [75]

    Zhang, W

    K. Zhang, W. Zuo, Y. Chen, D. Meng, and L. Zhang, Beyond a gaussian denoiser: Residual learning of deep CNN for image denoising , IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 26 (2017), pp. 3142–3155, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2017.2662206

    2017

  68. [76]

    Zhang, M

    X. Zhang, M. Burger, and S. Osher, A unified primal-dual algorithm framework based on Bregman iteration, Journal of Scientific Computing, 46 (2011), pp. 20–46

    2011

  69. [77]

    B. Zhu, J. Z. Liu, S. F. Cauley, B. R. Rosen, and M. S. Rosen, Image reconstruction by domain- transform manifold learning , Nature, 555 (2018), pp. 487–492

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.