pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04174 · v1 · pith:3ULUXTH5new · submitted 2026-06-02 · 📡 eess.IV · physics.app-ph

Co-optimization of Diffusive and Tomographic Blur in Computed Axial Lithography via Experimental Kernel Identification

Jennings Z. Ye , Abrar Amin Khan , Hayden K. Taylor This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 07:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.IV physics.app-ph
keywords computed axial lithographydiffusion kernelvolumetric additive manufacturingtomographic blurmicro-CT validationblur correctionphotosensitive resinkernel identification
0
0 comments X

The pith

A single experimentally extracted diffusion kernel allows co-optimization of diffusive and tomographic blur to raise fidelity in computed axial lithography prints.

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

The paper establishes a framework that extracts one diffusion kernel by comparing micro-CT scans of an uncorrected print to dose models convolved with kernels of different diffusivities. This kernel is then incorporated into the optimization of projected light patterns so that the effects of oxygen quenching and the inherent tomographic reconstruction blur are handled together. The resulting prints show higher fidelity than those obtained by simply deconvolving the target geometry in advance. A sympathetic reader would care because the approach supplies a practical, data-driven correction that uses only a standard test print and existing hardware.

Core claim

By comparing micro-CT data to computational dose models convolved with kernels across a range of diffusivities, the authors extract a single diffusion kernel from any standard uncorrected print to account for all observed deviations from the target. Correcting diffusion-induced blurring by co-optimizing for its effects alongside the inherent blur of the computed tomography reconstruction demonstrates improved fidelity over previous approaches of pre-compensating the target geometry via deconvolution.

What carries the argument

Experimental identification of a single diffusion kernel from micro-CT data compared against convolved dose models, then used for joint optimization with tomographic reconstruction blur.

If this is right

  • The extracted kernel accounts for all deviations observed in the print geometry.
  • Co-optimization of diffusive and tomographic blur produces higher fidelity than deconvolution pre-compensation alone.
  • Kernel extraction works from any standard uncorrected print without special calibration objects.
  • The method simultaneously corrects blur from free-radical quenchers and from the tomography reconstruction process.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same extraction procedure could be repeated on prints made with different resin formulations to test kernel consistency.
  • If the kernel proves stable across a range of exposure times, the correction could be applied without re-extraction for each new job.
  • The co-optimization approach might extend directly to other projection-based volumetric printing techniques that face similar diffusive blurring.

Load-bearing premise

A single diffusion kernel extracted from any standard uncorrected print can account for all observed deviations from the target geometry across different prints and feature types.

What would settle it

Printing a new geometry with the kernel extracted from a prior standard print and checking whether micro-CT measurements match the co-optimized dose prediction within experimental error.

read the original abstract

Computed Axial Lithography is a volumetric additive manufacturing method that selectively cures photosensitive resin through the 3D superposition of patterns of light, offering advantages over layer-based processes including rapid print times, reduced layer artifacts, and compatibility with high-viscosity materials. However, diffusive effects, primarily those of free-radical quenchers such as oxygen, blur the boundary between cured and uncured regions, limiting resolution and preventing the reproduction of sharp, high-spatial-frequency features. By comparing micro-CT data to computational dose models convolved with kernels across a range of diffusivities, we establish a framework for extracting a single diffusion kernel from any standard uncorrected print to account for all observed deviations from the target. In this work, we correct diffusion-induced blurring by co-optimizing for its effects alongside the inherent blur of the computed tomography reconstruction, demonstrating improved fidelity over previous approaches of pre-compensating the target geometry via deconvolution.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims to establish an experimental framework for extracting a single diffusion kernel from micro-CT scans of standard uncorrected CAL prints by comparing them to convolved computational dose models, then using this kernel to co-optimize light patterns for both diffusive blur (from oxygen quenching) and inherent tomographic reconstruction blur, yielding improved geometric fidelity over prior deconvolution-based target pre-compensation.

Significance. If the single-kernel generalization holds and quantitative improvements are demonstrated, the work would provide a practical, measurement-grounded method to mitigate a key resolution limit in volumetric additive manufacturing without relying solely on theoretical diffusion models. The use of independent micro-CT data for kernel identification supplies external experimental grounding rather than circular fitting, which strengthens the approach if cross-validation is shown.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'a single diffusion kernel from any standard uncorrected print' accounts for 'all observed deviations' across prints and feature types is load-bearing for the co-optimization framework, yet the manuscript supplies no cross-validation results on varied targets, resins, scales, or process conditions to support generalization.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for identifying the need to strengthen the generalization claim. We address the major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'a single diffusion kernel from any standard uncorrected print' accounts for 'all observed deviations' across prints and feature types is load-bearing for the co-optimization framework, yet the manuscript supplies no cross-validation results on varied targets, resins, scales, or process conditions to support generalization.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract phrasing implies a stronger generalization than the presented experiments directly support. The manuscript demonstrates kernel extraction and co-optimization on the specific uncorrected prints and targets used for micro-CT validation, without explicit cross-validation on varied resins, scales, or process conditions. To address this, we will revise the abstract to state that the framework extracts a kernel from standard uncorrected prints that accounts for observed deviations in the demonstrated cases, and we will add a sentence noting that broader validation remains an important avenue for future work. This revision preserves the core contribution of the co-optimization method while aligning the claims with the evidence shown. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation grounded in external micro-CT data

full rationale

The paper identifies the diffusion kernel by direct comparison of micro-CT scans of physical prints against computational dose models convolved with trial kernels; this step uses independent experimental measurements rather than fitting to the optimization target or any self-referential loop. The subsequent co-optimization incorporates this externally extracted kernel to account for diffusive blur alongside tomographic blur. No self-citations, self-definitional equations, fitted-input predictions, or ansatz smuggling appear in the abstract or described framework. The central claim therefore rests on external benchmarks and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that diffusive blur can be captured by a single convolution kernel fitted to experimental data and that this kernel is independent of the specific geometry being printed.

free parameters (1)
  • diffusion kernel parameters
    Fitted by matching convolved dose models to micro-CT data across a range of diffusivities
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Diffusive effects can be modeled as a linear convolution kernel applied to the dose distribution
    Invoked when comparing computational dose models convolved with kernels to micro-CT data

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5697 in / 1283 out tokens · 18497 ms · 2026-06-28T07:48:02.751245+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kelly, B. E. et al. Volumetric additive manufacturing via tomographic reconstruction. Science 363, 1075–1079 (2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    & Moser, C

    Loterie, D., Delrot, P. & Moser, C. High-resolution tomographic volumetric additive manufacturing. Nat. Commun. 11, 852 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Madrid-Wolff, J. et al. A review of materials used in tomographic volumetric additive manufacturing. MRS Commun. 13, 764–785 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    & Taylor, H

    Bhattacharya, I., Toombs, J. & Taylor, H. High fidelity volumetric additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 47, 102299 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    Cecil, T., Peng, D., Abrams, D., Osher, S. J. & Yablonovitch, E. Advances in Inverse Lithography. ACS Photonics 10, 910–918 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    & Zakhor, A

    Gu, A. & Zakhor, A. Optical Proximity Correction With Linear Regression. IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf. 21, 263–271 (2008)

    2008

  7. [7]

    Orth, A. et al. Deconvolution volumetric additive manufacturing. Nat. Commun. 14, 4412 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Weisgraber, T. H. et al. Virtual Volumetric Additive Manufacturing (VirtualVAM). Adv. Mater. Technol. 8, 2301054 (2023)

    2023

  9. [9]

    Zhang, Y. et al. Advancing Tomographic Volumetric Printing Via Oxygen Inhibition Control: Improved Accuracy and Large-Volume Capability (Adv. Mater. 47/2025). Adv. Mater. 37, e71300 (2025). 10.Nicolet, B., Wechsler, F., Madrid-Wolff, J., Moser, C. & Jakob, W. Inverse Rendering for Tomographic Volumetric Additive Manufacturing. ACM Trans Graph 43, 228:1-22...

    work page doi:10.1137/1.9780898719277 2025

  10. [10]

    Zakeri, S. et al. Chemical structure–property relationships of photocurable monomers/macromers: Potential binder candidates for ceramic/metal vat photopolymerization. Polymer Testing 143, 108721 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    & Endo, T

    Okamoto, S., Watanabe, Y., Yoshida, Y. & Endo, T. Synthesis of water-soluble tetrafunctional urethane acrylate bearing a pentaerythritol core and its radical polymerization behaviors in an aqueous solution. Polymer 286, 126402 (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    & Moser, C

    Madrid-Wolff, J., Boniface, A., Loterie, D., Delrot, P. & Moser, C. Controlling Light in Scattering Materials for Volumetric Additive Manufacturing. Advanced Science 9, 2105144 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    C., Toombs, J., Taylor, H

    Li, C. C., Toombs, J., Taylor, H. K. & Wallin, T. J. Tomographic projection optimization for volumetric additive manufacturing with general band constraint Lp-norm minimization. Additive Manufacturing 94, 104447 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Joseph Toombs, J. T. & Li, C. C. VAMToolbox. https://github.com/computed-axial- lithography/VAMToolbox (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    & Jakob, W

    Nicolet, B., Wechsler, F., Madrid-Wolff, J., Moser, C. & Jakob, W. Inverse Rendering for Tomographic Volumetric Additive Manufacturing. ACM Trans. Graph. 43, 228:1-228:17 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    & Borwein, J

    Barzilai, J. & Borwein, J. M. Two-Point Step Size Gradient Methods. IMA J Numer Anal 8, 141– 148 (1988)

    1988