Exploring Large Quantities of Secondary Data from High-Resolution Synchrotron X-ray Computed Tomography Scans Using AccuStripes

Anja Heim; Christoph Heinzl; Thomas Lang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Exploring Large Quantities of Secondary Data from High-Resolution Synchrotron X-ray Computed Tomography Scans Using AccuStripes

T0 review · 3 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 This paper demonstrates that AccuStripes visualization makes secondary data from a 20-million-particle synchrotron scan explorable in full, and that binning choice materially controls whether apparent spatial variations are real or…

desk verdict A competent real-world demo of AccuStripes, but the per-tile connected-components pipeline likely splits particles at tile boundaries, which would bias the headline size and sphericity results. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10098 v1 pith:IT4PAXZA submitted 2025-05-15 cs.HC

Anja Heim , Thomas Lang , Christoph Heinzl This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.HC

keywords AccuStripessynchrotronX-raycomputedtomographysecondarydatavisualizationadaptivehistogrambinningBayesianBlocksJenksnaturalbreaksparticle-reinforcedmetalmatrixcompositedistributioncomparison

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 demonstrates that AccuStripes, a visualization technique that stacks color-coded histograms of many univariate distributions, can make secondary data from high-resolution synchrotron X-ray computed tomography scans explorable in full. Applied to a particle-reinforced metal matrix composite containing roughly 20.2 million particles divided into 54 spatial tiles, the method lets a viewer compare how particle volume and sphericity vary across the whole sample at a glance. The paper argues that the choice of histogram binning is not neutral: uniform binning gives an overview and reveals outliers, while adaptive binnings such as Bayesian Blocks and Jenks' Natural Breaks resolve peaks and tails more faithfully. On this sample the visual analysis yields the qualitative finding that most particles are small and nearly spherical, with larger irregular components corresponding to inseparable agglomerations near pores.

What carries the argument

The central object is AccuStripes, a visualization technique that represents each univariate distribution as a histogram rendered as a row of color-coded rectangles of equal height, with frequencies mapped through the viridis color scheme and empty bins shown in black. Three binning strategies are combined with three composition strategies: uniform binning with Sturge's rule, Bayesian Blocks, and Jenks' Natural Breaks; compositions are color-only, overlay with a kernel density curve, and filled curve below the density curve. The work's analysis uses color-only composition and stacks rows for 54 spatial tiles so that similar distributions exhibit similar color patterns in vertically aligned bins. This machinery carries the argument because the binning scheme determines which features of the distribution, such as peaks, gaps, or outliers, are visible or hidden.

What would settle it

Retile and requantify the same scan after varying the segmentation probability threshold from 50 percent to, say, 30 and 70 percent, or compare the mask with a manually labeled sub-volume; if particle counts, the volume tail, or the small-and-spherical conclusion shift enough to change the visual pattern, the claim that AccuStripes shows the true variability is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that AccuStripes, originally tested on synthetic Gaussian distributions, transfers to real-world secondary data from a 1.35 TB SCT volume and turns the ensemble of 54 per-tile distributions into a single comparable visual field. The paper shows that each tile's histogram can be rendered as rows of color-coded bins; aligned vertically, the rows reveal spatial variability of particle properties across the sample. The authors identify a material-dependent insight: particle volumes are heavily tailed with the vast majority of particles small, sphericity is high for most particles, and the apparent spatial variation in sphericity seen under uniform binning largely disappears under adaptive binning, indicating that the choice of bin boundaries can create misleading impressions. They conclude that no single binning is sufficient and that interactive switching among uniform, Bayesian Blocks, and Jenks binning is needed for correct interpretation.

Load-bearing premise

The segmentation mask produced by the interactive machine-learning procedure is accurate enough that the derived volumes and sphericities reflect real particles, and the 50 percent probability threshold that decides which voxels count as particles does not arbitrarily change the results.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If AccuStripes works on this scale, then secondary data from other large tomographic scans, such as pores, fibers, or cracks, can be compared across spatial regions without plotting millions of points.
Because binning choice changed which spatial variation appeared, users should treat any single histogram representation as provisional and switch binning schemes before drawing material conclusions.
The heavy-tailed volume distribution and the high-sphericity peak imply that any summary statistic for this composite should separate true particles from inseparable agglomerations.
The 54-tile tiling provides a coarse spatial map of where outliers and agglomerations sit, enabling targeted follow-up inspection of those regions.
The same workflow can be applied to other univariate particle properties beyond volume and sphericity, such as centroid coordinates or surface area, as long as the data are per-particle and spatially indexed.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the authors do not pursue is linking selected bins back to 3D rendering to localize the spatial distribution of agglomerations; the paper names this as future work, and it would make the outlier rows actionable.
The finding that uniform binning creates false spatial variation in sphericity suggests a general perceptual hazard for any stacked-histogram comparison: apparent differences between rows can be bin-boundary artifacts rather than real heterogeneity.
The same tiling-and-stacking workflow could be tested on time-resolved SCT data to track whether particle size and sphericity distributions drift during in-situ experiments, a testable extension the paper does not report.
Because the visual conclusion of homogeneity depends on the chosen binning, a useful follow-up would be to quantify similarity between tile distributions with a statistical test, turning the visual claim into a measurable one.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things before reading. The paper is a clean application of the authors' own AccuStripes technique to a genuinely large SCT dataset (20.2 million particles, 1.35 TB volume), and the main claimed finding—that most particles are small and nearly spherical—is exactly what you would expect if a tiling artifact splits particles across tile boundaries.

What is actually new is not the technique (that is from ref [2]) but the demonstration on real secondary data with three binning strategies across 54 spatial tiles. For a materials scientist, this is a lightweight way to compare property distributions across a sample, and the qualitative comparison of uniform versus adaptive binning is informative. The paper is honest about limitations and does not oversell the novelty.

The soft spot is in Section 3.1. The text says the segmented volume is divided into 54 non-overlapping tiles and then "within each tile a connected components labeling is performed." No halo, overlap, or stitching is mentioned. If that is what was run, every particle crossing a tile boundary is split into fragments, each counted as an independent particle. That inflates the particle count, biases volumes downward, and biases sphericity upward—because fragments of an irregular particle are smaller and rounder than the whole. This would affect even a perfect segmentation mask, so it is independent of the separate concern that the 50% probability threshold is arbitrary and the mask is not validated against ground truth. The sentence about assigning each particle to a tile by its centroid is also inconsistent with per-tile labeling unless a global labeling happened first; the manuscript never resolves this. No code or data is provided, so the ambiguity cannot be checked externally.

If the labeling is actually global and the per-tile sentence is just poor phrasing, the empirical results may be fine. But as written, the core quantitative conclusions are not secure. The paper is still worth engaging: the AccuStripes demonstration itself is useful, and the binning-comparison point holds up independently of the particle statistics.

My recommendation: send it to peer review, but make the authors clarify the labeling pipeline and either show a global-labeling check or add a halo/stitching step. A simple comparison against global labeling on a subvolume would settle the artifact question. Without that, the headline numbers should not be taken at face value.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper demonstrates the AccuStripes visualization technique on secondary data extracted from a high-resolution synchrotron X-ray CT scan of a particle-reinforced metal matrix composite. The pipeline segments the volume with an interactive machine-learning method, tiles the segmented volume, performs connected-component labeling, and computes per-particle properties (volume, sphericity, centroid). AccuStripes is then used to compare the resulting 54 per-tile univariate distributions under uniform, Bayesian Blocks, and Jenks natural-break binning, with color-only, overlay, and filled-curve compositions. The paper reports that adaptive binning materially changes the interpretability of the distributions and concludes that most particles are small and nearly spherical, with roughly homogeneous spatial distribution. The central claim is that AccuStripes enables visual exploration of very large ensembles of derived distributions.

Significance. The paper addresses a real and growing problem: visualizing millions of secondary-data records from high-resolution tomography. Its strengths are the scale of the demonstration (20.2 million particles, 54 spatial distributions), the systematic comparison of binning strategies on real data, and the honest discussion of limitations such as the lack of spatial context in the AccuStripes representation. The visualization itself is a reasonable extension of the authors' prior AccuStripes work to a demanding real-world case. However, the domain conclusions about particle size, sphericity, and spatial homogeneity rest on a segmentation that is not validated against ground truth and on a tiling/connected-component procedure that is described inconsistently in Section 3.1. These issues are load-bearing for the quantitative parts of the paper, although they may be addressable within the scope of a revision.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.1, tiling and connected components] The description of the tiling and labeling procedure is internally inconsistent. One sentence states that 'Each particle is assigned to a tile based on the location of its centroid,' which implies particles are labeled before tiling, but the next sentence says 'Within each tile a connected components labeling is performed.' If labels are computed independently on the 54 non-overlapping tiles without a halo, overlap, or stitching step, then any particle crossing a tile boundary is split into fragments. Each fragment would be counted as a separate particle with its own volume and sphericity. This would inflate the stated 20.2 million particle count, shift the volume distribution toward small values, and bias sphericity upward because fragments of a larger irregular particle tend to be smaller and rounder than the whole. This artifact could produce exactly the qualitative pattern reported in Figs. 5-6 and Section 6 even if the segmentation mask were perfect. Please clarify whether connected components were computed on the full volume before centroid-based tiling, or, if tiling was performed first, re-run the labeling with overlapping halos or a global pass and report the difference in particle count and property distributions.
[Section 3.1 and Section 4, segmentation validation] No validation of the segmentation mask is provided. The paper relies on an interactive machine-learning segmentation with a 50% probability threshold, but there is no check against ground truth, manual counting, or an alternative segmentation method. The threshold is presented as a post-processing detail, yet it directly determines which voxels are kept and therefore changes the number of particles and their derived properties. Since all downstream conclusions about particle volume, sphericity, and spatial variability depend on this mask, the paper should include a validation experiment, for example on a subvolume where particles are manually annotated or compared to a traditional thresholding result, and a sensitivity analysis over the probability threshold. Without this, the reader cannot assess whether the reported distributions reflect the true particles or artifacts of the segmentation.
[Section 4 and Figs. 9-12, spatial homogeneity claims] The claim that the volume distribution is 'relatively consistent throughout the sample' and the claim based on the NB binning that 'all regions of the sample exhibit approximately similar distributions' are presented as results, but the evidence is purely visual inspection of the stacked AccuStripes rows. No quantitative per-tile summary (e.g., means, medians, confidence intervals, or a formal homogeneity test) is reported, and the interpretation of row-to-row color similarity is not validated. Given the potential tiling artifact described in the first major comment, these conclusions should be substantiated with statistical summaries or softened to a qualitative observation about the visual impression.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4, typo] Section 4 states 'we recon that the particles are segmented well'; 'recon' should be 'reckon'.
[Section 4, bin counts] The number of bins varies across the paper: Sturge's rule yields 26 bins for the global histograms in Figs. 5-6 but 20 bins for the UB AccuStripes visualizations in Figs. 9 and 11. Please clarify why the bin count differs and whether the reader should expect different visual resolutions when comparing the figures.
[Section 3.2, figure reference] Figure 2 is described in the text as showing all nine AccuStripes representations of a Gaussian distribution, but the figure is not available in the manuscript text, making it hard to verify the described behavior of the composition strategies.
[Section 5, spatial ordering] The Limitations section notes that AccuStripes lacks an inherent spatial context, but the ordering of the 54 tiles in the stacked rows is also never described; the choice of ordering (e.g., raster order vs. space-filling order) affects which distributions are adjacent and therefore how spatial patterns are perceived. This could be noted as a relevant parameter of the visualization.
[Section 4, phase-contrast artifacts] The paper notes that 'the white pore boundary might also include artifacts from the phase contrast imaging' in Fig. 3, but it does not discuss whether these artifacts influence the machine-learning segmentation or the final particle properties. A brief comment on this would clarify the robustness of the segmentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: AccuStripes is applied as a tool from prior work to independently segmented secondary data; conclusions are read from computed histograms, not from fitted predictions or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (1) SCT scan -> segmentation via interactive ML (Section 3.1); (2) per-tile connected components -> particle properties (volume, sphericity, centroid); (3) properties -> histograms and AccuStripes visualizations (Section 3.2); (4) visual patterns -> qualitative conclusions (Section 6). At no point does a fitted parameter serve as a predicted quantity. The 20.2 million particles and the volume/sphericity distributions are computed outputs of ITK connected-component quantification, not predictions of a model calibrated to the same data. The AccuStripes method is inherited from the authors' prior work [2], and the paper explicitly notes that prior work evaluated AccuStripes only on unimodal Gaussian samples; the present work is an application case study, not a proof of the method's general superiority. Thus the self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing. The claim that binning choice affects interpretability is demonstrated through side-by-side visualizations (Figs. 7-12) and is an observational claim, not a statistical prediction. No equation in the paper equates an input to an output by construction. Therefore no circular step meets the evidentiary bar. The paper does, however, contain non-circularity threats that a referee should address: the segmentation mask is not validated against ground truth, the 50% probability threshold is arbitrary, and Section 3.1 says 'Each particle is assigned to a tile based on the location of its centroid' but then says 'Within each tile a connected components labeling is performed' — if implemented literally, particles crossing tile boundaries would be split, biasing the reported size and sphericity distributions. These are correctness and reproducibility risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on three assumptions: the segmentation mask is correct, the AccuStripes technique from prior work is valid, and centroid-based tiling faithfully represents spatial variation. The three free parameters listed here are choices made by the authors rather than quantities derived from external benchmarks.

free parameters (3)

Segmentation probability threshold = 0.5
Postprocessing keeps voxels with at least 50 percent particle probability; this threshold is chosen by the authors and directly affects which voxels are counted as particles.
Number of spatial tiles = 54
The reconstructed volume is split into 54 non-overlapping regions of approximately equal size; this controls the spatial granularity of all AccuStripes comparisons.
Histogram bin counts = 20 for AccuStripes, 26 for global histograms
Sturge's rule is a standard heuristic, but the bin count is still a choice affecting what the visualization shows.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The interactive machine learning segmentation produces a correct particle mask (Section 3.1).
All derived particle statistics are computed from this mask; no ground truth validation is reported.
domain assumption AccuStripes, as described in Heim et al. [2], is an effective and valid visualization technique.
The paper evaluates applicability, not perceptual validity, and relies on the earlier paper's design choices.
domain assumption Assigning each particle to a tile by its centroid captures spatial distribution adequately.
Particles crossing tile boundaries are assigned wholly to one tile, so the per-tile distributions are approximate.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring Large Quantities of Secondary Data from High-Resolution Synchrotron X-ray Computed Tomography Scans Using AccuStripes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IT4PAXZA

@misc{pith2026250510098,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring Large Quantities of Secondary Data from High-Resolution Synchrotron X-ray Computed Tomography Scans Using AccuStripes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IT4PAXZA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10098}
}

read the original abstract

The analysis of secondary quantitative data extracted from high-resolution synchrotron X-ray computed tomography scans represents a significant challenge for users. While a number of methods have been introduced for processing large three-dimensional images in order to generate secondary data, there are only a few techniques available for simple and intuitive visualization of such data in their entirety. This work employs the AccuStripes visualization technique for that purpose, which enables the visual analysis of secondary data represented by an ensemble of univariate distributions. It supports different schemes for adaptive histogram binnings in combination with several ways of rendering aggregated data and it allows the interactive selection of optimal visual representations depending on the data and the use case. We demonstrate the usability of AccuStripes on a high-resolution synchrotron scan of a particle-reinforced metal matrix composite sample, containing more than 20 million particles. Through AccuStripes, detailed insights are facilitated into distributions of derived particle characteristics of the entire sample. Furthermore, research questions such as how the overall shape of the particles is or how homogeneously they are distributed across the sample can be answered.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[2]

Computers & Graphics 119, 103906 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag

Heim, A., Gall, A., Waldner, M., Gr¨ oller, E., Heinzl, C.: AccuStripes: Visual exploration and comparison of univariate data distributions using color and bin- ning. Computers & Graphics 119, 103906 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag. 2024.103906

arXiv 2024
[1]

[Pro- fessoral Dissertation, Technische Universit¨ at Wien] (2021)

Heinzl, C.: Visualization and analysis of x-ray computed tomography data. [Pro- fessoral Dissertation, Technische Universit¨ at Wien] (2021). http://hdl.handle. net/20.500.12708/158931

work page 2021
[3]

Synchrotron Radiation News 33(6), 5–10 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.1080/08940886.2020.1841490

Honkim¨ aki, V., Tafforeau, P., Wright, J.: High-Energy Synchrotron Radiation Research at the ESRF. Synchrotron Radiation News 33(6), 5–10 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.1080/08940886.2020.1841490

work page arXiv 2020
[4]

Computer Graphics Forum 36(3), 647–666 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13214

Heinzl, C., Stappen, S.: STAR: Visual Computing in Materials Science. Computer Graphics Forum 36(3), 647–666 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13214

work page doi:10.1111/cgf.13214 2017
[5]

Quantum Beam Science 3(1), 5 (2019) https://doi.org/10.3390/qubs3010005

Xu, C., Huang, M., Wu, H., Miao, K., Tang, G., Xie, H., Xiao, T., Kang, H., Wang, T., Geng, L., Fan, G.: 3D Visualized Characterization of Fracture Behavior of Structural Metals Using Synchrotron Radiation Computed Microtomography. Quantum Beam Science 3(1), 5 (2019) https://doi.org/10.3390/qubs3010005

work page doi:10.3390/qubs3010005 2019
[6]

Nature Communications 13(1), 4458 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32046-0

Schwartz, J., Harris, C., Pietryga, J., Zheng, H., Kumar, P., Visheratina, A., Kotov, N.A., Major, B., Avery, P., Ercius, P., Ayachit, U., Geveci, B., Muller, D.A., Genova, A., Jiang, Y., Hanwell, M., Hovden, R.: Real-time 3D analysis during electron tomography using tomviz. Nature Communications 13(1), 4458 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32046-0

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32046-0 2022
[7]

https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.20369421.v1

Tekawade, A., Nikitin, V., Satapathy, Y., Liu, Z., Zhang, X., Kenesei, P., Carlo, F.D., Kettimuthu, R., Foster, I.: Real-time porosity mapping and visualization for synchrotron tomography (2022). https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.20369421.v1

work page doi:10.36227/techrxiv.20369421.v1 2022
[8]

Computers & Graphics 34(4), 398–408 (2010) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2010.05.001

Grau, S., Verg´ es, E., Tost, D., Ayala, D.: Exploration of porous structures with illustrative visualizations. Computers & Graphics 34(4), 398–408 (2010) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2010.05.001

work page doi:10.1016/j.cag.2010.05.001 2010

Show all 32 references

[9]

IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25(1), 1040–1049 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1109/tvcg.2018.2864510

Weissenb¨ ock, J., Fr¨ ohler, B., Gr¨ oller, E., Kastner, J., Heinzl, C.: Dynamic Volume Lines: Visual Comparison of 3D Volumes through Space-Filling Curves. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25(1), 1040–1049 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1109/tvcg.2018.2864510

2019
[10]

IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25(1), 1060–1069 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1109/tvcg.2018

Zhang, H., Frey, S., Steeb, H., Uribe, D., Ertl, T., Wang, W.: Visualization of Bubble Formation in Porous Media. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25(1), 1060–1069 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1109/tvcg.2018. 2864506 17

2019 doi
[11]

Journal of Synchrotron Radiation 25(4), 1261–1270 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600577518005787

Pandolfi, R.J., Allan, D.B., Arenholz, E., Barroso-Luque, L., Campbell, S.I., Caswell, T.A., Blair, A., De Carlo, F., Fackler, S., Fournier, A.P., Freychet, G., Fukuto, M., G¨ ursoy, D., Jiang, Z., Krishnan, H., Kumar, D., Kline, R.J., Li, R., Liman, C., Marchesini, S., Mehta,...

2018
[12]

Computer Graphics Forum 31(3), 1185–1194 (2012) https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-8659.2012.03111.x

Reh, A., Plank, B., Kastner, J., Gr¨ oller, E., Heinzl, C.: Porosity Maps - Inter- active Exploration and Visual Analysis of Porosity in Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers. Computer Graphics Forum 31(3), 1185–1194 (2012) https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-8659.2012.03111.x

2012
[13]

Computer Graphics Forum35(3), 201–210 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12896

Amirkhanov, A., Amirkhanov, A., Salaberger, D., Kastner, J., Gr¨ oller, M.E., Heinzl, C.: Visual Analysis of Defects in Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymers for 4DCT Interrupted In situ Tests. Computer Graphics Forum35(3), 201–210 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12896

2016 doi
[14]

In: 2014 IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium, pp

Weissenb¨ ock, J., Amirkhanov, A., Li, W., Reh, A., Amirkhanov, A., Gr¨ oller, E., Kastner, J., Heinzl, C.: FiberScout: An Interactive Tool for Exploring and Analyz- ing Fiber Reinforced Polymers. In: 2014 IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium, pp. 153–160 (2014). https://doi.o...

2014 doi
[15]

Lab on a Chip 20(13), 2403–2411 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1039/D0LC00227E

Piovesan, A., Van De Looverbosch, T., Verboven, P., Achille, C., Parra Cabrera, C., Boller, E., Cheng, Y., Ameloot, R., Nicolai, B.: 4d synchrotron microtomog- raphy and pore-network modelling for direct in situ capillary flow visualization in 3d printed microfluidic channels....

2020 doi
[16]

Journal of Materials Science 53(13), 9533–9544 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10853-018-2258-8

Andrieux, J., Gardiola, B., Dezellus, O.: Synthesis of Ti matrix composites rein- forced with TiC particles: in situ synchrotron X-ray diffraction and modeling. Journal of Materials Science 53(13), 9533–9544 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10853-018-2258-8

2018
[17]

e-Journal of Nondestructive Testing 29(3) (2024) https://doi.org/10

Lang, T., Heim, A., Heinzl, C.: Big Data Analytics for the Inspection of Battery Materials. e-Journal of Nondestructive Testing 29(3) (2024) https://doi.org/10. 58286/29226

2024
[18]

Computer Graphics Forum 39(3), 565–577 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14002

Blumenschein, M., Debbeler, L.J., Lages, N.C., Renner, B., Keim, D.A., El- Assady, M.: v-plots: Designing Hybrid Charts for the Comparative Analysis of Data Distributions. Computer Graphics Forum 39(3), 565–577 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14002

2020 doi
[19]

Computer Graphics Forum30(1), 215–228 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-8659.2010.01845.x

Aigner, W., Kainz, C., Ma, R., Miksch, S.: Bertin was Right: An Empirical Evaluation of Indexing to Compare Multivariate Time-Series Data Using Line 18 Plots. Computer Graphics Forum30(1), 215–228 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-8659.2010.01845.x

2011
[20]

IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 16(6), 927– 934 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2010.162

Javed, W., McDonnel, B., Elmqvist, N.: Graphical Perception of Multiple Time Series. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 16(6), 927– 934 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2010.162

2010 doi
[21]

In: IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2005

Saito, T., Miyamura, H.N., Yamamoto, M., Saito, H., Hoshiya, Y., Kaseda, T.: Two-tone pseudo coloring: compact visualization for one-dimensional data. In: IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2005. INFOVIS 2005., pp. 173–180. IEEE, Minneapolis, MN, USA (2005). https://...

2005
[22]

In: Andres, B., Campen, M., Sedlmair, M

Heim, A., Gr¨ oller, E., Heinzl, C.: CoSi: Visual Comparison of Similarities in High-Dimensional Data Ensembles. In: Andres, B., Campen, M., Sedlmair, M. (eds.) Vision, Modeling, and Visualization, pp. 117–124 (2021). https://doi.org/ 10.2312/vmv.20211378

2021 doi
[23]

e-Journal of Nondestructive Testing 28(3) (2023) https: //doi.org/10.58286/27746

Lang, T., Saeidnezhad, N., Dremel, K., Weller, D., Diez, M., Stock, A.M., Sauer, T., Cianciosi, F., Jarnias, C., Tafforeau, P., Zabler, S.: Multiscale Phase-Contrast Tomography at BM18. e-Journal of Nondestructive Testing 28(3) (2023) https: //doi.org/10.58286/27746

2023 doi
[24]

arXiv (2022)

Lang, T., Sauer, T.: Geometric Active Learning for Segmentation of Large 3D Volumes. arXiv (2022). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2210.06885

2022 doi arXiv
[25]

The Insight Journal (2006) https://doi.org/10.54294/m0bsda

Beare, R.: Optimization of connected component labelling. The Insight Journal (2006) https://doi.org/10.54294/m0bsda

2006 doi
[26]

The Insight Journal (2007) https://doi.org/10.54294/q6auw4

Lehmann, G.: Label object representation and manipulation with ITK. The Insight Journal (2007) https://doi.org/10.54294/q6auw4

2007 doi
[27]

arXiv (2017)

Pollack, B., Bhattacharya, S., Schmitt, M.: Bayesian Block Histogramming for High Energy Physics. arXiv (2017). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1708. 00810

2017 doi
[28]

Journal of the Amer- ican Statistical Association 53(284), 789–798 (1958) https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01621459.1958.10501479

Fisher, W.D.: On Grouping for Maximum Homogeneity. Journal of the Amer- ican Statistical Association 53(284), 789–798 (1958) https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01621459.1958.10501479

1958
[29]

In: 2021 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS), pp

Sahann, R., M¨ uller, T., Schmidt, J.: Histogram binning revisited with a focus on human perception. In: 2021 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS), pp. 66–70 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/VIS49827.2021.9623301

2021
[30]

: A fast algorithm for multilevel thresholding

Liao, P.-S., Chen, T.-S., Chung, P.-C., et al. : A fast algorithm for multilevel thresholding. Journal of Information Science and Engineering 17(5), 713–727 (2001) 19

2001
[31]

In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2018)

Liu, Y., Heer, J.: Somewhere Over the Rainbow. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2018). https://doi.org/10. 1145/3173574.3174172

2018
[32]

Silverman, B.W.: Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis, 1st edn., pp. 1–175. Routledge, New York (1986). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315140919 20

1986 doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [2]

Computers & Graphics 119, 103906 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag

Heim, A., Gall, A., Waldner, M., Gr¨ oller, E., Heinzl, C.: AccuStripes: Visual exploration and comparison of univariate data distributions using color and bin- ning. Computers & Graphics 119, 103906 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag. 2024.103906

arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

[Pro- fessoral Dissertation, Technische Universit¨ at Wien] (2021)

Heinzl, C.: Visualization and analysis of x-ray computed tomography data. [Pro- fessoral Dissertation, Technische Universit¨ at Wien] (2021). http://hdl.handle. net/20.500.12708/158931

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Synchrotron Radiation News 33(6), 5–10 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.1080/08940886.2020.1841490

Honkim¨ aki, V., Tafforeau, P., Wright, J.: High-Energy Synchrotron Radiation Research at the ESRF. Synchrotron Radiation News 33(6), 5–10 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.1080/08940886.2020.1841490

work page arXiv 2020

[4] [4]

Computer Graphics Forum 36(3), 647–666 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13214

Heinzl, C., Stappen, S.: STAR: Visual Computing in Materials Science. Computer Graphics Forum 36(3), 647–666 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13214

work page doi:10.1111/cgf.13214 2017

[5] [5]

Quantum Beam Science 3(1), 5 (2019) https://doi.org/10.3390/qubs3010005

Xu, C., Huang, M., Wu, H., Miao, K., Tang, G., Xie, H., Xiao, T., Kang, H., Wang, T., Geng, L., Fan, G.: 3D Visualized Characterization of Fracture Behavior of Structural Metals Using Synchrotron Radiation Computed Microtomography. Quantum Beam Science 3(1), 5 (2019) https://doi.org/10.3390/qubs3010005

work page doi:10.3390/qubs3010005 2019

[6] [6]

Nature Communications 13(1), 4458 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32046-0

Schwartz, J., Harris, C., Pietryga, J., Zheng, H., Kumar, P., Visheratina, A., Kotov, N.A., Major, B., Avery, P., Ercius, P., Ayachit, U., Geveci, B., Muller, D.A., Genova, A., Jiang, Y., Hanwell, M., Hovden, R.: Real-time 3D analysis during electron tomography using tomviz. Nature Communications 13(1), 4458 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32046-0

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32046-0 2022

[7] [7]

https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.20369421.v1

Tekawade, A., Nikitin, V., Satapathy, Y., Liu, Z., Zhang, X., Kenesei, P., Carlo, F.D., Kettimuthu, R., Foster, I.: Real-time porosity mapping and visualization for synchrotron tomography (2022). https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.20369421.v1

work page doi:10.36227/techrxiv.20369421.v1 2022

[8] [8]

Computers & Graphics 34(4), 398–408 (2010) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2010.05.001

Grau, S., Verg´ es, E., Tost, D., Ayala, D.: Exploration of porous structures with illustrative visualizations. Computers & Graphics 34(4), 398–408 (2010) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2010.05.001

work page doi:10.1016/j.cag.2010.05.001 2010