MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Level Set based Regularization Framework for EIT Image Reconstruction

2013· article· en· W2006704204 on OpenAlexaff
Peyman Rahmati, Andy Adler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrical impedance tomographyRegularization (linguistics)OutlierInverse problemAlgorithmNorm (philosophy)MathematicsQuadratic equationIterative reconstructionMathematical optimizationRobustness (evolution)Regularization perspectives on support vector machinesComputer scienceTikhonov regularizationElectrical impedanceArtificial intelligenceMathematical analysisPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT) reconstructs the conductivity distribution within a medium from electrical stimulation and measurements at the medium surface. Level set based reconstruction method (LSRM) has gained attention during the last decade as an effective solution to address the need of reconstructing structures with limited amount of available data. The classical LSRM is based on the quadratic formulations (L2 norms); however, the L2 norms are not robust to outliers and spatial noise. The L1 norm is a more solid alternative to produce high robustness against outliers and noise. The L1 norm is minimized by Primal dual-interior point method (PDIPM). In this paper, we derive a novel level set (LS) based regularization framework for using the L1 norm independently on the data and the regularization term of an inverse problem. The proposed LS based regularization method, called LS based PDIPM (LS-PDIPM), applies the PDIPM to minimize the L1 norms. We use the LS-PDIPM to reconstruct 2D images from EIT simulated data. The proposed LS-PDIPM with the L1 norms provides sharper and less noisy images, when comparing with the L2 norm based regularization method.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207