Sparsity regularization in dynamic elastography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the inverse problem of continuum mechanics with the tissue deformation described by a mixed displacement-pressure finite element formulation. The mixed formulation is used to model nearly incompressible materials by simultaneously solving for both elasticity and pressure distributions. To improve numerical conditioning, a common solution to this problem is to use regularization to constrain the solutions of the inverse problem. We present a sparsity regularization technique that uses the discrete cosine transform to transform the elasticity and pressure fields to a sparse domain in which a smaller number of unknowns is required to represent the original field. We evaluate the approach by solving the dynamic elastography problem for synthetic data using such a mixed finite element technique, assuming time harmonic motion, and linear, isotropic and elastic behavior for the tissue. We compare our simulation results to those obtained using the more common Tikhonov regularization. We show that the sparsity regularization is less dependent on boundary conditions, less influenced by noise, requires no parameter tuning and is computationally faster. The algorithm has been tested on magnetic resonance elastography data captured from a CIRS elastography phantom with similar results as the simulation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".