Quantitative comparison of direct phase retrieval algorithms in in‐line phase tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A well-known problem in x-ray microcomputed tomography is low sensitivity. Phase contrast imaging offers an increase of sensitivity of up to a factor of 10(3) in the hard x-ray region, which makes it possible to image soft tissue and small density variations. If a sufficiently coherent x-ray beam, such as that obtained from a third generation synchrotron, is used, phase contrast can be obtained by simply moving the detector downstream of the imaged object. This setup is known as in-line or propagation based phase contrast imaging. A quantitative relationship exists between the phase shift induced by the object and the recorded intensity and inversion of this relationship is called phase retrieval. Since the phase shift is proportional to projections through the three-dimensional refractive index distribution in the object, once the phase is retrieved, the refractive index can be reconstructed by using the phase as input to a tomographic reconstruction algorithm. A comparison between four phase retrieval algorithms is presented. The algorithms are based on the transport of intensity equation (TIE), transport of intensity equation for weak absorption, the contrast transfer function (CTF), and a mixed approach between the CTF and TIE, respectively. The compared methods all rely on linearization of the relationship between phase shift and recorded intensity to yield fast phase retrieval algorithms. The phase retrieval algorithms are compared using both simulated and experimental data, acquired at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility third generation synchrotron light source. The algorithms are evaluated in terms of two different reconstruction error metrics. While being slightly less computationally effective, the mixed approach shows the best performance in terms of the chosen criteria.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".