Comprehensive Analysis of High-Performance Computing Methods for Filtered Back-Projection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides an extensive analysis concerning runtime, accuracy and noise of High-Performance Computing (HPC) frameworks for Computed Tomography (CT) reconstruction tasks: "conventional" multi-core, multi threaded CPUs, the Compute Unified Device Architecture (CUDA) on GPUs, and the graphics pipeline of GPUs as facilitated by the DirectX or OpenGL programming interfaces, exploiting various built-in hardwired features like rasterization and texture filtering. We compare implementations of the Filtered Back-Projection (FBP) algorithm with fan-beam geometry on all these HPC frameworks. Specifically, an ACR-accredited phantom is reconstructed from the raw attenuation data acquired by a clinical CT scanner. Our analysis shows that a single GPU can run the FBP algorithm for reconstructing a 1024 x 1024 image considerably faster than a 64-core, multi-threaded CPU machine. Moreover, employing the graphics pipeline further increases performance as compared to CUDA, albeit with slightly lower accuracy due to "fast math" operations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".