High‐Quality Volumetric Reconstruction on Optimal Lattices for Computed Tomography
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Within the context of emission tomography, we study volumetric reconstruction methods based on the Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm. We show, for the first time, the equivalence of the standard implementation of the EM‐based reconstruction with an implementation based on hardware‐accelerated volume rendering for nearest‐neighbor (NN) interpolation. This equivalence suggests that higher‐order kernels should be used with caution and do not necessarily lead to better performance. We also show that the EM algorithm can easily be adapted for different lattices, the body‐centered cubic (BCC) one in particular. For validation purposes, we use the 3D version of the Shepp‐Logan synthetic phantom, for which we derive closed‐form analytical expressions of the projection data. The experimental results show the theoretically‐predicted optimality of NN interpolation in combination with the EM algorithm, for both the noiseless and the noisy case. Moreover, reconstruction on the BCC lattice leads to superior accuracy, more compact data representation, and better noise reduction compared to the Cartesian one. Finally, we show the usefulness of the proposed method for optical projection tomography of a mouse embryo.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it