Automatic determination of the regularization weighting for wavelet‐based compressed sensing MRI reconstructions
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
Purpose To present a method that automatically, rapidly, and in a noniterative manner determines the regularization weighting for wavelet‐based compressed sensing reconstructions. This method determines level‐specific regularization weighting factors from the wavelet transform of the image obtained from zero‐filling in k‐space. Methods We compare reconstruction results obtained by our method, , to the ones obtained by the L‐curve, , and the minimum NMSE, . The comparisons are done using in vivo data; then, simulations are used to analyze the impact of undersampling and noise. We use NMSE, Pearson’s correlation coefficient, high‐frequency error norm, and structural similarity as reconstruction quality indices. Results Our method, , provides improved reconstructed image quality to that obtained by regardless of undersampling or SNR and comparable quality to at high SNR. The method determines the regularization weighting prospectively with negligible computational time. Conclusion Our main finding is an automatic, fast, noniterative, and robust procedure to determine the regularization weighting. The impact of this method is to enable prospective and tuning‐free wavelet‐based compressed sensing reconstructions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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