Reconstruction from truncated projections using mixed extrapolations of exponential and quadratic functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In computer tomography (CT), truncated projections are produced due to scanning large objects with a detector that is limited in width. Applying filtered back-projection(FBP) method directly to truncated projections, the reconstructed image will contain truncation artifacts – bright rings on the boundary of region of interest (ROI). Extrapolation algorithms can be used to reduce the truncation artifacts; however extrapolations are usually double the length of the projection data; resulting in an increased calculation time. This paper introduces mixed extrapolation, which is a combination of exponential and quadratic extrapolation. It is proven that doubling the length of the projection data for the mixed extrapolation can be avoided. The projections were extrapolated according to the boundary values and their derivatives. The algorithm achieves equivalence to the extrapolation approach with negligible increased calculation time. Supplementary functions are introduced in order to simplify the calculations. These functions can be calculated prior to extrapolation process, hence the calculation time is significantly reduced. The calculation times are compared between fast extrapolation introduced in this paper and normal extrapolation with doubling the length of projection data.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".