journal article·2020-12-20Open access

Image Reconstruction in Diffuse Optical Tomography Using Adaptive Moment Gradient Based Optimizers: A Statistical Study

Nada Chakhim, Mohamed Louzar, Abdellah Lamnii, Mohammed Alaoui

Applied Sciences· Volume 10· Issue 24

Abstract

Diffuse optical tomography (DOT) is an emerging modality that reconstructs the optical properties in a highly scattering medium from measured boundary data. One way to solve DOT and recover the quantities of interest is by an inverse problem approach, which requires the choice of an optimization algorithm for the iterative approximation of the solution. However, the well-established and proven fact of the no free lunch principle holds in general. This paper aims to compare the behavior of three gradient descent-based optimizers on solving the DOT inverse problem by running randomized simulation and analyzing the generated data in order to shade light on any significant difference—if existing at all—in performance among these optimizers in our specific context of DOT. The major practical problems when selecting or using an optimization algorithm in a production context for a DOT system is to be confident that the algorithm will have a high convergence rate to the true solution, reasonably fast speed and high quality of the reconstructed image in terms of good localization of the inclusions and good agreement with the true image. In this work, we harnessed carefully designed randomized simulations to tackle the practical problem of choosing the right optimizer with the right parameters in the context of practical DOT applications, and derived statistical results concerning rate of convergence, speed, and quality of image reconstruction. The statistical analysis performed on the generated data and the main results for convergence rate, reconstruction speed, and quality between three optimization algorithms are presented in the paper at hand.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Optical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques · Photoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging · Advanced Image Fusion Techniques

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

MISI Laboratory, Faculty of Science and Technology, University Hassan First, Settat 26000, Morocco

References (25)

Show source-provided references
1. Fast noninvasive functional diffuse optical tomography for brain imaging10.1002/jbio.201600267 ↗
2. Multimodal breast cancer imaging using coregistered dynamic diffuse optical tomography and digital breast tomosynthesis10.1117/1.JBO.22.4.046008 ↗
3. Deep learning diffuse optical tomography10.1109/TMI.2019.2936522 ↗
4. Hybrid time-domain and continuous-wave diffuse optical tomography instrument with concurrent, clinical magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer imaging10.1117/1.JBO.24.5.051409 ↗
5. Compact ultrasound-guided diffuse optical tomography system for breast cancer imaging10.1117/1.JBO.24.2.021203 ↗
6. Noninvasive assessment of breast cancer risk using time-resolved diffuse optical spectroscopy10.1117/1.3506043 ↗
7. Early-stage invasive breast cancers: Potential role of optical tomography with US localization in assisting diagnosis10.1148/radiol.10091237 ↗
8. Functional imaging of the developing brain at the bedside using diffuse optical tomography10.1093/cercor/bhu320 ↗
9. Hernandez-Martin, E., and Gonzalez-Mora, J.L. (2020). Diffuse Optical Tomography Using Bayesian Filtering in the Human Brain. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10103399 ↗
10. Diffuse optical tomography to investigate the newborn brain10.1038/pr.2017.107 ↗
11. Optical tomography: Forward and inverse problems10.1088/0266-5611/25/12/123010 ↗
12. Iterative reconstruction scheme for optical tomography based on the equation of radiative transfer10.1118/1.598661 ↗
13. Kingma, D.P., and Ba, J. (2014). Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv.
14. Duchi, J., Hazan, E., and Singer, Y. (2011). Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 12.
15. Lecture 6.5-rmsprop: Divide the gradient by a running average of its recent magnitude
16. Reddi, S.J., Hefny, A., Sra, S., Poczos, B., and Smola, A. (2016, January 20–22). Stochastic variance reduction for nonconvex optimization. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, New York, NY, USA.10.1109/ALLERTON.2016.7852377 ↗
17. On the convergence proof of amsgrad and a new version10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2916341 ↗
18. Ruder, S. (2016). An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms. arXiv.
19. Zhou, D., Tang, Y., Yang, Z., Cao, Y., and Gu, Q. (2018). On the convergence of adaptive gradient methods for nonconvex optimization. arXiv.
20. A finite element approach for modeling photon transport in tissue10.1118/1.597069 ↗
21. Rodrıguez, J.A.O. (2011). Regularization Methods for Inverse Problems. [Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minnesota].
22. The Toast++ software suite for forward and inverse modeling in optical tomography10.1117/1.JBO.19.4.040801 ↗
23. Colton, D., and Kress, R. (2019). Inverse Acoustic and Electromagnetic Scattering Theory, Springer Nature.10.1007/978-3-030-30351-8 ↗
24. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441 ↗
25. A generalized two-sample Wilcoxon test for doubly censored data10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.650 ↗