Bayesian Uncertainty Quantification and Regularized Reconstruction for CT-Based Dimensional Metrology
Source abstract
Abstract
Statistical methods within the Bayesian framework have been widely used to address inverse imaging problems, such as computed tomography (CT) image reconstruction. These methods offer a probabilistic approach that is able to enhance the reconstruction quality by employing regularization methods while enabling uncertainty quantification of the result, providing valuable insights into the reliability of the reconstructed images. However, despite the flexibility and range of techniques within this framework, the computational intensity of this class of approaches is still impractical for large-scale datasets like those in CT. In this manuscript, we introduce a concept for determining the uncertainty caused by the noise in the observed data in CT-based dimensional measurement using a rapid, regularized, Markov Chain Monte Carlo reconstruction technique. This method provides a volumetric model where each voxel is represented by a distribution, which is then transformed into a triplet of gray value models: one for the central value and one each for the upper and lower bounds of the confidence interval. Bi-directional and uni-directional length measurements on results derived from each single-gray-value model, for real CT data, provide a task-specific measurement uncertainty. This method requires significantly less computation and storage capacity compared to classic Monte Carlo simulations by reducing the number of needed simulations for approximating a distribution while incorporating regularization techniques. The results are compared to conventional non-regularized and regularized reconstruction methods, such as Feldkamp-David-Kress (FDK), and state-of-the-art statistical methods, followed by validation of the determined uncertainty in real CT data.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications · Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging · Reservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (50)
Show source-provided references
1. Hansen, P.C., Jørgensen, J., Lionheart, W.R.: Computed Tomography: Algorithms, Insight, and Just Enough Theory. SIAM (2021)10.1137/1.9781611976670 ↗
2. Carmignato, S., Dewulf, W., Leach, R.: Industrial X-ray Computed Tomography vol. 10. Springer (2018)10.1007/978-3-319-59573-3 ↗
3. Natterer, F., Wübbeling, F.: Mathematical Methods in Image Reconstruction. SIAM (2001)10.1137/1.9780898718324 ↗
4. Feldkamp, L.A., Davis, L.C., Kress, J.W.: Practical cone-beam algorithm. Josa a 1(6), 612–619 (1984)10.1364/JOSAA.1.000612 ↗
5. Trampert, J., Leveque, J.-J.: Simultaneous iterative reconstruction technique: Physical interpretation based on the generalized least squares solution. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 95(B8), 12553–12559 (1990)10.1029/JB095iB08p12553 ↗
6. Pereyra, M., Schniter, P., Chouzenoux, E., Pesquet, J.-C., Tourneret, J.-Y., Hero, A.O., McLaughlin, S.: A survey of stochastic simulation and optimization methods in signal processing. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. 10(2), 224–241 (2015)10.1109/JSTSP.2015.2496908 ↗
7. Bian, J., Siewerdsen, J.H., Han, X., Sidky, E.Y., Prince, J.L., Pelizzari, C.A., Pan, X.: Evaluation of sparse-view reconstruction from flat-panel-detector cone-beam ct. Phys. Med. Biol. 55(22), 6575 (2010)10.1088/0031-9155/55/22/001 ↗
8. Chen, G.-H., Tang, J., Leng, S.: Prior image constrained compressed sensing (piccs): A method to accurately reconstruct dynamic ct images from highly undersampled projection data sets. Med. Phys. 35(2), 660–663 (2008)10.1118/1.2836423 ↗
9. Dewulf, W., Bosse, H., Carmignato, S., Leach, R.: Advances in the metrological traceability and performance of x-ray computed tomography. CIRP Ann. 71(2), 693–716 (2022)10.1016/j.cirp.2022.05.001 ↗
10. Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM): Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement — Part 1: Introduction. https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/2071204/JCGM_GUM-1.pdf. JCGM GUM-1:2023 (2023)
11. Ametova, E., Ferrucci, M., Chilingaryan, S., Dewulf, W.: A computationally inexpensive model for estimating dimensional measurement uncertainty due to x-ray computed tomography instrument misalignments. Meas. Sci. Technol. 29(6), 065007 (2018)10.1088/1361-6501/aab1a1 ↗
12. Bredemann, J., Schmitt, R.H.: Task-specific uncertainty estimation for medical ct measurements. J. Sensors Sensor Syst. 7(2), 627–635 (2018)10.5194/jsss-7-627-2018 ↗
13. Ferrucci, M., Ametova, E., Dewulf, W.: Monte Carlo reconstruction: A concept for propagating uncertainty in computed tomography. Meas. Sci. Technol. 32(11), 115006 (2021)10.1088/1361-6501/ac07db ↗
14. Green, P.J., Łatuszyński, K., Pereyra, M., Robert, C.P.: Bayesian computation: A summary of the current state, and samples backwards and forwards. Stat. Comput. 25, 835–862 (2015)10.1007/s11222-015-9574-5 ↗
15. Kaipio, J.P., Somersalo, E.: Statistical inversion theory. Statistical and Computational Inverse Problems, pp. 49–114 (2005)10.1007/0-387-27132-5_3 ↗
16. Durmus, A., Moulines, E., Pereyra, M.: Efficient Bayesian computation by proximal Markov chain Monte Carlo: When Langevin meets Moreau. SIAM J. Imag. Sci. 11(1), 473–506 (2018)10.1137/16M1108340 ↗
17. Dashti, M., Stuart, A.M.: The Bayesian approach to inverse problems. In: Handbook of Uncertainty Quantification, pp. 311–428. Springer (2017)10.1007/978-3-319-12385-1_7 ↗
18. Frederik Hagsholm Pedersen, J.S.J., Andersen, M.S.: A Bayesian approach to ct reconstruction with uncertain geometry. Appl. Math. Sci. Eng. 31(1), 2166041 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/27690911.2023.216604110.1080/27690911.2023.2166041 ↗
19. Riis, N.A.B., Dong, Y., Hansen, P.C.: Computed tomography with view angle estimation using uncertainty quantification. Inverse Prob. 37(6), 065007 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6420/abf5ba10.1088/1361-6420/abf5ba ↗
20. Afkham, B.M., Dong, Y., Hansen, P.C.: Uncertainty quantification of inclusion boundaries in the context of x-ray tomography. SIAM/ASA J. Uncertain. Quantif. 11(1), 31–61 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1137/21M143378210.1137/21M1433782 ↗
21. Uribe, F., Bardsley, J.M., Dong, Y., Hansen, P.C., Riis, N.A.B.: A hybrid Gibbs sampler for edge-preserving tomographic reconstruction with uncertain view angles. SIAM/ASA J. Uncertain. Quantif. 10(3), 1293–1320 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1137/21M141226810.1137/21M1412268 ↗
22. Ruder, S.: An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms. arXiv:1609.04747 (2016)
23. Jensen, T.L., Jørgensen, J.H., Hansen, P.C., Jensen, S.H.: Implementation of an optimal first-order method for strongly convex total variation regularization. BIT Numer. Math. 52(2), 329–356 (2012)10.1007/s10543-011-0359-8 ↗
24. Gilks, W.R., Richardson, S., Spiegelhalter, D.: Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice. CRC Press (1995)10.1201/b14835 ↗
25. Tierney, L.: Markov chains for exploring posterior distributions. Ann. Stat. 1701–1728 (1994)10.1214/aos/1176325750 ↗
26. Hadamard, J.: Sur les problèmes aux dérivées partielles et leur signification physique. Princeton Univ. Bull. 49–52 (1902)
27. Kak, A.C., Slaney, M.: Principles of Computerized Tomographic Imaging. SIAM (2001)10.1137/1.9780898719277 ↗
28. Jorgensen, B.: Statistical Properties of the Generalized Inverse Gaussian Distribution, vol. 9. Springer (2012)
29. Tikhonov, A.N.: Solutions of Ill-posed Problems. VH Winston and Sons (1977)
30. Rudin, L.I., Osher, S., Fatemi, E.: Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms. Phys. D 60(1–4), 259–268 (1992)10.1016/0167-2789(92)90242-F ↗
31. Huber, P.J., Ronchetti, E.M.: Robust Statistics. John Wiley & Sons (2011)10.1007/978-3-642-04898-2_594 ↗
32. Chambolle, A.: An approximation result for special functions with bounded deformation. J. Math. Pures Appl. 83(7), 929–954 (2004)10.1016/j.matpur.2004.02.004 ↗
33. Sidky, E.Y., Jørgensen, J.H., Pan, X.: Convex optimization problem prototyping for image reconstruction in computed tomography with the Chambolle-pock algorithm. Phys. Med. Biol. 57(10), 3065 (2012)10.1088/0031-9155/57/10/3065 ↗
34. Chambolle, A., Pock, T.: An introduction to continuous optimization for imaging. Acta Numer. 25, 161–319 (2016)10.1017/S096249291600009X ↗
35. Nocedal, J., Wright, S.J.: Numerical Optimization. Springer (1999)10.1007/b98874 ↗
36. Nesterov, Y.: A method for solving the convex programming problem with convergence rate o (1/k2). In: Dokl Akad Nauk Sssr, vol. 269, p. 543 (1983)
37. Brosse, N., Durmus, A., Moulines, E.: The promises and pitfalls of stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 31 (2018)
38. Langevin, P., et al.: On the theory of Brownian motion. CR Acad. Sci. Paris 146(530–533), 530 (1908)
39. Brooks, S., Gelman, A., Jones, G., Meng, X.-L.: Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo. CRC Press (2011)10.1201/b10905 ↗
40. Izzatullah, M., Leeuwen, T., Peter, D.: Langevin dynamics Markov chain Monte Carlo solution for seismic inversion. In: 82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition, vol. 2021, pp. 1–5 (2021). EAGE Publications BV10.3997/2214-4609.202112443 ↗
41. Stolfi, A., De Chiffre, L.: Selection of items for “interaqct comparison on assemblies”. In: 6th Conference on Industrial Computed Tomography (2016)
42. Ferrucci, M., Heřmánek, P., Ametova, E., Carmignato, S., Dewulf, W.: Measurement of the x-ray computed tomography instrument geometry by minimization of reprojection errors—implementation on simulated data. Precis. Eng. 54, 7–20 (2018)10.1016/j.precisioneng.2018.03.012 ↗
43. Guerrero, P., Bellens, S., Santander, R., Dewulf, W.: Automatic and computationally efficient alignment in fan-and cone-beam tomography. IEEE Trans. Comput. Imaging (2024)10.1109/TCI.2024.3396385 ↗
44. Van Aarle, W., Palenstijn, W.J., Cant, J., Janssens, E., Bleichrodt, F., Dabravolski, A., De Beenhouwer, J., Joost Batenburg, K., Sijbers, J.: Fast and flexible x-ray tomography using the astra toolbox. Opt. Express 24(22), 25129–25147 (2016)10.1364/OE.24.025129 ↗
45. Hendriksen, A., Schut, D., Palenstijn, W.J., Viganò, N., Kim, J., Pelt, D., Leeuwen, T., Batenburg, K.J.: Tomosipo: Fast, flexible, and convenient 3d tomography for complex scanning geometries in python. Opt. Express (2021). https://doi.org/10.1364/oe.43990910.1364/oe.439909 ↗
46. Guizar-Sicairos, M., Thurman, S.T., Fienup, J.R.: Efficient subpixel image registration algorithms. Opt. Lett. 33(2), 156–158 (2008)10.1364/OL.33.000156 ↗
47. Walt, S., Schönberger, J.L., Nunez-Iglesias, J., Boulogne, F., Warner, J.D., Yager, N., Gouillart, E., Yu, T.: Scikit-image: Image processing in python. PeerJ 2, 453 (2014)10.7717/peerj.453 ↗
48. Donoho, D.L., Johnstone, I.M.: Ideal spatial adaptation by wavelet shrinkage. Biometrika 81(3), 425–455 (1994)10.1093/biomet/81.3.425 ↗
49. Anzengruber, S.W., Ramlau, R.: Morozov’s discrepancy principle for Tikhonov-type functionals with nonlinear operators. Inverse Prob. 26(2), 025001 (2009)10.1088/0266-5611/26/2/025001 ↗
50. Chambolle, A.: An algorithm for total variation minimization and applications. J. Math. Imaging Vision 20(1), 89–97 (2004)10.1023/B:JMIV.0000011325.36760.1e ↗