Skip to main content
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1. R. Gordon, R. Bender, and G. T. Herman, “Algebraic reconstruction techniques (ART) for three-dimensional electron microscopy and x-ray photography,” J. Theor. Biol. 29, 471481 (1970).
2. G. T. Herman, Image Reconstruction from Projections (Academic, New York, 1980).
3. T. L. Jensen, J. H. Jørgensen, P. C. Hansen, and S. H. Jensen, “Implementation of an optimal first-order method for strongly convex total variation regularization,” BIT Numer. Math. 52, 329356 (2012).
4. M. Defrise, C. Vanhove, and X. Liu, “An algorithm for total variation regularization in high-dimensional linear problems,” Inverse Probl. 27, 065002 (2011).
5. S. Ramani and J. Fessler, “A splitting-based iterative algorithm for accelerated statistical x-ray CT reconstruction,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 31, 677688 (2012).
6. E. Y. Sidky, J. H. Jørgensen, and X. Pan, “Convex optimization problem prototyping for image reconstruction in computed tomography with the Chambolle-Pock algorithm,” Phys. Med. Biol. 57, 30653091 (2012).
7. P. Combettes, “The convex feasibility problem in image recovery,” Adv. Imaging Electron Phys. 95, 155270 (1996).
8. P. L. Combettes, “The foundations of set theoretic estimation,” Proc. IEEE 81, 182208 (1993).
9. X. Han, J. Bian, E. L. Ritman, E. Y. Sidky, and X. Pan, “Optimization-based reconstruction of sparse images from few-view projections,” Phys. Med. Biol. 57, 52455274 (2012).
10. A. Chambolle and T. Pock, “A first-order primal-dual algorithm for convex problems with applications to imaging,” J. Math. Imaging Vision 40, 120145 (2011).
11. A. C. Kak and M. Slaney, Principles of Computerized Tomographic Imaging (IEEE, New York, 1988).
12. J. H. Jørgensen, E. Y. Sidky, and X. Pan, “Quantification of admissible undersampling for sparsity-exploiting iterative image reconstruction in X-ray CT,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 32, 460473 (2013).
13. J. Nocedal and S. Wright, Numerical Optimization, 2nd ed. (Springer, New York, 2006).
14. C. C. Paige and M. A. Saunders, “LSQR: An algorithm for sparse linear equations and sparse least squares,” ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 8, 4371 (1982).
15. R. T. Rockafellar, Convex Analysis (Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1970).
16. T. Pock and A. Chambolle, “Diagonal preconditioning for first order primal-dual algorithms in convex optimization,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV 2011) (IEEE, Barcelona, Spain, 2011), pp. 17621769.
17. Y. Nesterov, “A method of solving a convex programming problem with convergence rate O(1/k2),” Sov. Math. Dokl. 27(2), 372376 (1983).
18. A. Beck and M. Teboulle, “Fast gradient-based algorithms for constrained total variation image denoising and deblurring problems,” IEEE Trans. Image Process. 18, 24192434 (2009).
19. J. H. Jørgensen, E. Y. Sidky, and X. Pan, “Ensuring convergence in total-variation-based reconstruction for accurate microcalcification imaging in breast X-ray CT,” in Proceedings of the Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC), Valencia, Spain, 2011 (IEEE, 2011), pp. 26402643.
20. C. Vogel, Computational Methods for Inverse Problems (Society for Industrial Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2002), p. 23.
21. J. Duchi, S. Shalev-Shwartz, Y. Singer, and T. Chandra, “Efficient projections onto the ℓ1-ball for learning in high dimensions,” in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Machine Learning, Helsinki, Finland (ICML, 2008), pp. 272279.
22. J. H. Jørgensen, P. C. Hansen, E. Y. Sidky, I. S. Reiser, and X. Pan, “Toward optimal X-ray flux utilization in breast CT,” in Proceedings of the 11th International Meeting on Three-Dimensional Image Reconstruction in Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Potsdam, Germany, 2011 (Fully 3D, 2011), preprint arXiv:1104.1588.
23. I. Reiser and R. M. Nishikawa, “Task-based assessment of breast tomosynthesis: Effect of acquisition parameters and quantum noise,” Med. Phys. 37, 15911600 (2010).
24. H. H. Barrett and K. J. Myers, Foundations of Image Science (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2004).
25. E. J. Candès and M. B. Wakin, “An introduction to compressive sampling,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 25, 2130 (2008).
26. E. Y. Sidky and X. Pan, “Image reconstruction in circular cone-beam computed tomography by constrained, total-variation minimization,” Phys. Med. Biol. 53, 47774807 (2008).
27. D. R. Luke, “Relaxed averaged alternating reflections for diffraction imaging,” Inverse Probl. 21, 3750 (2005).

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...




Iterative image reconstruction (IIR) algorithms in computed tomography (CT) are based on algorithms for solving a particular optimization problem. Design of the IIR algorithm, therefore, is aided by knowledge of the solution to the optimization problem on which it is based. Often times, however, it is impractical to achieve accurate solution to the optimization of interest, which complicates design of IIR algorithms. This issue is particularly acute for CT with a limited angular-range scan, which leads to poorly conditioned system matrices and difficult to solve optimization problems. In this paper, we develop IIR algorithms which solve a certain type of optimization called convex feasibility. The convex feasibility approach can provide alternatives to unconstrained optimization approaches and at the same time allow for rapidly convergent algorithms for their solution—thereby facilitating the IIR algorithm design process.


An accelerated version of the Chambolle−Pock (CP) algorithm is adapted to various convex feasibility problems of potential interest to IIR in CT. One of the proposed problems is seen to be equivalent to least-squares minimization, and two other problems provide alternatives to penalized, least-squares minimization.


The accelerated CP algorithms are demonstrated on a simulation of circular fan-beam CT with a limited scanning arc of 144°. The CP algorithms are seen in the empirical results to converge to the solution of their respective convex feasibility problems.


Formulation of convex feasibility problems can provide a useful alternative to unconstrained optimization when designing IIR algorithms for CT. The approach is amenable to recent methods for accelerating first-order algorithms which may be particularly useful for CT with limited angular-range scanning. The present paper demonstrates the methodology, and future work will illustrate its utility in actual CT application.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd