Algebraic reconstruction methods

The problem of solving for the density (actually, for the linear attenuation coefficient) of each
location in the image can also be viewed as a set of simultaneous equations. Each ray integral
(or summation, in the finite case we are dealing with here) provides one equation. The sum
of the attenuation coefficients for the pixels (or voxels) along the ray, each multiplied by a
weighting factor that takes into account the actual path length of that ray through the pixel, is
equal to the measured absorption. Figure 12.13 illustrates the relationship between the pixels
and the ray-integral equations. The number of unknowns in this set of equations is the number of
pixels in the image of the slice through the specimen. The number of equations is the number of
ray integrals, which is generally the number of detectors used along each projection profile times
the number of view angles. This is a very large number of equations, but many of the weights are
zero (most pixels are not involved in any one particular ray-integral equation). Furthermore, the
number of equations rarely equals the number of unknowns. But fortunately there are a number
of practical and well-tested computer methods for solving such sets of sparse equations when
they are under- or over determined.

It is not our purpose here to compare the various solution methods. A suitable understanding of
the method can be attained using the simplest of the methods, known as the algebraic
reconstruction technique or ART (Gordon 1974). In this approach, the equations are solved
iteratively. The set of equations can be written as
Amn xn = bm

where n is the number of voxels, m is the number of projections, and A is the matrix of weights
that correspond to the contribution of each voxel to each ray path (which can be precalculated for
any particular instrument and geometry). The voxel values are the x values and the projection
measurements are the b values. The classic ART method calculates each iterative set of x values
from the preceding ones as
xk+1 = xk +Ai bi Ai x A 2k ( ± λ ) || i ||

The value of λ, the relaxation coefficient, generally lies between 0 and 2, and controls the speed
of convergence. When λ is very small, this becomes equivalent to a conventional least squares
solution. Practical considerations, including the order in which the various equations are applied,
are dealt with in detail in the literature (Censor 1983, 1984).

Figure 12.14 shows a simple example of this approach. The 16 × 16 array of voxels has been
given density values from 0 to 20 as shown in Figure 12.14b, and three projection sets at view
angles of 0, 90, and 180° were calculated for the fan-beam geometry shown in Figure 12.14a.
For an array of 25 detectors, this gives a total of 75 equations in 256 unknowns. Starting with an
initial guess of uniform voxels (with density 10), the results after 1, 5, and 50 iterations are
shown. The void areas and internal square appear rather quickly, and the definition of boundaries
gradually improves. The errors — particularly in the corners of the image, where fewer ray
equations contain any information, and at the corners of the internal dense square, where the
attenuation value changes abruptly — are evident. Still, considering the extent to which the
system is underdetermined, the results are rather good. Kacmarz’s method for this type of
solution is illustrated in Figure 12.15 for the very modest case of three equations and two
unknowns, with λ = 1. Beginning at some initial guess, for instance that all of the pixels have the
same attenuation value, one of the equations is applied. This is equivalent to moving
perpendicular to the line representing the equation. This new point is then used as a starting point
to apply the next equation, and so on. In the real case, the equations do not all meet in a perfect
point because of finite precision in the various measurements, counting statistics, machine
variation, etc.; thus there is no single point that represents a stable answer. Instead, the solution
converges toward a region that is mostly within the region between the various lines and then
oscillates there. However, in a high-dimensionality space with some noisy equations, it is
possible for the solution to leave this region and wander away after much iteration.

In real cases with many dimensions, the convergence may not be very fast. The greatest
difficulty in using the iterative algebraic technique is deciding when to stop. Logically, we would
like to continue until the answer is as good as it can get, but without knowing the “truth,” it is not
possible to determine this stopping point exactly. Some methods examine the change in the
calculated image after each iteration and attempt to judge from that when to stop (for instance,
when the normalized total variation in pixel values falls below some arbitrary limit, or when it
begins to increase from the previous iteration). This method is prone to serious errors in a few
cases, but is used nonetheless. It should be noted that the penalty for continuing the iteration is
not simply the computational cost, but also the possibility that, for some sets of data, the answer
may start to diverge (leave the bounded region near the crossover point). This condition is, of
course, highly undesirable.

Given the drawbacks to the algebraic approach and the relative simplicity and straight forward
approach of the filtered back-projection method, why would we use this method? There are
several potential advantages of algebraic methods such as ART. First, the filtered back-projection
method, and the Fourier transform method that it embodies, require that the number of views be
rather large and that they be equally spaced so that the frequency space is well filled with data.
Missing angles, or entire sets of angles that may be unattainable due to physical limitations,
present problems for filtered back-projection and introduce significant artifacts. ART methods
can still produce an acceptable reconstruction. There may be a lack of detail in portions of the
reconstructed image that are under sampled by the projections, but the artifacts do not spread
throughout the entire image. In fact, acceptable reconstructions are often obtained with only a
very few views.

Another advantage to ART is the ability to apply constraints. For instance, it is possible, in a
filtered back-projection or Fourier transform method, to calculate negative values of density
(attenuation) for some voxels because of the finite measurement precision. However, such values
have no physical meaning. In the iterative algebraic method, any such values can be restricted to
zero. In the schematic diagram of Figure 12.15, this amounts to restricting the solution to the
quadrant of the graph with positive values. In fact, any other prior knowledge can also be
applied. If it is known that the only possible values of density and attenuation in the specimen
correspond to specific materials, then the values can be easily constrained to correspond. Any
geometric information, such as the outside dimensions of the object, can also be included (in this
case, by forcing the voxels outside the object boundaries to zero density).
It is even possible to set up a grid of voxels that are not all of the same size and spacing. This Set
up might allow, for instance, the use of a fine voxel spacing in the interior of an object, where
great detail is desired, but a much coarser grid outside (or vice versa). This would still allow the
calculation of the contribution of the outside material to the ray integrals, but it would reduce the
number of unknowns to produce a better solution for any given number of views and projections.
Sets of non square pixels or non cubic voxels can also be used when these are needed to conform
to specific object shapes and symmetries. The flexibility of the algebraic method and its
particular abilities to use a priori information, often available in an industrial tomography
setting, compensates for its slowness and requirements for large amounts of computation. The
calculation of voxel weights (the A matrix) can be tedious, especially for fan-beam or other
complex geometries, but no more so than back projection in such cases, and it is a one-time
calculation whose results can be stored and used for many reconstructions using the same
geometry. The use of solution methods other than the simple iterative approach described here
can provide improved stability and convergence.

Shiven Gandhi

SKG Creative

Designing | Organizing | Overseas Educational Counseling (Biomedical)