Scalable regularized tomography without repeated projections

Summary form only given. X-ray computerized tomography (CT) and related imaging modalities (e.g., PET) are notorious for their excessive computational demands, especially when noise-resistant probabilistic methods such as regularized tomography are used. The basic idea of regularized tomography is to compute a smooth image whose simulated projections (line integrals) approximate the observed, noisy X-ray projections. The computational expense in previous methods stems from explicitly applying a large sparse projection matrix to enforce these smoothness and data fidelity constraints during each of many iterations of the algorithm. Here we review our recent work in regularized tomography in which the smoothness constraint is analytically transformed from the image to the projection domain, before any computations begin. As a result, iterations take place entirely in the projection domain, avoiding the repeated sparse matrix-vector products. A more surprising benefit is the decoupling of a large system of regularization equations into many small systems of simpler independent equations, whose solution requires an "embarassingly parallel" computation. Here, we demonstrate that this method provides linear speedup of regularized tomography for up to 20 compute nodes (Pentium 4, 1.5 GHz) on a 100 Mb/s network using a Matlab MPI implementation.

[1]  Shava Smallen On-line Parallel Tomography , 2001 .

[2]  emontmej,et al.  High Performance Computing , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[3]  Antonio F. Díaz,et al.  Performance of Message-Passing MATLAB Toolboxes , 2002, VECPAR.

[4]  Patrick Dupont,et al.  Reduction of metal streak artifacts in X-ray computed tomography using a transmission maximum a posteriori algorithm , 1999 .

[5]  Yoram Bresler,et al.  O(N2log2N) filtered backprojection reconstruction algorithm for tomography , 2000, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[6]  Jeffrey A. Fessler,et al.  Nonuniform fast Fourier transforms using min-max interpolation , 2003, IEEE Trans. Signal Process..

[7]  M. Bertero,et al.  Application of the OS-EM method to the restoration of LBT images , 2000 .

[8]  Ariela Sofer,et al.  A data-parallel algorithm for iterative tomographic image reconstruction , 1999, Proceedings. Frontiers '99. Seventh Symposium on the Frontiers of Massively Parallel Computation.

[9]  E U Mumcuoğlu,et al.  Bayesian reconstruction of PET images: methodology and performance analysis. , 1996, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  Jonas August Decoupling the equations of regularized tomography , 2002, Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging.

[11]  Alvaro R. De Pierro,et al.  A row-action alternative to the EM algorithm for maximizing likelihood in emission tomography , 1996, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[12]  Zang-Hee Cho,et al.  Parallelization of the EM algorithm for 3-D PET image reconstruction , 1991 .

[13]  M W Vannier,et al.  Fast iterative algorithm for metal artifact reduction in X-ray CT. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[14]  F. Natterer The Mathematics of Computerized Tomography , 1986 .

[15]  Ken D. Sauer,et al.  A local update strategy for iterative reconstruction from projections , 1993, IEEE Trans. Signal Process..

[16]  Jeffrey A. Fessler,et al.  Grouped-coordinate ascent algorithms for penalized-likelihood transmission image reconstruction , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[17]  Jeffrey A. Fessler,et al.  Conjugate-gradient preconditioning methods for shift-variant PET image reconstruction , 1999, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[18]  J. Hsieh Adaptive streak artifact reduction in computed tomography resulting from excessive x-ray photon noise. , 1998, Medical physics.

[19]  William Gropp,et al.  Beowulf Cluster Computing with Linux , 2003 .