Advertisement

Shape Reconstruction in X-Ray Tomography from a Small Number of Projections Using Deformable Models

  • Ali Mohammad-Djafari
  • Ken Sauer
Part of the Fundamental Theories of Physics book series (FTPH, volume 98)

Abstract

X-ray tomographic image reconstruction consists of determining an object function from its projections. In many applications such as nondestructive testing, we look for a fault region (air) in a homogeneous, known background (metal). The image reconstruction problem then becomes the determination of the shape of the default region. Two approaches can be used: modeling the image as a binary Markov random field and estimating the pixels of the image, or modeling the shape of the fault and estimating it directly from the projections. In this work we model the fault shape by a deformable polygonal disc or a deformable polyhedral volume and propose a new method for directly estimating the coordinates of its vertices from a very limited number of its projections. The basic idea is not new, but in other competing methods, in general, the fault shape is modeled by a small number of parameters (polygonal shapes with very small number of vertices, snakes and deformable templates) and these parameters are estimated either by least squares or by maximum likelihood methods. We propose modeling the shape of the fault region by a polygon with a large number of vertices, allowing modeling of nearly any shape and estimation of its vertices’ coordinates directly from the projections by defining the solution as the minimizer of an appropriate regularized criterion. This formulation can also be interpreted as a maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimate in a Bayesian estimation framework. To optimize this criterion we use either a simulated annealing or a special purpose deterministic algorithm based on iterated conditional modes (ICM). The simulated results are very encouraging, especially when the number and the angles of projections are very limited.

key words

Computed tomography Shape reconstruction Nondestructive testing Bayesian MAP estimation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    G. Herman, H. Tuy, H. Langenberg, and P. Sabatier, Basic Methods of Tomography and Inverse Problems. Adams Hilger, 1987.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Kak and M. Slaney, Principles of Computerized Tomographic Imaging. New York, NY: IEEE Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Geman and D. McClure, “Statistical methods for tomographic image reconstruction,” in Proc. of the 46-th Session of the ISI, Bulletin of the ISI, vol. 52, pp. 22–26, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Demoment, “Image reconstruction and restoration: Overview of common estimation structure and problems,” IEEE Transactions on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing, vol. ASSP-37, pp. 2024–2036, December 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Brette, J. Idier, and A. Mohammad-Djafari, “Scale invariant Markov models for linear inverse problems,” in Proc. of the Section on Bayesian Statistical Sciences, (Alicante, Spain), pp. 266–270, American Statistical Association, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Mohammad-Djafari and J. Idier, A scale invariant Bayesian method to solve linear inverse problems, pp. 121–134. MaxEnt93, Santa Barbara, U.S.A.: Kluwer Academic Publishers, G. Heidbreder ed., 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Bouman and K. Sauer, “A generalized Gaussian image model for edge-preserving MAP estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. IP-2, pp. 296–310, July 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. Bedini, I. Gerace, and A. Tonazzini, “A deterministic algorithm for reconstructing images with interacting discontinuities,” Computer Vision and Graphics and Image Processing, vol. 56, pp. 109–123, March 1994. AMD.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Nikolova, J. Idier, and A. Mohammad-Djafari, “Inversion of large-support ill-posed linear operators using a piecewise Gaussian MRF,” tech. rep., GPI-LSS, to appear in IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, Gif-sur-Yvette, France, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Nikolova, A. Mohammad-Djafari, and J. Idier, “Inversion of large-support ill-conditioned linear operators using a Markov model with a line process,” in Proceedings of IEEE ICASSP, vol. V, (Adelaide, Australia), pp. 357–360, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Nikolova and A. Mohammad-Djafari, “Eddy current tomography using a binary Markov model,” Signal Processing, vol. 49, pp. 119–132, May 1996.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Osher and J. Sethian, “Fronts propagating with curvature-dependent speed: Algorithms based on hamilton-jacobi formulations,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 79, pp. 12–49, 1988.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Catté, P. Lions, J. Morel, and T. Coll, “Image selective smoothing and edge detection by nonlinear diffusion,” SIAM J. Num. Anal., vol. 29, pp. 182–193, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Malladi, J. Sethian, and B. Vemuri, “Shape modelling with front propagation: A level-set approch,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 17, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. Santosa, “A level-set approch for inverse problems involving obstacles,” Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, vol. 1, pp. 17–33, 1996.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    K. M. Hanson, G. S. Cunningham, and R. J. McKee, “Uncertainties in tomographic reconstructions based on deformable models,” in Image Processing, K. M. Hanson, ed., Proc. SPIE, vol. 3034, pp. 276–286,1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. M. Hanson, G. S. Cunningham, and R. J. McKee, “Uncertainty assessment for reconstructions based on deformable models,” Int. J. Imaging Systems and Technology, vol. 8, pp. 506–512,1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. A. Shepp and Y. Vardi, “Maximum likelihood reconstruction for emission tomography,” IEEE Trans, on Medical Imaging, vol. MI-1, pp. 113–122,1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Rossi and A. Wilsky, “Reconstruction from projections based on detection and estimation of objects,” ieeeASSP, vol. ASSP-32, no. 4, pp. 886–906,1984.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Prince and A. Wilsky, “Reconstructing convex sets from support line measurements,” ieeePAMI, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 377–389,1990.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Prince and A. Wilsky, “Convex set reconstruction using prior shape information,” CVGIP, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 413–427, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    N. Friedland and A. Rosenfeld, “Compact object recognition using energy-function-based optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 770–777, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    P. Milanfax, W. Kaxl, and A. Wilsky, “A moment-based variational approach to tomographic reconstruction,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 772–781, 1994.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    P. Milanfar, W. Karl, and A. Wilsky, “Reconstructing binary polygonal objects from projections: A statistical view,” CGVIP, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 371–391, 1994.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    P. Milanfar, G. Vergese, W. Karl, and A. Wilsky, “Reconstructing polygons from moments with connections to array processing,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 432–443, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. E. Besag, “On the statistical analysis of dirty pictures (with discussion),” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 259–302,1986.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. E. Besag, “Digital image processing: Towards Bayesian image analysis,” Journal of Applied Statistics, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 395–407, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    J. E. Besag and P. Green, “Spatial statistics and Bayesian computation,” J. R. Statist. Soc. B, vol. 55, pp. 25–37, 1993.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    A. Mohammad-Djafari, “Image reconstruction of a compact object from a few number of projections,” in IASTED, Int. Conf. on Signal and Image Processing (SIP’96), (Orlando, Florida, USA), pp. 325–329, 1996.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    A. Mohammad-Djafari, “A Bayesian approach to shape reconstruction of a compact object from a few number of projections,” in Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods, (MaxEnt96, Aug. 96, Berg-en-Dal, South Africa), Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    A. Mohammad-Djafari and Y. Khayi, “Array processing techniques and shape reconstruction in tomography,” in Proceedings of IEEE ICASSP, vol. II, (Munich, Germany), pp. 3785–3789,1997.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    A. Mohammad-Djafari, K. Sauer, Y. Khayi, and E. Cano, “Reconstruction of the shape of a compact object from a few number of projections,” in IEEE Int. Conf on Image Processing (ICIP), vol. 1, (IEEEICIP 97, Santa Barbara, CA, USA), pp. 165–169,1997.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    S. Gautier, G. Le Besnerais, A. Mohammad-Djafari, and B. Lavayssière, Data fusion in the field of non destructive testing. Santa Fe, U.S.A.: Kluwer Academic Publishers, K. Hanson ed., 1995.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    D. Prémel and A. Mohammad-Djafari, “Eddy current tomography in cylindrical geometry,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. M-31, pp. 2000–2003, May 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Mohammad-Djafari
    • 1
  • Ken Sauer
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire des Signaux et Systèmes (CNRS-SUPELEC-UPS)École Supérieure d’ElectricitéGif-sur-Yvette CedexFrance
  2. 2.Department of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations