Optimization based image reconstruction algorithm is an advanced algorithm in medical imaging. However, the corresponding solving algorithm is challenging because the model is usually large-scale and non-smooth. This work aims to devise a simple and convergent solver for optimization model.
METHODS:
The alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) algorithm is a simple and effective solver of the optimization model. However, there always exists a sub-problem that has not close-form solution. One may use gradient descent algorithm to solve this sub-problem, but the step-size selection via line search is time-consuming. Or, one may use fast Fourier transform (FFT) to get a close-form solution if the sparse transform matrix is of special structure. In this work, we propose a fully linearized ADMM (FL-ADMM) algorithm that avoids line search to determine step-size and applies to sparse transform of any structure.
RESULTS:
We derive the FL-ADMM algorithm instances for three total variation (TV) models in 2D computed tomography (CT). Further, we validate and evaluate one FL-ADMM algorithm and explore how two important factors impact convergence rate. These studies show that the FL-ADMM algorithm may accurately solve the optimization model.
CONCLUSION:
The FL-ADMM algorithm is a simple, effective, convergent and universal solver of optimization model in image reconstruction. Compared to the standard ADMM algorithm, the new algorithm does not need time-consuming step-size line-search or special demand to sparse transform. It is a rapid prototyping tool for optimization based image reconstruction.
PanX., SidkyE.Y., VannierM., Why do commercial CT scanners still employ traditional, filtered back-projection for image reconstruction?Inverse Problems25(12) (2009), 123009.
2.
SidkyE.Y., PanX., Image reconstruction in circular cone-beam computed tomography by constrained, total-variation minimization, Physics in Medicine & Biology53(17) (2008), 4777–4807.
3.
QiaoZ., ZhangZ., PanX., et al., Optimization-based image reconstruction from sparsely sampled data in electron paramagnetic resonance imaging, Journal of Magnetic Resonance294 (2018), 24–34.
4.
Ben YedderH.,
CardoenB. and
HamarnehG., Deep learning for biomedical image reconstruction: a survey, Artificial Intelligence Review54(1) (2021), 215–251.
5.
SidkyE.Y., LorenteI., BrankovJ.G., et al., Do CNNs solve the CT inverse problem?IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering68(6) (2020), 1799–1810.
6.
ZhangZ., HanX., PearsonE., et al., Artifact reduction in short-scan CBCT by use of optimization-based reconstruction, Physics in Medicine & Biology61(9) (2016), 3387–3406.
7.
ZhaoB., HaldarJ.P., BrinegarC., et al., Low rank matrix recovery for real-time cardiac MRI. pp. 996–999.
8.
HanX., BianJ., EakerD.R., et al., Algorithm-enabled low-dose micro-CT imaging, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging30(3) (2010), 606–620.
9.
SidkyE.Y., KaoC.-M., PanX., Accurate image reconstruction from few-views and limited-angle data in divergent-beam CT, Journal of X-ray Science and Technology14(2) (2006), 119–139.
10.
LiuY., MaJ., FanY., et al., Adaptive-weighted total variation minimization for sparse data toward low-dose x-ray computed tomography image reconstruction, Physics in Medicine & Biology57(23) (2012), 7923–7956.
11.
ChenZ., JinX., LiL., et al., A limited-angle CT reconstruction method based on anisotropic TV minimization, Physics in Medicine & Biology58(7) (2013), 2119–2141.
12.
ChanT., MarquinaA., MuletP., High-order total variation-based image restoration, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing22(2) (2000), 503–516.
13.
XiY., QiaoZ., WangW., et al., Study of CT image reconstruction algorithm based on high order total variation, Optik204 (2020), 163814.
14.
LiangD., WangH., ChangY., et al., Sensitivity encoding reconstruction with nonlocal total variation regularization, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine65(5) (2011), 1384–1392.
15.
RigieD.S., La RivièreP.J., Joint reconstruction of multi-channel, spectral CT data via constrained total nuclear variation minimization, Physics in Medicine & Biology60(5) (2015), 1741–1762.
16.
ZhangZ., ChenB., XiaD., et al., Directional-TV algorithm for image reconstruction from limited-angular-range data, Medical Image Analysis70 (2021), 102030.
17.
ChambolleA., PockT., A first-order primal-dual algorithm for convex problems with applications to imaging, Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision40(1) (2011), 120–145.
18.
SidkyE.Y., JørgensenJ.H., PanX., Convex optimization problem prototyping for image reconstruction in computed tomography with the Chambolle–Pock algorithm, Physics in Medicine & Biology57(10) (2012), 3065–3091.
19.
ChanR.H., TaoM., YuanX., Constrained total variation deblurring models and fast algorithms based on alternating direction method of multipliers, SIAM Journal on imaging Sciences6(1) (2013), 680–697.
20.
WangY., YangJ., YinW., et al., A new alternating minimization algorithm for total variation image reconstruction, SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences1(3) (2008), 248–272.
21.
HuangY., NgM.K., WenY.-W., A fast total variation minimization method for image restoration, Multiscale Modeling & Simulation7(2) (2008), 774–795.
22.
GoldsteinT., OsherS., The split Bregman method for L1-regularized problems, SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences2(2) (2009), 323–343.
23.
OsherS., MaoY., DongB., et al., Fast linearized Bregman iteration for compressive sensing and sparse denoising, Communications in Mathematical Sciences8(1) (2010), 93–111.
24.
XiaoY.-H., SongH.-N., An inexact alternating directions algorithm for constrained total variation regularized compressive sensing problems, Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision44(2) (2012), 114–127.
25.
YangJ., ZhangY., YinW., A fast alternating direction method for TVL1-L2 signal reconstruction from partial Fourier data, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing4(2) (2010), 288–297.
26.
LiC., YinW., JiangH., et al., An efficient augmented Lagrangian method with applications to total variation minimization, Computational Optimization and Applications56(3) (2013), 507–530.
27.
QiaoZ., RedlerG., EpelB., et al., 3D pulse EPR imaging from sparse-view projections via constrained, total variation minimization, Journal of Magnetic Resonance258 (2015), 49–57.
28.
QiaoZ., LiangD., TangS., et al., Optimization-based image reconstruction from fast-scanned, noisy projections in EPR imaging, IEEE Access7 (2019), 19590–19601.
29.
QiaoZ., RedlerG., EpelB., et al., A balanced total-variation-Chambolle-Pock algorithm for EPR imaging, Journal of Magnetic Resonance328 (2021), 107009.
30.
QiaoZ., RedlerG., QianY., et al., Investigation of the preconditioner-parameter in the preconditioned Chambolle-Pock algorithm applied to optimization-based image reconstruction, Journal of X-ray Science and Technology26(3) (2018), 435–448.
31.
ChanR.H., TaoM., YuanX., Linearized alternating direction method of multipliers for constrained linear least-squares problem, East Asian Journal on Applied Mathematics2(4) (2012), 326–341.
32.
YangJ., YuanX., Linearized augmented Lagrangian and alternating direction methods for nuclear norm minimization, Mathematics of Computation82(281) (2013), 301–329.
33.
FangE.X., HeB., LiuH., et al., Generalized alternating direction method of multipliers: new theoretical insights and applications, Mathematical Programming Computation7(2) (2015), 149–187.
34.
OuyangY., ChenY., LanG., et al., An accelerated linearized alternating direction method of multipliers, SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences8(1) (2015), 644–681.
35.
NienH., FesslerJ.A., Relaxed linearized algorithms for faster X-ray CT image reconstruction, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging35(4) (2015), 1090–1098.
36.
HagerW.W., ZhangH., Inexact alternating direction methods of multipliers for separable convex optimization, Computational Optimization and Applications73(1) (2019), 201–235.
37.
LiuQ., ShenX., GuY., Linearized admm for nonconvex nonsmooth optimization with convergence analysis, IEEE Access7 (2019), 76131–76144.
38.
SidkyE.Y., KraemerD.N., RothE.G., et al., Analysis of iterative region-of-interest image reconstruction for x-ray computed tomography, Journal of Medical Imaging1(3) (2014), 031007.
39.
KaipioJ., SomersaloE., Statistical inverse problems: discretization, model reduction and inverse crimes, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics198(2) (2007), 493–504.
40.
QiaoZ., RedlerG., GuiZ., et al., Three novel accurate pixel-driven projection methods for 2D CT and 3D EPR imaging, Journal of X-ray Science and Technology26(1) (2018), 83–102.
41.
YuZ., NooF., DennerleinF., et al., Simulation tools for two-dimensional experiments in x-ray computed tomography using the FORBILD head phantom, Physics in Medicine & Biology57(13) (2012), N237–N252.
