• Matter and Radiation at Extremes
  • Vol. 9, Issue 2, 027801 (2024)
Jianpeng Gao1,2,*, Liang Sheng2, Xinyi Wang2, Yanhong Zhang2..., Liang Li1, Baojun Duan2, Mei Zhang2, Yang Li2 and Dongwei Hei2|Show fewer author(s)
Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Engineering Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
  • 2National Key Laboratory of Intense Pulsed Radiation Simulation and Effect, Northwest Institute of Nuclear Technology, Xi’an 710024, China
  • show less
    DOI: 10.1063/5.0177342 Cite this Article
    Jianpeng Gao, Liang Sheng, Xinyi Wang, Yanhong Zhang, Liang Li, Baojun Duan, Mei Zhang, Yang Li, Dongwei Hei. Five-view three-dimensional reconstruction for ultrafast dynamic imaging of pulsed radiation sources[J]. Matter and Radiation at Extremes, 2024, 9(2): 027801 Copy Citation Text show less
    Structure of neural network.
    Fig. 1. Structure of neural network.
    The angular distribution of the imaging axes: 1, (90°,180°); 2, (90°,135°); 3, (90°,90°); 4, (90°,45°); 5, (90°,22.5°).
    Fig. 2. The angular distribution of the imaging axes: 1, (90°,180°); 2, (90°,135°); 3, (90°,90°); 4, (90°,45°); 5, (90°,22.5°).
    3D reconstructed results of three different algorithms. (a1)–(a3) Perspective view, 3D view and slice image at x = 0 of simulated data, respectively. (b1)–(b3) Results of analytical method. (c1)–(c3) Results of iterative method. (d1)–(d3) Results of DIP processing.
    Fig. 3. 3D reconstructed results of three different algorithms. (a1)–(a3) Perspective view, 3D view and slice image at x = 0 of simulated data, respectively. (b1)–(b3) Results of analytical method. (c1)–(c3) Results of iterative method. (d1)–(d3) Results of DIP processing.
    3D reconstructed results of three different algorithms with noisy data. (a1)–(a3) Perspective view, 3D view, and slice image at x = 0 of analytical results, respectively. (b1)–(b3) Results of iterative method. (c1)–(c3) Results of DIP processing.
    Fig. 4. 3D reconstructed results of three different algorithms with noisy data. (a1)–(a3) Perspective view, 3D view, and slice image at x = 0 of analytical results, respectively. (b1)–(b3) Results of iterative method. (c1)–(c3) Results of DIP processing.
    Comparison between projections of reconstruction results and simulation data projections. (a1) Projection of simulation data at angle 1. (a2) Projection with noise. (b1) and (b2) Difference images between simulation data projection and projection of analytical results with and without noisy data. (c1) and (c2) Difference projection images of iterative results with and without noisy data. (d1) and (d2) Difference projection images of iteration with DIP results with and without noisy data.
    Fig. 5. Comparison between projections of reconstruction results and simulation data projections. (a1) Projection of simulation data at angle 1. (a2) Projection with noise. (b1) and (b2) Difference images between simulation data projection and projection of analytical results with and without noisy data. (c1) and (c2) Difference projection images of iterative results with and without noisy data. (d1) and (d2) Difference projection images of iteration with DIP results with and without noisy data.
    Convergence curve of iterative process (a) and loss curve of DIP (b) with and without noisy data.
    Fig. 6. Convergence curve of iterative process (a) and loss curve of DIP (b) with and without noisy data.
    Schematic of XUV/SR pinhole imaging system.6
    Fig. 7. Schematic of XUV/SR pinhole imaging system.6
    (a) Raw projection data and (b)–(e) preprocessed images of angle 1 from shot 2 023 052 405.
    Fig. 8. (a) Raw projection data and (b)–(e) preprocessed images of angle 1 from shot 2 023 052 405.
    3D spatial distributions of XUV/SR emission reconstructed by analytical method. (a1)–(a4) Reconstructed 3D images from shot 2 023 052 405 at T1, …, T4, respectively. (b1)–(b4) Perspective images from shot 2 023 052 405 at T1, …, T4, respectively. (c1)–(c4) Reconstructed 3D images from shot 2 023 052 406 at T1, …, T4, respectively. (d1)–(d4) Perspective images from shot 2 023 052 406 at T1, …, T4, respectively.
    Fig. 9. 3D spatial distributions of XUV/SR emission reconstructed by analytical method. (a1)–(a4) Reconstructed 3D images from shot 2 023 052 405 at T1, …, T4, respectively. (b1)–(b4) Perspective images from shot 2 023 052 405 at T1, …, T4, respectively. (c1)–(c4) Reconstructed 3D images from shot 2 023 052 406 at T1, …, T4, respectively. (d1)–(d4) Perspective images from shot 2 023 052 406 at T1, …, T4, respectively.
    3D spatial distributions of XUV/SR emission reconstructed by the iterative method with DIP. (a1)–(a4) Reconstructed 3D images from shot 2 023 052 405 at T1, …, T4, respectively. (b1)–(b4) Perspective images from shot 2 023 052 405 at T1, …, T4, respectively. (c1)–(c4) Reconstructed 3D images from shot 2 023 052 406 at T1, …, T4, respectively. (d1)–(d4) Perspective images from shot 2 023 052 406 at T1, …, T4, respectively.
    Fig. 10. 3D spatial distributions of XUV/SR emission reconstructed by the iterative method with DIP. (a1)–(a4) Reconstructed 3D images from shot 2 023 052 405 at T1, …, T4, respectively. (b1)–(b4) Perspective images from shot 2 023 052 405 at T1, …, T4, respectively. (c1)–(c4) Reconstructed 3D images from shot 2 023 052 406 at T1, …, T4, respectively. (d1)–(d4) Perspective images from shot 2 023 052 406 at T1, …, T4, respectively.
    Slice images of XUV/SR emission reconstructed by the iterative method with DIP. (a1)–(a4) XUV/SR emission slice images at z = −47 from shot 2 023 052 405 at T1, …, T4, respectively. (b1)–(b4) XUV/SR emission slice images at z = 113 from shot 2 023 052 405 at T1, …, T4, respectively.
    Fig. 11. Slice images of XUV/SR emission reconstructed by the iterative method with DIP. (a1)–(a4) XUV/SR emission slice images at z = −47 from shot 2 023 052 405 at T1, …, T4, respectively. (b1)–(b4) XUV/SR emission slice images at z = 113 from shot 2 023 052 405 at T1, …, T4, respectively.

    Parameters: M, maximum expansion order; K, iteration number; ɛ, difference between the projection images of the results in two adjacent iterations; λ, μ0, d0, b0, parameters of ADMM algorithm; γ, η, adaptive updating parameters.

    1: Calculate sm by analytical algorithm, t ← 0, s(0)sm.

    2: Compute S0r, Irec0Pp̂S0.

    3: for k = 1, …, K do

    4: tt + 1

    5: for nz = 1: Nz do

    6: Obtain s(t) by L-BFGS algorithm.

    7: Compute S(t)z, set S(t)zj=0 if S(t)zj<0.

    8: dtshrinkφst+bt1,1μt1

    9: btbt1+φstdt

    10: Update μt

    11: end for

    12: if 1NxNyIrectIrec2t12ε, break;

    13: end for

    Table 1. Iterative method using cylindrical harmonic decomposition.
    AlgorithmSSIMPSNRRMSE(S)RMSE(I)
    Without noiseAM0.811 1527.5960.041 717.7679
    IM0.955 8739.8720.010 151.0324
    IM+DIP0.9794942.4540.007540.2957
    With noiseAM0.750 0226.9710.044 828.1900
    IM0.828 4332.3650.024 092.3296
    IM+DIP0.9552139.6070.010460.5068
    Table 1. Image assessment indices of sources reconstructed by the analytical method (AM), the iterative method (IM), and iteration with DIP (IM+DIP). Boldface denotes that the image assessment index of corresponding algorithm is better than that of other algorithms.

    Parameters: σ, standard deviation of Gaussian noise; Ke, epochs;

    lr, learning rate

    1 ηU(0, 0.1):

    2: for t = 1, …, Ke do

    3: ξN(0, σ) ηη + ξ,

    4: calculate loss Lt

    5: update Θ using Adam

    6: end for

    7: SfΘη

    Table 2. Artifact reduction via deep image prior.
    Jianpeng Gao, Liang Sheng, Xinyi Wang, Yanhong Zhang, Liang Li, Baojun Duan, Mei Zhang, Yang Li, Dongwei Hei. Five-view three-dimensional reconstruction for ultrafast dynamic imaging of pulsed radiation sources[J]. Matter and Radiation at Extremes, 2024, 9(2): 027801
    Download Citation