Comparing GA with MART to tomographic reconstruction of ultrasound images with and without noisy input data

Different approaches are in use to solve the problem of tomographic reconstruction, which is an inverse problem. Four different approaches; three variations of multiplicative algebraic reconstruction technique (MART) and a new approach based on genetic algorithms (GA), are evaluated and compared in the paper. The approaches are applied to the reconstruction of specimens from time-of-flight data collected by ultrasound transmission tomography. The time-of-flight data is simulated without taking into consideration the diffraction effects of ultrasound which is reasonably valid, only when the impedance mismatch in the specimen under consideration is small. Also it is assumed that the specimen under consideration consists of a maximum of three different materials with the goal being to identify the number, shape, and location of the inclusions in the specimen. The sensitivity of the various algorithms to the parameters involved, performance of various algorithms in terms of errors in reconstruction and time taken for the reconstruction are studied and presented here. Further the performance of the algorithms when the input data are contaminated with noise is presented. It is observed that although GA takes more time than MART, GA is reliable and accurate and scores much better than MART in dealing with problems where only limited data is available for the reconstruction.

[1]  G. Herman,et al.  Algebraic reconstruction techniques (ART) for three-dimensional electron microscopy and x-ray photography. , 1970, Journal of theoretical biology.

[2]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Simulation Studies on a Genetic Algorithm Based Tomographic Reconstruction Using Time-of-Flight Data from Ultrasound Transmission Tomography , 2009, ICANNGA.

[3]  J. Greenleaf,et al.  Computerized tomography with ultrasound , 1983, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[4]  D P Lyons,et al.  Optical tomography using a genetic algorithm. , 1996, Optics letters.

[5]  Roel Snieder,et al.  Reconditioning inverse problems using the genetic algorithm and revised parameterization , 1997 .

[6]  Y. Censor.  Finite series-expansion reconstruction methods , 1983, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[7]  Mayuri Razdan,et al.  Defect Detection in Carbon-Fiber Composites using Lamb-Wave Tomographic Methods , 2007 .

[8]  R. Lewitt.  Reconstruction algorithms: Transform methods , 1983, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[9]  Prabhat Munshi,et al.  Performance of iterative tomographic algorithms applied to non-destructive evaluation with limited data , 1997 .

[10]  Pier Paolo Delsanto,et al.  Application of genetic algorithms to ultrasonic tomography , 1998 .

[11]  Avinash C. Kak,et al.  Principles of computerized tomographic imaging , 2001, Classics in applied mathematics.

[12]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Applicability of genetic algorithms to reconstruction of projected data from ultrasonic tomography , 2008, GECCO '08.

[13]  R. K. Ursem.  Multi-objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms , 2009 .

[14]  G. Herman,et al.  Three-dimensional reconstruction from projections: a review of algorithms. , 1974, International review of cytology.

[15]  R.S. Bichkar,et al.  Tomographic reconstruction of circular and elliptical objects using genetic algorithm , 1998, IEEE Signal Processing Letters.

[16]  Joseph L. Rose,et al.  A Baseline and Vision of Ultrasonic Guided Wave Inspection Potential , 2002 .