Non-ideal measurement computed tomography (NICT), which lowers radiation at the cost of image quality, is expanding the clinical use of CT. Although unified models have shown promise in NICT enhancement, most methods require paired data, which is an impractical demand due to inevitable organ motion. Unsupervised approaches attempt to overcome this limitation, but their assumption of homogeneous noise neglects the variability of scanning protocols, leading to poor generalization and potential model collapse. We further observe that distinct scanning protocols, which correspond to different physical imaging processes, produce discrete sub-manifolds in the feature space, contradicting these assumptions and limiting their effectiveness. To address this, we propose an Uncertainty-Guided Manifold Smoothing (UMS) framework to bridge the gaps between sub-manifolds. A classifier in UMS identifies sub-manifolds and predicts uncertainty scores, which guide the generation of diverse samples across the entire manifold. By leveraging the classifier's capability, UMS effectively fills the gaps between discrete sub-manifolds, and promotes a continuous and dense feature space. Due to the complexity of the global manifold, it's hard to directly model it. Therefore, we propose to dynamically incorporate the global- and sub-manifold-specific features. Specifically, we design a global- and sub-manifold-driven architecture guided by the classifier, which enables dynamic adaptation to subdomain variations. This dynamic mechanism improves the network's capacity to capture both shared and domain-specific features, thereby improving reconstruction performance. Extensive experiments on public datasets are conducted to validate the effectiveness of our method across different generation paradigms.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Visualization of reconstructed results under different scanning protocols.
Figure 2. The overview of the proposed framework.
Figure 3. Generation examples of the uncertainty-guided diffusion model.
Geometrical Parameters β
Scanning Protocol
Photon Count α
View Number
Angle Range
LDCT
1.25e4
512
[0∘,360∘]
SVCT
1.25e8
60
[0∘,360∘]
LACT
1.25e8
512
[0∘,125∘]
Table 1. Scanning protocols used to simulate different NICT images.
Figure 4. Reconstruction results of different algorithms under varying sampling strategies. The display window for rows 1, 3, and 5 is [-805, 145] HU, while for other rows, it is [-265, 285] HU.
LDCT
SVCT
LACT
Average
Algorithm
PSNR
SSIM
LPIPS
NoiseSD
PSNR
SSIM
LPIPS
NoiseSD
PSNR
SSIM
LPIPS
NoiseSD
PSNR
SSIM
LPIPS
NoiseSD
CycleGAN
38.25
94.57
0.0306
0.0120
36.01
91.44
0.0444
0.0157
31.97
90.93
0.0522
0.0253
35.41
92.31
0.0424
0.0176
CUT
36.21
90.84
0.0654
0.0151
33.37
81.92
0.1196
0.0211
29.42
83.48
0.0766
0.0344
33.00
85.41
0.0543
0.0235
AttentionGAN
39.59
95.83
0.0341
0.0108
36.70
90.91
0.0647
0.0148
31.01
91.06
0.0480
0.0258
35.76
92.60
0.0489
0.0171
SwitchableCycleGAN
37.26
92.92
0.0493
0.0129
33.38
84.39
0.1057
0.0206
27.40
85.45
0.1000
0.0414
32.68
87.58
0.0850
0.0249
SRC
35.52
88.16
0.0899
0.0164
32.07
79.05
0.1556
0.0244
29.09
83.92
0.0696
0.0351
32.22
83.71
0.1050
0.0253
Table 2. Quantitative results of PSNR(dB) ↑ , SSIM(%) ↑ , LPIPS ↓ and NoiseSD ↓ for different algorithms under varying sampling strategies
Known Domain
Unkown Domain
Known Domain
Unkown Domain
SVCT
LACT
LDCT
LDCT
LACT
SVCT
Algorithm
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
CycleGAN
35.11
89.10
31.57
90.11
38.65
94.44
36.76
90.93
31.04
89.63
31.71
78.15
CUT
32.25
77.11
28.69
81.03
36.48
91.75
35.92
87.26
28.21
81.61
31.18
73.33
SRC
30.95
65.84
28.60
82.20
34.93
82.65
34.93
82.42
28.59
81.91
30.36
70.77
UNSB
33.11
83.33
28.51
83.38
36.57
94.10
35.64
91.87
27.69
82.40
32.03
84.31
Table 3. Reconstruction results of different algorithms for domain generalization
Figure 5. Reconstruction results of different algorithms on natural image dataset.
Hazy
Rainy
Average
Algorithm
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
CycleGAN
29.18
95.31
25.31
88.97
27.24
92.14
CUT
24.02
87.44
22.99
79.09
23.50
83.26
SRC
22.80
88.07
20.32
73.55
21.56
80.81
UNSB
22.70
83.33
21.31
72.65
22.00
77.99
CSUD
23.13
82.11
30.30
92.81
26.71
87.46
Table 4. Quantitative results for different algorithms on natural image dataset
AttentionGAN
SRC
UNSB
CSUD
Ours
ACC ( ↑ )
72.16%
76.13%
66.43%
61.69%
77.32%
Table 5. Quantitative results of the downstream task.
LDCT
SVCT
LACT
Average
Algorithm
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
CycleGAN
38.25
94.57
36.01
91.44
31.97
90.93
35.41
92.31
CycleGAN†
39.25
95.30
36.32
91.95
32.84
91.76
36.13
93.00
Δ
↑ 1.00
↑ 0.73
↑ 0.31
↑ 0.51
↑ 0.87
↑ 0.83
↑ 0.72
↑ 0.69
Switchable
37.26
92.92
33.38
84.39
27.40
85.45
32.68
87.58
Switchable†
38.60
94.16
34.84
88.64
27.99
86.41
33.81
89.73
Table 6. Effectiveness of the proposed uncertainty-guided manifold smoothing method
Dataset
LDCT
SVCT
LACT
Algorithm
LD
SV
LA
Syn
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
PSNR
SSIM
Single-LD
✓
✗
✗
✗
38.84
94.95
–
–
–
–
Single-SV
✗
✓
✗
✗
–
–
35.35
90.55
–
–
Single-LA
✗
✗
✓
✗
–
–
–
–
31.91
87.92
Multi-Vanilla
✓
✓
✓
✗
38.25
94.57
36.01
91.44
31.97
90.93
Multi-Vanilla⋆
✓
✓
✓
✗
38.51
94.19
36.22
92.11
32.51
90.36
Table 7. Ablation study on joint training and contribution parts
Figure 6. t-SNE visualization of real and synthetic data.
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China · DAMO Academy, Alibaba Group · The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China +1
School of Mathematical Sciences, Capital Normal University, Beijing 100048, China · National Center for Applied Mathematics Beijing, Capital Normal University and Academy for multidisciplinary studies, Capital Normal University, Beijing, 100048, China