Shared-Structure 4D Spectral Gaussian Representation for Sparse-View Spectral CT Reconstruction
Authors: Jiancheng Fang, Shaoyu Wang, Wenjun Xia, Yang Chen, Qiegen Liu
Organizations: School of Information Engineering, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330031, China · School of Computer Science and Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China · Jiangsu Provincial Joint International Research Laboratory of Medical Information Processing, Laboratory of Image Science and Technology, and Key Laboratory of New Generation Artificial Intelligence Technology and Its Interdisciplinary Applications (Southeast University), Ministry of Education
Sparse-view spectral computed tomography (CT) reconstructs energy-resolved attenuation volumes from limited projection views, requiring simultaneous handling of angular undersampling and spectral coupling. We propose a SharedStructure 4D Spectral Gaussian Representation (4D-SG) that learns shared Gaussian geometry from full spectrum structural projections and uses a Gaussian-wise Spectral Density Curve Network (GSC-Net) to predict Gaussian raw density transformations. This factorization separates shared spatial structure from spectral attenuation variation, avoids independent channel geometry optimization, and establishes a continuous 4D-SG representation from discrete spectral measurements for unobserved spectral channel queries. Experiments on six synthesized, simulated projection, and real projection datasets with 50 views demonstrate the best average performance. Compared with the strongest Gaussian baseline, 4D-SG improves PSNR from 35.56 dB to 36.61 dB, increases SSIM from 0.909 to 0.914, and reduces LPIPS from 0.208 to 0.194, demonstrating its effectiveness for sparse-view spectral CT reconstruction.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Conceptual comparison. (a) Conventional methods reconstruct each spectral channel through an independent iterative process. (b) 4D-SG learns shared Gaussian geometry and GSC-Net from discrete spectral measurements and sparse-view projections and generates the Gaussian representation of a target channel for voxelization, supporting reconstruction and prediction of observed and unobserved spectral channels.
Fig. 2: Empirical analysis of structural consistency across channels and attenuation variation by region in spectral CT. (a) Representative spectral CT slices, corresponding edge maps, and distributions of the shared structural edge ratio under different thresholds k for the minimum number of concurring channels. Violin plots, samples from individual slices, box plots, and median markers summarize the distributions; the dashed line denotes 0.95, and the bottom annotations report the proportion of samples with low ratios and the minimum ratio. (b) Four fixed regions of interest, enlarged patches, and their mean globally normalized attenuation values across spectral channels, with the measured values annotated at each channel.
Fig. 3: Workflow of 4D-SG. Shared Gaussian geometry and common raw densities are first learned from structural projections over the full spectrum using projection fidelity and volumetric regularization. With the Gaussian centers, scales, and rotations fixed, GSC-Net predicts raw density transformations for each Gaussian conditioned on the common raw densities, spectral grid, and target channel. The resulting density coefficients for the target channel are combined with the fixed shared geometry and optimized using spectral projection fidelity, curve regularization, and volumetric regularization. Gaussian voxelization reconstructs the queried spectral channel, supporting reconstruction of observed spectral channels and queries of unobserved spectral channels.
Fig. 4: Architecture of GSC-Net. The common raw densities and normalized spectral grid are embedded into spectral token sequences for each Gaussian and processed by the gated spectral SSM backbone. The density curve head combines token, low-rank basis, and residual responses to predict raw density transformations for each Gaussian. Observed spectral channels are queried directly from the predicted curves, whereas target spectral channels are queried from the predicted raw density curves before conversion to non-negative density coefficients.
Dataset
Data Source
Spectral Setting
SOD/SDD(mm)
Detector
Reference Volume
Chest [ 32 ]
Synthesized from a single-energy CT volume
3 monoenergetic channels: 40, 70, and 100 keV
1000/1500
512×512 pixels, 1-mm pixel size
Synthesized GT
Head [ 33 ]
Synthesized from a single-energy CT volume
3 monoenergetic channels: 40, 70, and 100 keV
1000/1500
512×512 pixels, 1-mm pixel size
Synthesized GT
Walnut [ 34 ]
Simulated from a spectral CT volume
8 monoenergetic channels: 10–80 keV at 10-keV intervals
1000/1500
512×512 pixels, 1-mm pixel size
Spectral CT volume
Ordinary Objects [ 35 ]
Simulated from dual-energy CT volumes
5 mixed-energy channels from 100/140-kVp volumes, with λ={0,0.3,0.5,0.7,1.0}
1000/1500
512×512 pixels, 1-mm pixel size
Spectral CT volume
Insect
Real multi-kVp cone-beam CT projections
4 tube-voltage settings: 40, 60, 80, and 100 kVp
310/510
2882×2340 pixels, 0.05-mm pixel size
Full-view FDK
Mouse Chest
Real photon-counting CT projections
4 energy windows: 20–90, 30–90, 45–90, and 60–90 keV
76.28/361.1
2062×2062 pixels, 0.1-mm pixel size
Full-view FDK
TABLE I: Summary of the datasets, spectral configurations, and acquisition geometries. Chest, Head, Walnut, and Ordinary Objects use the same simulated cone-beam system matrix, while full-view FDK reconstructions are used as reference volumes for Insect and Mouse Chest.
Method
Chest
Head
Walnut
Ordinary Objects
Insect
Mouse Chest
Average
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
FDK
27.00
0.546
0.402
29.41
0.702
0.346
24.77
0.540
0.393
29.85
0.625
0.326
27.09
0.526
0.440
22.61
0.516
0.432
26.79
0.576
0.390
CGLS
33.43
0.858
0.244
35.08
0.909
0.256
29.99
0.813
0.283
37.74
0.829
0.243
30.50
0.877
0.239
27.43
0.669
0.419
32.36
0.826
0.281
SART
32.85
0.886
0.228
36.73
0.925
0.256
32.76
0.897
0.244
39.26
0.943
0.225
31.96
0.900
0.236
28.78
0.705
0.361
33.72
0.876
0.258
NAF
35.56
0.896
0.192
37.35
0.942
0.215
33.68
0.939
0.199
40.12
0.968
0.193
32.74
0.914
0.194
28.80
0.715
0.349
34.71
0.896
0.224
R 2 -Gaussian
35.77
0.911
0.174
38.15
0.947
0.209
34.93
0.948
0.186
40.34
0.974
0.170
35.06
0.924
0.146
29.08
0.751
0.360
35.56
0.909
0.208
TABLE II: Quantitative comparison on all datasets using 50 views. Higher PSNR and SSIM values are better, whereas lower LPIPS values are better. Metrics on Insect and Mouse Chest are computed with respect to full-view FDK references.
Fig. 5: Representative qualitative comparison on 3D volume datasets with simulated projections using 50 views. The upper two groups show Walnut at 30 keV and 70 keV, respectively, and the lower two groups show Ordinary Objects with mixing coefficients of 0.0 and 1.0, respectively. For each spectral setting, the first row shows the reconstructed slice and the second row shows the corresponding zoomed ROI. The red boxes indicate the enlarged regions, and the red arrows highlight representative local structures. The PSNR and SSIM values annotated in each panel are computed on the corresponding entire 3D volume at the displayed spectral channel, rather than on the shown slice only. HU values are normalized to [0,1].
Fig. 6: Representative qualitative comparison on synthesized multi-energy datasets using 50 views. The upper two groups show Chest at 40 keV and 100 keV, respectively, and the lower two groups show Head at 40 keV and 100 keV, respectively. For each spectral setting, the first row shows the reconstructed slice and the second row shows the corresponding zoomed ROI. The red boxes indicate the enlarged regions, and the red arrows highlight representative local structures. The PSNR and SSIM values annotated in each panel are computed on the corresponding entire 3D volume at the displayed spectral channel, rather than on the shown slice only. HU values are normalized to [0,1].
Fig. 7: Representative qualitative comparison on real projection datasets using 50 views. The upper two groups show Insect acquired at 40 kVp and 100 kVp, respectively, and the lower two groups show Mouse Chest at the 20–90 keV and 60–90 keV energy windows, respectively. For each spectral setting, the first row shows the reconstructed slice and the second row shows the corresponding zoomed ROI. The red boxes indicate the enlarged regions, and the red arrows highlight representative local structures. Since clean ground-truth volumes are unavailable for the real projection datasets, the reference volumes are full-view FDK reconstructions. The PSNR and SSIM values annotated in each panel are computed on the corresponding entire 3D volume at the displayed spectral channel, rather than on the shown slice only.
Fig. 8: Reconstruction and quantitative evaluation across spectral channels. (a) Reconstructed and reference Walnut slices. (b) PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS by channel for each dataset.
Fig. 9: Ablation on Gaussian parameter freezing during raw density curve learning. Rows report PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS. P/R/S/D denote position, rotation, scale, and raw density; L/F denote learnable/frozen.
Fig. 10: Comparison between GSC-Net and a direct MLP alternative under different numbers of projection views. Higher values are better for PSNR and SSIM, whereas lower values are better for LPIPS.
Fig. 11: Comparison of training time and reconstruction quality for different spectral channel counts and configurations. The top plot reports how total training time changes as the number of spectral channels increases. It compares independent R 2 -Gaussian training against shared geometry variants using either MLP or GSC-Net for spectral adaptation. The bottom plots report PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS. These results indicate that reusing shared Gaussian geometry improves training efficiency while maintaining reconstruction accuracy.
Fig. 12: Prediction of projections for an unobserved spectral channel across six datasets. (a) Predicted projections, corresponding reference projections, and residual maps. (b) Projection-level metrics evaluated across multiple views.
Spectral computed tomography (CT) extends conventional CT by measuring attenuation across multiple energy channels, allowing improved modeling of physical X-ray interactions and energy-dependent material behavior and leading to richer scene understanding. We present a novel method for spectral CT reconstruction and basis material decomposition using 3D Gaussian Splatting by adding per-Gaussian basis material fractions to the set of learnable parameters, which together with a set of energy-dependent basis functions define the attenuation across the full spectral range. The basis functions represent various physical attenuation models such as photoelectric absorption and Compton scattering, and are jointly optimized across all energy channels through a differentiable polychromatic forward model, with material decomposition performed via mean-shift clustering of the resulting coefficients. We evaluate our method on a baseline real-world dataset as well as a synthetic dataset that we introduce, comparing against traditional reconstruction algorithms and state-of-the-art learning-based CT reconstruction methods. Our approach outperforms all traditional baselines in novel view synthesis and achieves the best PSNR among all compared methods for spectral CT volume reconstruction, while describing all energy channels with a single shared representation that requires a number of Gaussians comparable to single-channel Gaussian splatting-based CT reconstruction approaches. For basis material decomposition, no traditional or learning-based baseline offers one-step decomposition with direct RGB material segmentation, and our method additionally recovers the photoelectric basis with higher PSNR than traditional pipelines.
Reinout Vos, Saptarshi Neil Sinha, Michael Weinmann
Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands · Fraunhofer IGD, Darmstadt, Germany
Sparse-view computed tomography (CT) reduces radiation dose by acquiring fewer projection views, but the resulting inverse problem is highly ill-posed and often produces severe streak artifacts. Existing deep reconstruction methods have achieved promising performance, yet many rely on first-order updates or large regularization networks, which can be less effective in ill-conditioned settings. We propose \textbf{CG-GLORE}, a compact deep unrolling framework inspired by second-order optimization for sparse-view CT reconstruction. Each unrolled stage uses a CG-solved linear system based on a structured Hessian surrogate: it retains the physics-induced curvature of the data-fidelity term while using an identity approximation for the learned regularization term. Thus, the method is second-order-inspired rather than an exact Newton method for the full learned objective. To model image priors, we design a Global-Local Regularization Network (GLORE), which combines convolutional local feature extraction with a Long-Range Dependency Representation module based on sparse patchification and Nyström attention. This design captures anatomical details and non-local dependencies while maintaining practical complexity. Experiments on AAPM and DeepLesion under multiple sparse-view and noise settings show that CG-GLORE achieves strong quantitative performance, stable convergence, lower noise power, and improved visual fidelity compared with representative reconstruction methods.
Tran Xuan Hieu Le, Doanh C. Bui, Vu Trung Duong Le +5
Nara Institute of Science and Technology Nara, Japan · University of Information Technology Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam · Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam +2
Sparse-view computed tomography (CT) reduces radiation dose and acquisition time but remains severely ill-posed because incomplete projections poorly constrain null-space information. Existing learning-based methods often estimate this information in high-dimensional image space, conflate physical measurement errors with prediction errors, and depend on fixed discretizations. We propose SONAR, a Structure-Consistent Neural Operator for Null-Space-Aware Reconstruction. Instead of recovering the full null-space component, SONAR predicts a low-dimensional null-space-aware representation from the acquired projections as pseudo-measurements. It separates measurement and pseudo-measurement residuals, lifts them into the image domain through physics operators, and applies independent neural operators to constrain their structural effects, thereby accommodating admissible errors while suppressing unsupported structures. To support cross-discretization reconstruction, an anisotropic U-shaped neural operator models the periodic angular and nonperiodic detector dimensions using direction-dependent continuous supports, while image-domain neural operators re-discretize continuous kernels on target grids. These components form an optimization-inspired unrolled network. Experiments on simulated AAPM and clinical MARS photon-counting CT data demonstrate consistent improvements across seen and unseen view settings and unseen image resolutions. On AAPM dataset, SONAR improves PSNR by 1.87dB at 62 views and by 7.63dB under zero-shot transfer to a 512×512 grid over the strongest competing methods. SONAR also achieves the best overall performance in all clinical settings evaluated, demonstrating accurate, structurally reliable, and discretization-robust sparse-view CT reconstruction.
Song Ni, Haijun Yu, Haodong Li +4
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA 01854