Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper enhances sparse-view CT reconstruction by introducing a calibrated uncertainty measure for radiative Gaussian splatting, addressing the lack of trustworthiness in existing point estimate outputs. By leveraging the linear properties of transmissive X-ray imaging, the authors develop a variational density posterior that allows for closed-form predictive variance calculations in both volume and projection spaces. Their systematic calibration study reveals that the proposed method significantly outperforms existing techniques in ranking reconstruction error across multiple view budgets, demonstrating the importance of calibrated uncertainty in improving CT imaging accuracy.
Calibrated uncertainty in Gaussian splatting CT can dramatically improve reconstruction accuracy, outperforming existing methods in ranking true error across diverse view scenarios.
Radiative Gaussian splatting has made sparse-view CT reconstruction fast, but existing methods output point estimates with no notion of where the reconstruction can be trusted. We exploit a property of transmissive X-ray imaging that RGB splatting cannot claim -- projection and voxelization are strictly linear in the per-Gaussian densities -- to equip radiative Gaussians with a variational density posterior whose predictive variance propagates in closed form, exactly, in a single forward pass, in both volume space ($\sigma^2(x)=\sum_i g_i(x)^2 s_i^2$) and projection space ($\mathrm{Var}[I_p]=\sum_i w_{i,p}^2 s_i^2$). We present the first systematic calibration study for Gaussian-splatting CT (Spearman / AUSE / ECE with temperature scaling), showing that the resulting per-voxel uncertainty ranks true reconstruction error on 14 of 15 scenes of the official benchmark across three view budgets -- 9 of 15 additionally meeting our magnitude-calibration target after a single temperature -- while the perturbation-ensemble heuristic of concurrent work, transplanted to voxel space under the same protocol on our development scenes, does not (rank correlation as low as $-0.08$). We then dissect why uncalibrated acquisition scores can nevertheless select acceptable views, identifying three regimes -- flat (isotropic, balanced), pathological (degenerate coverage), and anisotropic -- and showing, in controlled single-scene testbeds, that principled uncertainty earns a measurable premium only in the last, motivating a coverage-gated, maturity-scheduled acquisition policy; the same calibrated posterior further points toward a dose-adaptive stopping rule, whose experimental validation we leave to future work.
