Electrical impedance tomography using level set representation and total variational regularization

By Eric T. Chung, Tony F. Chan, Xuecheng Tai. 2005

265 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Geophysics, Mathematical Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a8651867d9f05ede690adb2ae0e477674a05eea1

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Electrical and Electronic Engineering

In Geophysics

In Mathematical Physics

Citations in the corpus

An analysis of electrical impedance tomography with applications to Tikhonov regularization (2012, methodology): “In [33], a level set approach was developed for estimating the interface, and in [13], it was used for total variation (TV ) regularized L2 data fitting to reconstruct a piecewise constant conductivity.”
Bayesian inversion for facies detection: An extensible level set framework (2009, methodology): “…(i.e., 2 facies) parameter fields when applied to such problems as electromagnetic tomography [Dorn et al., 2000], electrical resistance tomography [Chan and Tai, 2003; Chung et al., 2005], inverse scattering problems [Litman et al., 1998], and aquifer characterization [Lu and Robinson, 2006].”
Detection of material interfaces using a regularized level set method in piezoelectric structures (2016, background): “[3], total variation norm of r , the material ratio is taken as the regularization, R(r) = ∫ |∇r |d .”
A piecewise constant level set method for elliptic inverse problems (2007, methodology): “In [12], the level set method has been applied to electrical impedance tomography problem.”
A reconstruction algorithm for electrical impedance tomography based on sparsity regularization (2012, background): “In [10] and [11], the Mumford-Shah functional and total variation regularization, which are suitable for reconstructing piecewise constant conductivity coefficients, were studied.”
Distributed shape derivative via averaged adjoint method and applications (2015, methodology): “Also, the reconstructed shapes are not the same although the complexity of the unknown shapes is comparable since we also consider two and three inclusions as in [11, 22].”