Abstract
We have compared the performance of two different penalty choices for a penalized-likelihood sinogram-restoration strategy we have been developing. One is a quadratic penalty we have employed previously and the other is a new median-based penalty. We compared the approaches to a noniterative adaptive filter that loosely but not explicitly models data statistics. We found that the two approaches produced similar resolution-variance tradeoffs to each other and that they outperformed the adaptive filter in the low-dose regime, which suggests that the particular choice of penalty in our approach may be less important than the fact that we are explicitly modeling data statistics at all. Since the quadratic penalty allows for derivation of an algorithm that is guaranteed to monotonically increase the penalized-likelihood objective function, we find it to be preferable to the median-based penalty.