Discrete Tomography based on DC Programming

and DCA
LE THI Hoai An NGUYEN Trong Phuc PHAM Dinh Tao
Laboratory of Theoretical Ecole Supérieure LMI, INSA de Rouen,
and Applied Computer Science des Communications 76801 Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, France
Paul Verlaine - Metz University, et Transports, Email: pham@insa-rouen.fr
Ile du Saulcy, 57045, Metz, France. Hanoi, Vietnam
Email: lethi@univ-metz.fr Email: phucsenh@gmail.com

Abstract—In this article, we present a new continuous ap-

proach based on DC (Difference of Convex functions) program-
ming and DC algorithms (DCA) to the Discrete Tomography.
We are concerned with the reconstruction of binary images from
their projections in a smaller number of directions. We treat this
problem as DC programs. DC programming and DCA, becoming
now classic, have been introduced by PHAM DINH T. in 1985
and extensively developed by LE THI H. A. and PHAM DINH
T. since 1994. The DCA has been successfully applied to a lot of
various large- scale differentiable or nondifferentiable nonconvex
programs for which it has provided quite often global solutions
(see [1], [2] and references therein). Preliminary numrical exper-
iments show the efficiency of the proposed algorithms.
Keywords: X-ray tomography, Image reconstruction, Optimiza-
tion methods, Binary Quadratic programming, Mixed zero-
one linear programming, DC (Difference of Convex functions)
programming, DCA
I. I NTRODUCTION
Tomography concerns recovering images from a number
of projections. The Discrete Tomography is a relatively new
research direction. This is concerned with the reconstruction
of binary image from their discretely sampled projections in a
smaller number of directions. The name Discrete Tomography
(DT) is due to Larry Shepp, organizer of the first meeting
devoted to the topic in 1994. Many problems of DT have been
introduced as combinatorial problems around 1960. Today,
DT has many applications in many fields such as medical
imaging, data security, game theory, material sciences and
image compression as well ( [3]).
The aim of DT is to reconstruct certain discrete density
functions from their discrete X-rays in certain directions. The
original reconstruction problem of DT is represented by a sys-
tem of linear equations. However, the system of linear equation
is very underdetermined and leads in general to a large number
of solutions. There are two strategies which can be used to
reduce the ambiguity and retrieve some informations:
i) The first strategy is based on increasing the number of
directions. Unfortunately, in this case, the problem of
reconstruction becomes insurmountable when the number
of directions is higher than two. Moreover, if this number
is equal to or higher than three, the problem is NP-hard(
[4]).
Fig. 1. Multi-solutions with the same orthogonal projections.
ii) The second strategy is based on the addition of the
geometrical properties which can be known a priori, for
example the distribution, the convexity, the connexity
or the periodicity... These informations allow algorithms
of recontruction to remove the incorrect approximate
solutions ( [4]).
In this article, we use both strategies i) and ii). By adding
the standard smoothness prior enforcing spatial coherency, we
consider two formulations of this problem:
• The first formulation corresponds to a binary convex
quadratic programming problem. Using a new result
related to the exact penalty in D.C programming ( [5])
we reformulate the problem in the form of a polyhedral
DC program and thus apply DCA.
• The second formulation is based on the 0 − 1 linear
programming problem formulated P. Gritzmann ( [6]).
Thank to the exact penalty, we obtain an equivalent
polyhedral DC program and then apply DCA for the
resulting problem.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The
problem of reconstruction of binary images and its mathe-
matical formulations are presented in Section 2. Section 3
is devoted to the description of DC programming and DCA
for solving the DT problem via the two optimization models
formulated in the previous section. The computational results
are reported in section 4.
 II. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND ITS MATHEMATICAL
FORMULATIONS
The reconstruction of binary images is equivalent to the
reconstruction of a binary matrix if we consider a pixel of
image as an element of the matrix. Figure 2 illustrates a
binary image and the equivalent binary matrix. Therefore, the

Fig. 3. The pixel and its 4 nearest neighbors.

where e is the vector of one. This is a binary quadratic

programming problem.
Fig. 2. The binary image and the equivalent binary matrix.
B. The second model
reconstruction of binary image problem is represented by a By using the auxiliary variables {zi,j }, where zi,j = (xi −
system of linear equations P x = b where x ∈ {0, 1}N , P is xj )2 , we can express (IQP) as a zero-one linear programming
a M × N -matrix and b is a vector in RM . If we consider a problem:
binary image of the size n1 × n2, then M = n1 + n2 and 
 P
N P
N = n1 × n2 . This problem is equivalent to the next convex 
min −he, xi + α zi,j


quadratic programming with binary variables: 
 i=1 j∈Vi


 s.t. Px ≤ b
0 = min kP x − bk2 s.t x ∈ {0, 1}N , (1) (MIP)

 zi,j ≥ xi − xj ∀i = 1, ..., N j ∈ Vi
or the following 0 − 1 linear programming: 


 zi,j ≥ xj − xi ∀i = 1, ..., N j ∈ Vi
 

min −he, xi s.t P x = b, x ∈ {0, 1}N , (2) 

x ∈ {0, 1}N .
P. Gritzmann et al. [6] have proposed two 0 − 1 linear (6)
programming problems BIF (Best Inner the FIT) and BOF Clearly that the difficulty arises when the number of binary
(Best Outer the FIT) that approximate the problem (1): variables increases.
 We develop DCA for both models by reformulating them
BIF min −he, xi s.t. P x ≤ b x ∈ {0, 1}N , (3) in the form of continuous minimization progroblems via exact
 penalty techniques. There are several versions of DCA for
BOF max he, xi s.t. P x ≥ b x ∈ {0, 1}N . (4)
linear/quadratic programs with binary variables by choosing
The authors developed some simple algorithms to solve different penalty functions and/or changing DC decomposi-
these problems. tions. In the next section, we describe two DCA schemes
In this paper, aiming to remove the incorrect approximate corresponding to two suitable DC decompositions.
solutions we addPthe standard smoothness prior enforcing
spatial coherency (i,j)(xi −xj )2 in the objective function of III. DC PROGRAMMING AND DCA
the problem (2). Here the sum runs over all 4 nearest neighbors DC Programming and DCA constitute the backbone of
of the pixel. In fact, this relation is one of the important smooth/nonsmooth nonconvex programming and global opti-
characteristics of an image because the nearest neighbors often mization. They address the problem of minimizing a function
have the similar values, and the probability where they belong f which is difference of convex functions on the whole space
to the same partition is very high. Figure 3 shows the pixel IRp or on a convex set C ⊂ IRp . Generally speaking, a DC
and its 4 nearest neighbors if we consider only orthogonal program takes the form
projections.
α = inf{f(x) := g(x) − h(x) : x ∈ IRp } (Pdc ) (7)
A. The first model
The first mathematical model is based on (3). By adding where g, h are lower semicontinuous proper convex functions
the standard smoothness prior enforcing spatial coherency, we on IRp . Such a function f is called DC function, and g − h,
consider the problem follow: DC decomposition of f while g and h are DC components of
 f. The convex constraint x ∈ C can be incorporated in the
 P
N P
objective function of (Pdc ) by using the indicator function on

 min −he, xi + α (xi − xj )2
 i=1 j∈Vi C denoted χC which is defined by χC (x) = 0 if x ∈ C, +∞
(IQP) (5) otherwise. Let

 s.t. Px ≤ b


x ∈ {0, 1}N , g∗ (y) := sup{hx, yi − g(x) : x ∈ IRp }
Algorithm 1 DCA Scheme A. DCA for solving problem (IQP)
Input:
0 p Let us consider the problem (IQP) in the following simpli-
• Let x ∈ IR be a best guest, 0 ← k.
fied form
Repeat: 
k k
• Calculate y ∈ ∂h(x ). 
 min −he, xi + α2 hx, Qxi

• Calculate
xk+1 ∈ arg min (GIQP) s.t. Px ≤ b (10)


n o 
x ∈ {0, 1}N ,
g(x) − h(xk ) − hx − xk , yk i s.t.x ∈ IRp . (Pk )
where
k + 1 ← k.
• N X
X 1
Until {convergence of xk }. (xi − xj )2 = hx, Qxi
2
i=1 j∈Vi

with Q being a positive semi definite N × N matrix .

be the conjugate function of g where h.i denotes a scalar prod- Let p be the penalty function defined by
uct. Then, the following program is called the dual program
of (Pdc ): X
N
p(x) = min(xi, 1 − xi ).
∗ ∗ p i=1
αD = inf{h (y) − g (y) : y ∈ IR }. (Ddc ) (8)
Let D1 and K1 and be the sets defined by
One can prove that α = αD , and there is the perfect symmetry
between primal and dual DC programs: the dual to (Ddc ) is D1 := {x ∈Rn : P x ≤ b}, K1 := {x ∈ D1 : x ∈ [0, 1]N }.
exactly (Pdc ).
For a convex function θ, the subdifferential of θ at x0 ∈ dom Clearly that the function p is concave and finite on K1, and
θ := {x0 ∈ IRp : θ(x0 ) < +∞}, denoted ∂θ(x0 ), is defined p(x) ≥ 0 for all x ∈ K1. Moreover
by
{x ∈ D1 , x ∈ {0, 1}N } = {x ∈ K1 , p(x) ≤ 0}.
n p
∂θ(x0 ) := {y ∈ IR : θ(x) ≥ θ(x0 ) + hx − x0 , yi, ∀x ∈ IR }. Thank to the exact penalty in DC programming ( [8]), we
(9) reformulate the problem (GIQP) as the following polyhedral
The subdifferential ∂θ(x0 ) generalizes the derivative in the DC program, for a sufficiently large positive number t (t ≥ t0)
sense that θ is differentiable at x0 if and only if ∂θ(x0 ) 
min −he, xi + α hx, Qxi + t P min(x , 1 − x )
N
≡ {θ0 (x0)}.
2 i i
i=1 (11)

The idea of DCA is quite simple: each iteration of DCA s.t. x ∈ K1.
approximates the concave part −h by one of its affinne
The problem (11) is a DC program with the following natural
majorization defined by yk ∈ ∂h(xk ) and minimizes the
DC decomposition
resulting convex function (i.e., computing xk+1 ∈ ∂g∗ (yk )).
α
g(x) = hx, Qxi − he, xi, (12)
Convergence properties of DCA and its theoretical basis can 2
be found in [1, 2, 7]. It is important to mention that N
X
•
k
DCA is a descent method (the sequences {g(x )−h(x )} k h(x) = −t min(xi , 1 − xi). (13)
i=1
and {h∗(yk ) − g∗ (yk )} are decreasing) without line-
search; According to the description of DCA in [2], solving the
• If the optimal value α of problem (Pdc ) is finite and problem (11) by DCA consists of the determination of two
the infinite sequences {xk } and {yk } are bounded then sequences xk and yk such that
every limit point x∗ (resp. ye) of the sequence {xk } (resp.
yk ∈ ∂h(xk ) and xk+1 ∈ ∂g∗ (yk ).
{yk }) is a critical point of g − h (resp. h∗ − g∗ ), i.e.
∂h(x∗ ) ∩ ∂g(x∗ ) 6= ∅ (resp. ∂h∗ (y∗ ) ∩ ∂g∗ (y∗ ) 6= ∅). The function h is subdifferentiable and a subgradient at x
• DCA has a linear convergence for general DC programs. can be chosen in the following way:
• DCA has a finite convergence for polyhedral DC pro- (
grams. −t xi ≤ 0.5
y = (yi ) ∈ ∂h(x) ⇐ yi = (14)
It is interesting to note that ( [1, 2, 7]) DCA works with t otherwise.
the convex DC components g and h but not the DC function
f itself. Moreover, a DC function f has infinitely many DC xk+1 ∈ ∂g∗ (yk ) is a solution of the convex quadratic
decompositions which have crucial impacts on the qualities program:
nα o
(speed of convergence, robustness, efficiency, globality of
min hx, Qxi − h(e + yk ), xi : x ∈ K1 . (15)
computed solutions,...) of DCA. 2
Algorithm 2 Algorithm DCA-1 Algorithm 3 Algorithm DCA-2
Input: Input:
0 N 0 0 N M
• Let x ∈ R and k = 0. • Let (x , z ) ∈ R × R and k = 0.
• Let α and t be positive numbers and 1 and 2 be sufficiently • Let α be a positive number and let 1 and 2 be sufficiently
small positive numbers. small positive numbers.
Repeat: Repeat:
k k k k k k
• Compute y ∈ ∂h(x ) via (14). • Compute (u , v ) ∈ ∂h(x , y ) via (19).
k+1
• Compute x ∈ ∂g∗ (yk ) is a solution of the quadratic • Compute (x
k+1
, z k+1 ) ∈ ∂g∗ (uk , vk ) is a solution of the
convex programming (15). linear programming (20).
• k + 1 ← k. • k + 1 ← k.
Until Until
k+1 k+1
k+1 (x ,z ) − (xk , z k ) ≤ 1 or
x − xk ≤ 1 or f (xk+1 ) − f (xk ) ≤ 2 .

k+1
f (x , z k+1 ) − f (xk , z k ) ≤ 2 .

Reconstruction a binary image: Let x∗ be the solution

computed by DCA. To reconstruct a binary image, we round
the varibles x∗i who are not integer. More precisely, we set Denote by χK2 the indicator function on K2 , χK2 (x, z) = 0
x∗i = 1 if x∗i ≥ 0.5 and x∗i = 0 otherwise. if (x, z) ∈ K2 , +∞ otherwise. Let g and h be the functions
The convergence of the algorithm DCA-1 is based on the defined by
convergence theorem of polyhedral DC programs ( [1, 2, 7]). g(x, z) = χK2 (x, z),
B. DCA for solving problem (MIP)
In this section, we will formulate (MIP) in a form of a X
N X X
N
h(x, z) = he, xi − α zi,j − t min(xi , 1 − xi).
(continuous) concave minimization problem.
i=1 j∈Vi i=1
Let us consider the penalty function p defined by
N
X Hence g and h are convex functions, and so problem (17)
p(x, z) = θ(x) = min(xi , 1 − xi ). is a DC program in the form
i=1

Let min{g(x, z) − h(x, z) : (x, z) ∈ RN × RM }. (18)

D2 := {(x, z) : P x ≤ b, zi,j ≥ xi − xj , zi,j ≥ xj − xi},
Solving the problem (17) by DCA consists of the determi-
and K2 := {(x, z) ∈ D2 : x ∈ [0, 1]N }. Like above, the nation of two sequences (uk , vk ) and (xk , z k ) such that
function p is finite, concave on K2, and p(x, z) ≥ 0 for all
(x, z) ∈ K2 . Moreover (uk , vk ) ∈ ∂h (xk , z k ) and
{(x, z) ∈ D2 , x ∈ {0, 1}N } = {(x, z) ∈ K2, p(x, z) ≤ 0}.
(xk+1, z k+1) ∈ ∂g∗ (uk , vk ).
Consequently, (MIP) can be rewritten as

min −he, xi + α P P z
 N
The function h is subdifferentiable and a subgradient at the
i,j
i=1 j∈Vi (16) point (x, z) is computed in the following way:

s.t. (x, z) ∈ D2 , p(x, z) ≤ 0.
(u, v) ∈ ∂h(x, z)
Thank to exact penalty result in [8], (MIP) is equivalent to
the following concave minimization problem, for a sufficiently  (
large positive number t (t ≥ t0 ) u = (u ) ← u = 1 − t
 xi ≤ 0.5
 i i i
(19)
1+t otherwise,
min −he, xi + α P P z + t P min(x , 1 − x )
 N N


i,j i i v = −αe.
i=1 j∈Vi i=1

s.t. (x, z) ∈ K2.
(17) (xk+1 , z k+1) ∈ ∂g∗ (uk , vk ) is a solution of the next linear
We now prove that (17) is a DC program and then present program:
the DCA applied to the resulting DC program. 
Let min −h(uk , vk ), (x, z) : (x, z) ∈ K2 . (20)
X
N X X
N
f(x, z) = −he, xi + α zi,j + t min(xi , 1 − xi ). The convergence of DCA-2 is based on the convergence
i=1 j∈Vi i=1 property of polyhedral DC programs (see [1]).
 IV. I MPLEMENTATIONS AND R ESULTS
The algorithm was implemented in C with double precision,
and run on a Dell computer 1GHz with 512Mb RAM. To
solve linear programs and/or quadratic convex programs, we
used the software CPLEX version 9.1. In order to evaluate
the performance of the proposed algorithms, we use the
images with special characteristics. The first image is elliptic
and rectangular and the second is elliptic. The parameter
of penalization α of the relation between the pixel and its
neighbors was selected in interval [0.1, 0.5].

Our experiment is composed of two parts. In the first

experiment we are interest in the effect of the parameters α Fig. 4. Results of DCA algorithms with selected parameters
and t in DCA, and the efficiency of DCA compared to the
classical BIF algorithm in both cases, with or without the
standard smoothness prior enforcing spatial coherency. The
results are presented in Figure 4. Here we consider the first
image with size 128 × 128.

In the second experiment we compare the performance of

DCA with two different choices of the initial point: the first
choice is a random initial point, and the second choice is the
best point among the certain random points. Figure 5 shows
the results of algorithm DCA-1 for the two images with these
choices of initial points in case of α = 0.5, t = 0.25.

Finally, the performance of the DCA (the CPU time in

seconds and the number of iterations) with the three sizes of Fig. 5. Algorithm DCA-1 with different choices of initial point
the first image is summarized in Table I and Table II.
Size 64 × 64 128 × 128 256 × 256
Comments on the numerical results: from the computa- N◦ Iter Time N◦ Iter Time N◦ Iter Time
tionnal results, we observe that DCA-1 9 46.08 8 425.38 8 3896.47
DCA-2 11 85.75 12 249.01 11 4587.38
◦ The DCA algorithms give image with higher quality
compared to that obtained by applying algorithm BIF TABLE II
in both cases, with or without the standard smoothness T HE CPU ( IN SECONDS ) AND THE NUMBER OF ITERATIONS OF DCA
prior enforcing spatial coherency.
◦ The DCA algorithms depend on the penalty parameters.
DCA can provides a very good result with a good
choice of these parameters. For example, on Figure 4, the inf hte form of DC programs and proposed two DCA schemes
reconstructed image is identical to original with t = 0.25 for solving them. The results show that the reconstructed
and α = 0.125. images given by DCA are quite similar to the original images.
◦ The sequence of images obtained by applying the al- They suggest that this apporach is interesting for reconstruct-
gorithm DCA presented on Figure 5 shows that with a ing binary images.
suitable initial point DCA gives a good result.
R EFERENCES
Time(s) [1] H. A. Le Thi and T. Pham Dinh, “A continuous approach for globally
Size 64 × 64 128 × 128 256 × 256 solving linearly constrained quadratic zero - one programming problems,”
DCA-1 5.12 43.72 404.14 Optimization, vol. 50, pp. 93–120, 2001.
DCA-2 7.38 23.37 456.37 [2] T. Pham Dinh and H. A. Le Thi, “Convex analysis approach to dc
programming: Theory, algorithms and applications,” Acta Mathematica
TABLE I Vietnamica, vol. 22-1, pp. 289–355, 1997.
T HE AVERAGE TIME OF EACH ITERATION OF DCA [3] G. Herman and A. Kuba, Discrete Tomography: Foundations, Algorithms
and Applications, Birkhauser boston edition, 1999.
[4] R.J Gardner, P. de Gritzmann, and D. Prangenberg, “On the computational
Conclusion In this paper, we considered two combinatorial complexity of reconstructing lattice sets from their x-rays,” Discrete
Mathematics, vol. 202, pp. 45–71, 1999.
optimization models for reconstruction of binary images. Us- [5] H. A. Le Thi, T. Pham Dinh, and H. Van Ngai, “Exact penalty techniques
ing an exact penalty technique we reformulated the problems in dc programming,” Research Report - INSA, 2004.
[6] P. Gritzmann, S. de Vries, and M. Wiegelmann, “Approximating binary
images from discrete x-rays,” SIAM J. Optimization, vol. 11-2, pp. 522–
546, 2000.
[7] T. Pham Dinh and H. A. Le Thi, “Dc optimization algorithms for solving
the trust region subproblem,” SIAM Journal of Optimization, vol. 8-2, pp.
476–505, 1998.
[8] H. A. Le Thi, T. Pham Dinh, and M. Le Dung, “Exact penalty in dc.
programming,” Vietnam Journal of Mathematics , vol. 27-2, pp. 169–178,
1999.