Researcher profile

Andrew J. Sederman

Andrew J. Sederman contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

Sub-sampling of NMR Correlation and Exchange Experiments

Sub-sampling is applied to simulated $T_1$-$D$ NMR signals and its influence on inversion performance is evaluated. For this different levels of sub-sampling were employed ranging from the fully sampled signal down to only less than two percent of the original data points. This was combined with multiple sample schemes including fully random sampling, truncation and a combination of both. To compare the performance of different inversion algorithms, the so-generated sub-sampled signals were inverted using Tikhonov regularization, modified total generalized variation (MTGV) regularization, deep learning and a combination of deep learning and Tikhonov regularization. Further, the influence of the chosen cost function on the relative inversion performance was investigated. Overall, it could be shown that for a vast majority of instances, deep learning clearly outperforms regularization based inversion methods, if the signal is fully or close to fully sampled. However, in the case of significantly sub-sampled signals regularization yields better inversion performance than its deep learning counterpart with MTGV clearly prevailing over Tikhonov. Additionally, fully random sampling could be identified as the best overall sampling scheme independent of the inversion method. Finally, it could also be shown that the choice of cost function does vastly influence the relative rankings of the tested inversion algorithms highlighting the importance of choosing the cost function accordingly to experimental intentions.

preprint2022arXiv

Joint reconstruction and segmentation of noisy velocity images as an inverse Navier-Stokes problem

We formulate and solve a generalized inverse Navier-Stokes problem for the joint velocity field reconstruction and boundary segmentation of noisy flow velocity images. To regularize the problem we use a Bayesian framework with Gaussian random fields. This allows us to estimate the uncertainties of the unknowns by approximating their posterior covariance with a quasi-Newton method. We first test the method for synthetic noisy images of 2D flows and observe that the method successfully reconstructs and segments the noisy synthetic images with a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 3. Then we conduct a magnetic resonance velocimetry (MRV) experiment to acquire images of an axisymmetric flow for low ($\simeq 6$) and high ($>30$) SNRs. We show that the method is capable of reconstructing and segmenting the low SNR images, producing noiseless velocity fields and a smooth segmentation, with negligible errors compared with the high SNR images. This amounts to a reduction of the total scanning time by a factor of 27. At the same time, the method provides additional knowledge about the physics of the flow (e.g. pressure), and addresses the shortcomings of MRV (low spatial resolution and partial volume effects) that otherwise hinder the accurate estimation of wall shear stresses. Although the implementation of the method is restricted to 2D steady planar and axisymmetric flows, the formulation applies immediately to 3D steady flows and naturally extends to 3D periodic and unsteady flows.