Published June 2021 | Version v1
Journal article

Comparison of a semi-analytic variance reduction technique to classical Monte Carlo variance reduction techniques for high aspect ratio pencil beam collimators for emission tomography applications

  • 1. Missouri University of Science and Technology, 301 W 14th St. Rolla, MO 65409 (United States)
  • 2. Idaho National Laboratory, 1955 N. Fremont Avenue, Idaho Falls, ID 83415 (United States)

Description

A semi-analytic variance reduction technique developed for collimated gamma emission tomography problems was compared to classic Monte Carlo variance reduction techniques within the Monte Carlo N Particle Transport (MCNP) code. In the semi-analytic technique, a computationally efficient, non-analog, monodirectional source biased Monte Carlo simulation is first performed. Analytical expressions or empirical values are then used to correct for solid angle and field-of-view effects introduced by the non-analog source definition. This variance reduction technique was compared with deterministic transport sphere (DXTRAN) and geometry splitting variance reduction schemes to determine the accuracy and computational savings of each technique relative to an analog pulse height tally (F8 tally) at 1, 3, 5, and 10 mm collimator aperture radii. For radii 0.5 mm and 0.3 mm a DXTRAN sphere was used in place of an analog F8 tally, due to large particle history demands, to analyze the accuracy of the semi-analytic variance reduction technique. The computational savings and accuracy were evaluated for six to seven photopeaks depending on the method used. The monodirectional source biasing technique overestimated the count rates by approximately 9%–19% when the radius is less than 3 mm, but the technique overestimated by a factor of 2 to 7, when the radius is greater than or equal to 3 mm. The monodirectionally source biased technique offered computational saving factors on the order of 108-1013 over 1-10 mm collimator radii studied. DXTRAN and geometry splitting methods yielded higher accuracy, but computational savings range from approximately 0.13 to 2.2 and 0.07 to 2.9, respectively indicating marginal improvement at best.

Availability note (English)

Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2021.165236

Additional details

Identifiers

DOI
10.1016/j.nima.2021.165236;
PII
S0168900221002205;

Publishing Information

Journal Title
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research. Section A, Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment
Journal Volume
1001
Journal Page Range
vp.
ISSN
0168-9002
CODEN
NIMAER

Optional Information

Copyright
Copyright (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.