[oneMKL samples][computed tomography] Revisions, refactoring and addition of a functional verification

[raphael-egan]

Description

This PR revises the "computed tomography" oneAPI sample.

The sample itself was revised so that the application creates reconstructed signal/image samples that are real (no longer complex) and so that those generated real values are directly comparable to the input image's (gray-scale-converted) values themselves. These changes are motivated by the desire to introduce a legitimate functional validation step (introduced herein as well), but that need triggered more thorough revision(s) of the sample's source code.

Extensive explanatory comments were added to the source code, explaining the mathematical nature of the operations at play and/or the technical details related to the suggested implementation.

Type of change

• Implement fixes for ONSAM Jiras

How Has This Been Tested?

This was extensively tested on a PVC GPU (512 EUs) and a SPR CPU using a machine operating Ubuntu 22.04. The default input file as well as others (not added to this PR) were considered along with an extensive range of input parameters. Due to the nature of the operations at play, one simply cannot guarantee that the mean global error will be below the arbitrarily-chosen threshold for any input file and any choice of (supported) input parameters. However,

• the default operations were verified to pass the added tests by a large margin;
• the application was augmented with explanatory messages advising how to tweak input parameter(s) to improve accuracy of the results, if found inaccurate for other input file and/or input parameters.

The updated sample's default behavior was also successfully tested on a BMG GPU machine operating Windows 11.

Regarding instructions to test or to run the sample with different inputs, please refer to the application's "Usage" information (printed in case of invalid usage).

[lhuot]

@hparks-intel @dbollapr @intelok @nshamszadeh please review this PR

[hparks-intel]

Thank you for cleaning this up! It looks great. I'm just nitpicking a few things.

[hparks-intel]

Thanks for the updates. I don't think it's important to do anything different with the remaining comment about in_pix_len.

[raphael-egan]

@andreyfe1, this is ready for you to review.

[jimmytwei]

@andreyfe1 Merge PR?

[andreyfe1]

@jimmytwei, let's wait for 1 more day if there is any late feedback

[jimmytwei]

@andreyfe1 @raphael-egan Please let me know when I can merge this and if it should go into the 2025.1 release. If we can do this asap, that'll be great...

[andreyfe1]

@jimmytwei, the PR is ready to merge

[jimmytwei]

@raphael-egan @andreyfe1 Merged. Can you also submit the PR to the main branch? I already merged all of the other PRs for the 2025.1 release and if you want your changes to be in the release, you need to submit another PR to main.

[raphael-egan]

@raphael-egan @andreyfe1 Merged. Can you also submit the PR to the main branch? I already merged all of the other PRs for the 2025.1 release and if you want your changes to be in the release, you need to submit another PR to main.

See PR#2639.