2014
DOI: 10.1364/josaa.31.001348
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Applications of algorithmic differentiation to phase retrieval algorithms

Abstract: In this paper, we generalize the techniques of reverse-mode algorithmic differentiation to include elementary operations on multidimensional arrays of complex numbers. We explore the application of the algorithmic differentiation to phase retrieval error metrics and show that reverse-mode algorithmic differentiation provides a framework for straightforward calculation of gradients of complicated error metrics without resorting to finite differences or laborious symbolic differentiation.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
66
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 107 publications
(66 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
66
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Alternatively, we can also frame phase retrieval as a nonlinear minimization problem, where we minimize an error metric using a gradient-based approach. The gradient-based approach is flexible and can include in the forward model a large variety of the physical phenomena related to the probing light (such as partial coherence [17], source fluctuations [18], and errors in positions [19,20]), or the detection process (such as the measurement noise [21,22] and the finite size of the pixel [23]). As such, this method has been the focus of much recent literature, leading to the development of steepest descent methods [16,24,25], conjugate gradient methods [4,16,26], Gauss-Newton methods [27], and quasi-Newton methods [28].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Alternatively, we can also frame phase retrieval as a nonlinear minimization problem, where we minimize an error metric using a gradient-based approach. The gradient-based approach is flexible and can include in the forward model a large variety of the physical phenomena related to the probing light (such as partial coherence [17], source fluctuations [18], and errors in positions [19,20]), or the detection process (such as the measurement noise [21,22] and the finite size of the pixel [23]). As such, this method has been the focus of much recent literature, leading to the development of steepest descent methods [16,24,25], conjugate gradient methods [4,16,26], Gauss-Newton methods [27], and quasi-Newton methods [28].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The pupil electric field, though, cannot be directly measured. It is typically reconstructed from multiple focused and defocused images using phase retrieval algorithms [21][22][23][24] . However, all the phase retrieval algorithms assume a certain light propagation model, so they do not have the ability to diagnose any errors from an incorrect optical layout prescription.…”
Section: Model Calibrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By breaking up the gradient computation into small pieces, it becomes much less daunting to compute analytic gradients for complicated forward models. The idea of algorithmic differentiation has recently been made more accessible for image reconstruction and phase retrieval by Jurling and Fienup [25]. We have followed their formulation of algorithmic differentiation in order to compute the required gradients.…”
Section: Nonlinear Optimizationmentioning
confidence: 99%