Empirical concentration bounds for compressive holographic bubble imaging based on a Mie scattering model

Abstract

We use compressive in-line holography to image air bubbles in water and investigate the effect of bubble concentration on reconstruction performance by simulation. Our forward model treats bubbles as finite spheres and uses Mie scattering to compute the scattered field in a physically rigorous manner. Although no simple analytical bounds on maximum concentration can be derived within the classical compressed sensing framework due to the complexity of the forward model, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves in our simulation provide an empirical concentration bound for accurate bubble detection by compressive holography at different noise levels, resulting in a maximum tolerable concentration much higher than the traditional back-propagation method.

SEAGLE: Sparsity-Driven Image Reconstruction Under Multiple Scattering

“…The vast majority of current imaging systems-such as optical projection tomography (OPT), diffraction tomography, optical coherence tomography (OCT), digital holography, and subsurface radar-still rely on the linearization of object-wave interaction [8][9][10][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. However, early work in microwave imaging have shown the promise of accounting for the nonlinear nature of scattering [32][33][34][35].…”

Characterization Method for Particle Extraction From Raw-Reconstructed Images Using U-Net

“…However, the PSF must be based on the known diffraction formula or obtained through a hologram of a point-like object in the experiment. The compressive holography method [21][22][23] is an effective reconstruction method to eliminate noise because of the sparsity of the signal, but it is time-consuming and requires complicated fine-tuning parameters to obtain optimal results.…”

Accelerated Image Reconstruction for Nonlinear Diffractive Imaging

“…where step (a) follows by (15) and the triangle inequality, step (b) follows by the well-known property that the proximal operators for convex functions are Lipschitz-1, and step (c) follows by the triangle inequality and the result that ∇D is Lipschitz-L as we established in Proposition 2. Taking the limit as k → ∞, we have lim k→∞ G γ (f k ) − G γ (s k ) = 0, hence, lim k→∞ G γ (f k ) = lim k→∞ G γ (s k ) = 0.…”