Phase retrieval, error reduction algorithm, and Fienup variants: a view from convex optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phase retrieval problem is of paramount importance in various areas of applied physics and engineering. The state of the art for solving this problem in two dimensions relies heavily on the pioneering work of Gerchberg, Saxton, and Fienup. Despite the widespread use of the algorithms proposed by these three researchers, current mathematical theory cannot explain their remarkable success. Nevertheless, great insight can be gained into the behavior, the shortcomings, and the performance of these algorithms from their possible counterparts in convex optimization theory. An important step in this direction was made two decades ago when the error reduction algorithm was identified as a nonconvex alternating projection algorithm. Our purpose is to formulate the phase retrieval problem with mathematical care and to establish new connections between well-established numerical phase retrieval schemes and classical convex optimization methods. Specifically, it is shown that Fienup's basic input-output algorithm corresponds to Dykstra's algorithm and that Fienup's hybrid input-output algorithm can be viewed as an instance of the Douglas-Rachford algorithm. We provide a theoretical framework to better understand and, potentially, to improve existing phase recovery algorithms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".