Hybrid projection–reflection method for phase retrieval
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phase-retrieval problem, fundamental in applied physics and engineering, addresses the question of how to determine the phase of a complex-valued function from modulus data and additional a priori information. Recently we identified two important methods for phase retrieval, namely, Fienup's basic input-output and hybrid input-output (HIO) algorithms, with classical convex projection methods and suggested that further connections between convex optimization and phase retrieval should be explored. Following up on this work, we introduce a new projection-based method, termed the hybrid projection-reflection (HPR) algorithm, for solving phase-retrieval problems featuring nonnegativity constraints in the object domain. Motivated by properties of the HPR algorithm for convex constraints, we recommend an error measure studied by Fienup more than 20 years ago. This error measure, which has received little attention in the literature, lends itself to an easily implementable stopping criterion. In numerical experiments we found the HPR algorithm to be a competitive alternative to the HIO algorithm and the stopping criterion to be reliable and robust.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it