4.7 Review

On the use of deep learning for computational imaging

期刊

OPTICA
卷 6, 期 8, 页码 921-943

出版社

Optica Publishing Group
DOI: 10.1364/OPTICA.6.000921

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) [FA8650-17-C-9113]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) [QYZDB-SSW-JSC002]
  3. Chinesisch-Deutsche Zentrum fur Wissenschaftsforderung (CDZ) [GZ1931]
  4. National Research Foundation Singapore (NRF) (SMART Centre)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since their inception in the 1930-1960s, the research disciplines of computational imaging and machine learning have followed parallel tracks and, during the last two decades, experienced explosive growth drawing on similar progress in mathematical optimization and computing hardware. While these developments have always been to the benefit of image interpretation and machine vision, only recently has it become evident that machine learning architectures, and deep neural networks in particular, can be effective for computational image formation, aside from interpretation. The deep learning approach has proven to be especially attractive when the measurement is noisy and the measurement operator ill posed or uncertain. Examples reviewed here are: super-resolution; lensless retrieval of phase and complex amplitude from intensity; photon-limited scenes, including ghost imaging; and imaging through scatter. In this paper, we cast these works in a common framework. We relate the deep-learning-inspired solutions to the original computational imaging formulation and use the relationship to derive design insights, principles, and caveats of more general applicability. We also explore how the machine learning process is aided by the physics of imaging when ill posedness and uncertainties become particularly severe. It is hoped that the present unifying exposition will stimulate further progress in this promising field of research. (C) 2019 Optical Society of America under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据