4.7 Article

Reconstructing Dispersive Scatterers With Minimal Frequency Data

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/LGRS.2020.2968256

关键词

Dispersion; Image reconstruction; Permittivity; Scattering; Frequency-domain analysis; Mathematical model; Imaging; Deep learning; dispersion; inverse scattering

资金

  1. Microwave Inverse Scattering for Breast Cancer Detection through the Science and Engineering Research Board, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India [ECR/2018/001953]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study focuses on reconstructing the permittivity of dispersive scatterers from scattered electromagnetic field measurements. An inversion technique based on a Debye medium model is proposed to achieve reconstructions with fewer frequencies, compared to a recently developed deep learning based method. Results show that properly trained neural networks can make single frequency reconstructions competitive with multifrequency techniques.
Reconstructing the permittivity of dispersive scatterers from the measurements of scattered electromagnetic fields is a challenging problem due to the nonlinearity of the associated optimization problem. Traditionally, this has been addressed by collecting scattered field data at multiple frequencies and using lower frequency reconstructions as a priori information for higher frequency reconstructions. By modeling the object dispersion as a Debye medium, we propose an inversion technique that recovers the object permittivity with a minimum number of frequencies. We compare the performance of this method with our recently developed deep learning based technique (Sanghvi. et al., IEEE Trans. Comp. Imag., 2019) and show that given a properly trained neural network, single frequency reconstructions can be very competitive with multifrequency techniques that do not use neural networks. We quantify this performance via extensive numerical examples and comment on the hardware implications of both approaches.

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