4.4 Article

Experimental comparison of single-pixel imaging algorithms

出版社

OPTICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1364/JOSAA.35.000078

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [61327902, 61671266]
  2. National High-tech Research and Development Plan [2015AA042306]
  3. Research Project of Tsinghua University (THU) [20161080084]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [61327902, 61671266]
  5. National High-tech Research and Development Plan [2015AA042306]
  6. Research Project of Tsinghua University (THU) [20161080084]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Single-pixel imaging (SPI) is a novel technique that captures 2D images using a photodiode, instead of conventional 2D array sensors. SPI has high signal-to-noise ratio, wide spectral range, low cost, and robustness to light scattering. Various algorithms have been proposed for SPI reconstruction, including linear correlation methods, the alternating projection (AP) method, and compressive sensing (CS) based methods. However, there has been no comprehensive review discussing respective advantages, which is important for SPI's further applications and development. In this paper, we review and compare these algorithms in a unified reconstruction framework. We also propose two other SPI algorithms, including a conjugate gradient descent (CGD) based method and a Poisson maximum-likelihood-based method. Both simulations and experiments validate the following conclusions: to obtain comparable reconstruction accuracy, the CS-based total variation (TV) regularization method requires the fewest measurements and consumes the least running time for small-scale reconstruction, the CGD and AP methods run fastest in large-scale cases, and the TV and AP methods are the most robust to measurement noise. In a word, there are trade-offs in capture efficiency, computational complexity, and robustness to noise among different SPI algorithms. We have released our source code for non-commercial use. (c) 2017 Optical Society of America

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

4.4
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