The problem of reconstructing an object from the measurements of the light it scatters is common in numerous imaging applications. While the most popular formulations of the problem are based on linearizing the object-light relationship, there is an increased interest in considering nonlinear formulations that can account for multiple light scattering. In this paper, we propose an image reconstruction method, called CISOR, for nonlinear diffractive imaging, based on our new variant of fast iterative shrinkage thresholding algorithm (FISTA) and total variation (TV) regularization. We prove that CISOR reliably converges for our nonconvex optimization problem, and systematically compare our method with other state-of-the-art methods on simulated as well as experimentally measured data.
Many methods that attempt to integrate the nonlinearity of wave scattering have been proposed in the literature. The iterative linearization (IL) method @cite_15 @cite_30 iteratively computes the forward model using the current estimated permittivity, and estimates the permittivity using the field from the previously computed forward model. Hence, each sub-problem at each iteration is a linear problem. Contrast source inversion (CSI) @cite_38 @cite_43 @cite_3 defines an auxiliary variable called the contrast source, which is the product of the permittivity contrast and the field. CSI alternates between estimating the contrast source and the permittivity. Hybrid methods (HM) @cite_40 @cite_26 @cite_52 combine IL and CSI, aiming to benefit from each of their advantages. A comprehensive comparison of these three methods can be found in the review paper @cite_31 . Recently, the idea of neural network unfolding has inspired a class of methods that updates the estimates using error backpropagation @cite_4 @cite_50 @cite_29 @cite_28 @cite_42 . While such methods can in principle model the precise nonlinearity, in practice, the accuracy may be limited by the availability of memory to store the iterates needed to perform unfolding.
@cite_30 @cite_38 @cite_31 @cite_26 @cite_4 @cite_28 @cite_29 @cite_42 @cite_52 @cite_3 @cite_43 @cite_40 @cite_50 @cite_15
2098579833 1983322501 2148055381 2152537098 2592715613 2124453560
Abstract Documents in computer-readable form can be used to provide information about other documents, i.e. those they cite. To do this efficiently requires procedures for computer recognition of citing statements. This is not easy, especially for multi-sentence citing statements. Computer recognition procedures have been developed which are accurate to the following extent: 73 of the words in statements selected by computer procedures as being citing statements are words which are correctly attributable to the corresponding documents. The retrieval effectiveness of computer-recognized citing statements was tested in the following way. First, for eight retrieval requests in inorganiic chemistry, average recall by search of Chemical Abstracts Service indexing and Chemical Abstracts abstract text words was found to be 50 . Words from citing statements referring to the papers to be retrieved were then added to the index terms and abstract words as additional access points, and searching was repeated. Average recall increased to 70 . Only words from citing statements published within a year of the cited papers were used. The retrieval effect of citing statement words alone (published within a year) without index or abstract terms was the following: average recall was 40 . When just the words of the titles of the cited papers were added to those citing statement words, average recall increased to 50 . A citing sentence is one that appears in a scientific article and cites previous work. Citing sentences have been studied and used in many applications. For example, they have been used in scientific paper summarization, automatic survey generation, paraphrase identification, and citation function classification. Citing sentences that cite multiple papers are common in scientific writing. This observation should be taken into consideration when using citing sentences in applications. For instance, when a citing sentence is used in a summary of a scientific paper, only the fragments of the sentence that are relevant to the summarized paper should be included in the summary. In this paper, we present and compare three different approaches for identifying the fragments of a citing sentence that are related to a given target reference. Our methods are: word classification, sequence labeling, and segment classification. Our experiments show that segment classification achieves the best results. A new form of document coupling called co-citation is defined as the frequency with which two documents are cited together. The co-citation frequency of two scientific papers can be determined by comparing lists of citing documents in the Science Citation Index and counting identical entries. Networks of co-cited papers can be generated for specific scientific specialties, and an example is drawn from the literature of particle physics. Co-citation patterns are found to differ significantly from bibliographic coupling patterns, but to agree generally with patterns of direct citation. Clusters of co-cited papers provide a new way to study the specialty structure of science. They may provide a new approach to indexing and to the creation of SDI profiles. In a document network such as a citation network of scientific documents, web-logs, etc., the content produced by authors exhibits their interest in certain topics. In addition some authors influence other authors' interests. In this work, we propose to model the influence of cited authors along with the interests of citing authors. Moreover, we hypothesize that apart from the citations present in documents, the context surrounding the citation mention provides extra topical information about the cited authors. However, associating terms in the context to the cited authors remains an open problem. We propose novel document generation schemes that incorporate the context while simultaneously modeling the interests of citing authors and influence of the cited authors. Our experiments show significant improvements over baseline models for various evaluation criteria such as link prediction between document and cited author, and quantitatively explaining unseen text.