Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Subpixel correction of diffraction pattern shifts in ptychography via automatic differentiation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that cropping-shift misalignment in ptychography can be corrected to subpixel accuracy by making the shift an optimizable parameter in an automatic-differentiation reconstruction loop.

desk verdict A useful but incremental AD-ptychography extension whose subpixel-accuracy claim currently rests on a matched-model simulation; the real-data test is only qualitative. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03640 v1 pith:K3KYKOEF submitted 2025-07-04 physics.optics eess.IV

Zhengkang Xu , Yanqi Chen , Hao Xu , Qingxin Wang , Jin Niu , Lei Huang , Jiyue Tang , Yongjun Ma
show 5 more authors
Yutong Wang Yishi Shi Changjun Ke Jie Li Zhongwei Fan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticseess.IV PACS 42.30.Rx
keywords ptychographyautomaticdifferentiationdiffractionpatternalignmentsubpixelcorrectionreflectionbroadbandEUVimagingphaseretrieval
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the misalignment between the crop window and the zero-order peak of a ptychographic diffraction pattern can be fixed automatically, inside the reconstruction itself, by treating the shift as a learnable parameter in an automatic-differentiation descent. If correct, it removes a manual preprocessing step that currently degrades reflection and broadband ptychography, where even small shifts cause structural distortion rather than simple translation. Simulations with preset offsets up to 5 pixels recover the true shifts with mean deviation below 0.5 pixels, and EUV experiments show sharper fringes and better contrast after correction. The intended payoff is a ptychographic workflow that jointly refines object, probe, and pattern alignment without heuristic or manual tuning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the differentiable shift operator $f(\cdot,\xi)$ applied to the modelled diffraction intensity in the algorithm's main loop, inserted between the forward propagation (together with optional tilted-plane transform $T$ and chromatic scaling $C$) and the L2 loss with TV regularization. Because the whole pipeline is expressed with automatic differentiation, the gradient of the loss with respect to the shift parameters flows back and updates them with Adam, making the cropping offset a refined quantity rather than a fixed preprocessing choice.

What would settle it

Take a recorded diffraction pattern, crop it with known sub-pixel offsets generated by a shift model that includes a different interpolation kernel or pixel-averaging than $f(\cdot,\xi)$, run the proposed AD reconstruction, and compare the recovered offsets to the ground truth: if the mean deviation exceeds 0.5 pixels, the claimed accuracy is specific to the model rather than to real misalignment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that subpixel diffraction-pattern shifts can be corrected by backpropagation while reconstructing the object and probe, by including the cropping shift vector $\xi$ as an ordinary optimization variable in the AD-based loss. The paper demonstrates on three forward models—reflection, broadband, and combined reflection-broadband—that this recovers per-pattern offsets up to 5 pixels with an average deviation below 0.5 pixels, and that correcting the shift simultaneously improves reconstruction quality. In EUV experiments, enabling the shift correction sharpens reconstructed fringes and increases intensity contrast compared with reconstructions from coarsely cropped patterns, with further improvement when all parameters are jointly optimized.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations create the misalignments with the same differentiable shift operation the reconstruction uses, so the validation does not test whether real-world shifts, which involve pixel response and interpolation, follow that exact translation model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can skip manual centering of diffraction patterns because the reconstruction itself absorbs the alignment error.
  • Reflection and broadband configurations, where misalignment causes nonlinear distortion rather than a simple translation, stand to gain most from the correction.
  • The same AD loop can simultaneously optimize other hardware parameters such as scan positions, tilt angles, and background, as demonstrated in the EUV experiment.
  • The method is modular: changing the forward model only requires recompiling the differentiable graph, not hand-derived update rules.
  • Recovering subpixel offsets during reconstruction also provides a quantitative check on the preprocessing stage of existing ptychography datasets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural test of the method's limits is to compare recovered shifts against ground truth generated by a physically distinct shift model—for example detector pixelation and interpolation kernels different from the operator used in reconstruction—to see whether the sub-0.5-pixel accuracy persists.
  • The per-pattern shift parameter could be regularized jointly across scan positions, which may help when individual diffraction patterns are noisy or have low signal.
  • The reported accuracy suggests the approach could also serve as a diagnostic for residual systematic alignment errors in already-collected ptychography data, without reacquiring the measurements.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an automatic-differentiation-based ptychographic reconstruction framework in which the cropping shift of each recorded diffraction pattern is treated as a learnable parameter. Algorithm 1 embeds the shift variable xi in the forward model through an operator f, alongside the object, probe, scan-position deviations, tilt angles, and background term. The authors validate the approach with simulations of reflection, broadband, and reflection-broadband models with preset offsets up to 5 pixels, reporting mean shift deviations below 0.5 pixels, and with an EUV reflection experiment in which optimizing the shift variables visibly sharpens reconstructed fringes. The paper claims that the method achieves subpixel correction without manual tuning and is modular across ptychographic modalities.

Significance. If the quantitative claim is established, the paper is a useful incremental contribution to AD-based ptychography: it removes a manual preprocessing step, is formulated in a modular way that can be combined with tilted-plane correction and broadband models, and the experimental section shows a clear visual improvement in an EUV reflection setup. The authors are also transparent about known sources of residual error, such as anisotropic resolution in the reflection model and information loss in numerical monochromatization. The main weakness is that the central subpixel-accuracy claim rests on a matched-model simulation in which the ground-truth shifts may be generated by the same differentiable operator that is optimized, and the experimental section provides no ground-truth shift values. The paper therefore does not yet establish that the method is accurate under real detector misalignment, which is the load-bearing claim of the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Algorithm 1, line 5] The central quantitative claim of an average shift error below 0.5 pixels is supported only by a matched-model simulation. The text does not state how the ground-truth subpixel offsets are generated in Section 3.1; if they are applied with the same differentiable operator f(., xi) that Algorithm 1 line 5 optimizes, then the simulation is an inverse-crime test that verifies the optimizer can invert its own forward model but not that real detector misalignments obey that translation model. Real misalignments involve pixel-area integration, detector point-spread function, the interpolation kernel used in TPC, and residual geometric distortion. Please specify the interpolation or resampling used for the ground-truth offsets and add mismatch experiments, for example generating shifts with a different kernel, including pixelation and Poisson noise, or applying a small affine distortion, to show that the claimed subpixel accuracy transfers to model mismatch.
  2. [Section 3.2, Fig. 6] The experimental section does not provide ground-truth shift values, so it cannot independently validate the subpixel accuracy claim. The comparison is between reconstruction with and without AD shift correction, not against a conventional centering method, and the observed improvement in fringe contrast could partly result from the extra optimizable degrees of freedom, especially in the joint-optimization case in Fig. 6(c). Please include a comparison with a standard centering baseline, such as zero-order centroid or cross-correlation alignment, and, if possible, report the learned shift parameters and their consistency across independent reconstructions, or inject a known subpixel shift into a measured pattern to obtain a quantitative experimental error.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Section 2.3] The simulation protocol does not include noise or model uncertainty, and the method depends on several hyperparameters that are not tested for sensitivity, including the object learning rate of 0.1, the offset learning rate of 0.95, the 5 warmup epochs without offset correction, and the minibatch size of 16. Since the abstract and conclusion claim robustness and absence of manual tuning, the authors should report at least a small sensitivity study over these parameters and include noisy simulations; otherwise the robustness claim is not yet established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4] The section heading contains a typo, 'Conculsion', which should be 'Conclusion'.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'Institude' in the first affiliation, 'caputured' in Section 2.1, and 'verctors' in Section 2.1; these should be corrected.
  3. [Section 2.1, Eq. (4)] The summation in Eq. (4) runs over k = 1 to N, but N was previously used for the total number of object pixels and K for the number of scan positions; please use K consistently for scan positions.
  4. [Algorithm 1, line 5 and Section 2.3] The function f is not defined explicitly; the text says it 'represents the incorporation of optimization variables into the model', but it should be stated precisely how xi and phi enter relative to the operators T and C, so that the model is reproducible.
  5. [Abstract and Section 3.1] The abstract's phrase 'average deviation below 0.5 pixels' should be stated as a mean over scan positions and complemented with a maximum or percentile, since for a = 5 Section 3.1 reports that most estimates remain within 1 pixel while only the mean is below 0.5 pixels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the shift parameters are optimized against the measured intensities rather than derived from themselves; the central simulation claim is an inverse-problem accuracy test, and no load-bearing self-citation is used.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard inverse-problem test. The loss L(θ) in Eq. (4) and Algorithm 1 line 5 define the reconstructed intensity as a differentiable function f of the shift parameters ξ; AD then supplies gradients with respect to ξ, P, and O. Recovering the preset offsets from simulated data is a fit-quality evaluation, not a prediction obtained from a fitted constant. The abstract's 'average deviation below 0.5 pixels' is an empirical accuracy statement on data with known ground-truth offsets, and the EUV experiment provides qualitative validation without ground-truth shifts. No load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation: refs [4], [7], [32]–[35] are cited for the general AD-based ptychographic framework and are not used to justify the specific claim that ξ is identifiable or recoverable. A real limitation, noted by the skeptic, is that the simulation appears to generate the ground-truth offsets with the same type of shift operation that the reconstruction optimizes, so the test does not probe real-world shift-model mismatch such as detector interpolation, pixel-area integration, or geometric distortion. That is a validation and transferability concern, not a derivation-level circularity; the paper does not claim the subpixel bound holds under mismatched shift models.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three standard domain models (paraxial propagation, tilted-plane correction, broadband incoherent superposition) and one paper-specific modeling assumption that the misalignment is a pure translation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Object learning rate = 0.1
    Chosen by hand in simulations; affects convergence speed of the object update.
  • Pattern offset learning rate = 0.95
    Chosen by hand for shift updates; high value likely needed for the correction to act within the reconstruction.
  • Warmup epochs without shift correction = 5
    Hand-chosen schedule to avoid large gradients early in reconstruction.
  • Minibatch size = 16
    Chosen to parallelize gradient computation; affects gradient noise and update stability.
  • TV regularization weight = unspecified
    Used in the experimental loss (Eq. 4) but its value is not reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Paraxial and projection approximations for far-field ptychography
    Invoked in Section 2.1 with reference [36] to express the exit wave and intensity as in Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption Tilted-plane coordinate mapping T in Eq. (2) correctly describes reflection geometry
    Used for all reflection-model simulations and the EUV experiment; if the mapping is wrong, the shift correction would correct the wrong geometry.
  • domain assumption Broadband diffraction pattern is an incoherent, spectrally weighted sum of scaled monochromatic patterns
    Used in the broadband and reflection-broadband models, Eq. (3), following Huijts et al. [28].
  • ad hoc to paper Crop misalignment is a pure translation of the diffraction pattern, representable by the differentiable operator f with parameter xi
    This is the core modeling assumption of the method, introduced in Section 2.3 and Algorithm 1, line 5. It is not tested against alternative misalignment models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Subpixel correction of diffraction pattern shifts in ptychography via automatic differentiation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K3KYKOEF

@misc{pith2026250703640,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Subpixel correction of diffraction pattern shifts in ptychography via automatic differentiation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K3KYKOEF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03640}
}
read the original abstract

Ptychography, a coherent diffraction imaging technique, has become an indispensable tool in materials characterization, biological imaging, and nanostructure analysis due to its capability for high-resolution, lensless reconstruction of complex-valued images. In typical workflows, raw diffraction patterns are commonly cropped to isolate the valid central region before reconstruction. However, if the crop is misaligned from the diffraction pattern's zero-order, reconstruction may suffer from slower convergence, phase wrapping, and reduced image fidelity. These issues are further exacerbated in experimental configurations involving reflective geometries or broadband illumination, where incorrect cropping introduces systematic preprocessing errors that compromise the entire ptychographic inversion. To address this challenge, we present an approach based on automatic differentiation (AD), where the cropping shift is treated as an optimizable parameter within the reconstruction framework. By integrating shift correction into the backpropagation loop, our method simultaneously refines the object, probe, and shift positions without requiring manual tuning. Simulation results demonstrate that, even with initial offsets ranging up to 5 pixels, the proposed method achieves subpixel correction, with an average deviation below 0.5 pixels. Experiments in the extreme ultraviolet (EUV) regime further validate the method's robustness and effectiveness. This AD-based strategy enhances the automation and robustness of ptychographic reconstructions, and is adaptable to diverse experimental conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03640 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representations of the models under investigation. (a) Transmission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the impact of diffraction pattern shifts on the preprocessing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of reconstruction results with and without AD-based diffraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evaluation of diffraction pattern shift errors using AD. (a1)-(a3) show the error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A schematic of the experimental setup used for ptychographic imaging. An [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of ptychographic reconstruction results in EUV experiments with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. W. Hawkes and J. C. Spence,Springer handbook of microscopy(Springer Nature, 2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    Reconstructing state mixtures from diffraction measurements,

    P. Thibault and A. Menzel, “Reconstructing state mixtures from diffraction measurements,” Nature 494, 68–71 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Lensless diffractive imaging using tabletop coherent high-harmonic soft-x-ray beams,

    R. L. Sandberg, A. Paul, D. A. Raymondson,et al., “Lensless diffractive imaging using tabletop coherent high-harmonic soft-x-ray beams,” Phys. review letters99, 098103 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Wavelength-multiplexed multi-mode euv reflection ptychography based on automatic differentiation,

    Y. Shao, S. Weerdenburg, J. Seifert,et al., “Wavelength-multiplexed multi-mode euv reflection ptychography based on automatic differentiation,” Light. Sci. & Appl.13, 196 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Structured illumination ptychography and at- wavelength characterization with an euv diffuser at 13.5 nm wavelength,

    W. Eschen, C. Liu, M. Steinert,et al., “Structured illumination ptychography and at- wavelength characterization with an euv diffuser at 13.5 nm wavelength,” Opt. Express32, 3480–3491 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    High-speed and wide-field nanoscale table-top ptychographic euv imaging and beam characterization with a scmos detector,

    W. Eschen, C. Liu, D. S. Penagos Molina,et al., “High-speed and wide-field nanoscale table-top ptychographic euv imaging and beam characterization with a scmos detector,” Opt. Express31, 14212–14224 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Mitigating tilt-induced artifacts in reflection ptychography via optimization of the tilt angles,

    S. Senhorst, Y. Shao, S. Weerdenburg,et al., “Mitigating tilt-induced artifacts in reflection ptychography via optimization of the tilt angles,” Opt. Express32, 44017–44030 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Ptychographic electron microscopy using high- angle dark-field scattering for sub-nanometre resolution imaging,

    M. Humphry, B. Kraus, A. Hurst,et al., “Ptychographic electron microscopy using high- angle dark-field scattering for sub-nanometre resolution imaging,” Nat. communications3, 730 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Biological imaging by soft x-ray diffraction microscopy,

    D. Shapiro, P. Thibault, T. Beetz,et al., “Biological imaging by soft x-ray diffraction microscopy,” Proc. National Acad. Sci.102, 15343–15346 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    High-resolution x-ray diffraction microscopy of specifically labeled yeast cells,

    J. Nelson, X. Huang, J. Steinbrener,et al., “High-resolution x-ray diffraction microscopy of specifically labeled yeast cells,” Proc. National Acad. Sci.107, 7235–7239 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Quantitative biological imaging by ptychographic x-ray diffraction microscopy,

    K. Giewekemeyer, P. Thibault, S. Kalbfleisch,et al., “Quantitative biological imaging by ptychographic x-ray diffraction microscopy,” Proc. National Acad. Sci.107, 529–534 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Imaging live cell in micro-liquid enclosure by x-ray laser diffraction,

    T. Kimura, Y. Joti, A. Shibuya,et al., “Imaging live cell in micro-liquid enclosure by x-ray laser diffraction,” Nat. communications5, 3052 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Three-dimensional coherent x-ray diffraction imaging of molten iron in mantle olivine at nanoscale resolution,

    H. Jiang, R. Xu, C.-C. Chen,et al., “Three-dimensional coherent x-ray diffraction imaging of molten iron in mantle olivine at nanoscale resolution,” Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 205501 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    Ultrafastthree-dimensionalimagingoflatticedynamics in individual gold nanocrystals,

    J.Clark,L.Beitra,G.Xiong, etal.,“Ultrafastthree-dimensionalimagingoflatticedynamics in individual gold nanocrystals,” Science341, 56–59 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Three-dimensional mapping of a deformation field inside a nanocrystal,

    M. A. Pfeifer, G. J. Williams, I. A. Vartanyants,et al., “Three-dimensional mapping of a deformation field inside a nanocrystal,” Nature442, 63–66 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    High numerical aperture reflection mode coherent diffraction microscopy using off-axis apertured illumination,

    D. F. Gardner, B. Zhang, M. D. Seaberg,et al., “High numerical aperture reflection mode coherent diffraction microscopy using off-axis apertured illumination,” Opt. express20, 19050–19059 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    Characterisation of engineered defects in extreme ultraviolet mirror substrates using lab-scale extreme ultraviolet reflection ptychography,

    H. Lu, M. Odstrčil, C. Pooley,et al., “Characterisation of engineered defects in extreme ultraviolet mirror substrates using lab-scale extreme ultraviolet reflection ptychography,” Ultramicroscopy 249, 113720 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Coherent diffraction surface imaging in reflection geometry,

    S. Marathe, S. Kim, S. Kim,et al., “Coherent diffraction surface imaging in reflection geometry,” Opt. express18, 7253–7262 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    General-purpose, wide field-of-view reflection imaging with a tabletop 13 nm light source,

    C. L. Porter, M. Tanksalvala, M. Gerrity,et al., “General-purpose, wide field-of-view reflection imaging with a tabletop 13 nm light source,” Optica4, 1552–1557 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Tabletop nanometer extreme ultraviolet imaging in an extended reflection mode using coherent fresnel ptychography,

    M. D. Seaberg, B. Zhang, D. F. Gardner,et al., “Tabletop nanometer extreme ultraviolet imaging in an extended reflection mode using coherent fresnel ptychography,” Optica1, 39–44 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    apie: an angle calibration algorithm for reflection ptychography,

    A. de Beurs, L. Loetgering, M. Herczog,et al., “apie: an angle calibration algorithm for reflection ptychography,” Opt. Lett.47, 1949–1952 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Phase retrieval for undersampled broadband images,

    J. R. Fienup, “Phase retrieval for undersampled broadband images,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A16, 1831–1837 (1999)

    1999

  15. [23]

    Information multiplexing in ptychography,

    D. J. Batey, D. Claus, and J. M. Rodenburg, “Information multiplexing in ptychography,” Ultramicroscopy 138, 13–21 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Tailoringspatialentropyinextremeultraviolet focused beams for multispectral ptychography,

    L.Loetgering,X.Liu,A.C.DeBeurs, etal.,“Tailoringspatialentropyinextremeultraviolet focused beams for multispectral ptychography,” Optica8, 130–138 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Multiple wavelength diffractive imaging,

    B. Chen, R. A. Dilanian, S. Teichmann,et al., “Multiple wavelength diffractive imaging,” Phys. Rev. A79, 023809 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Broadband x-ray ptychography using multi-wavelength algorithm,

    Y. Yao, Y. Jiang, J. Klug,et al., “Broadband x-ray ptychography using multi-wavelength algorithm,” Synchrotron Radiat.28, 309–317 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Lensless imaging using broadband x-ray sources,

    B. Abbey, L. W. Whitehead, H. M. Quiney,et al., “Lensless imaging using broadband x-ray sources,” Nat. Photonics5, 420–424 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Broadband coherent diffractive imaging,

    J. Huijts, S. Fernandez, D. Gauthier,et al., “Broadband coherent diffractive imaging,” Nat. Photonics 14, 618–622 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Broadband ptychographic imaging with an accurately sampled spectrum,

    R. Liu, W. Cao, Q. You,et al., “Broadband ptychographic imaging with an accurately sampled spectrum,” Phys. Rev. A107, 033510 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Robust broadband ptychography algorithms for high-harmonic soft x-ray supercontinua,

    B. Shearer, H. Kapteyn, I. Binnie,et al., “Robust broadband ptychography algorithms for high-harmonic soft x-ray supercontinua,” Opt. Express33, 717–735 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Ultra-broadband diffractive imaging with unknown probe spectrum,

    C. Chen, H. Gu, and S. Liu, “Ultra-broadband diffractive imaging with unknown probe spectrum,” Light. Sci. & Appl.13, 213 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Adp: Automatic differentiation ptychography,

    S. Ghosh, Y. S. Nashed, O. Cossairt, and A. Katsaggelos, “Adp: Automatic differentiation ptychography,” in2018 IEEE International Conference on Computational Photography (ICCP),(IEEE, 2018), pp. 1–10

    2018

  25. [33]

    Using automatic differentiation as a general framework for ptychographic reconstruction,

    S. Kandel, S. Maddali, M. Allain,et al., “Using automatic differentiation as a general framework for ptychographic reconstruction,” Opt. express27, 18653–18672 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Efficient and flexible approach to ptychography using an optimization framework based on automatic differentiation,

    J. Seifert, D. Bouchet, L. Loetgering, and A. P. Mosk, “Efficient and flexible approach to ptychography using an optimization framework based on automatic differentiation,” OSA Continuum 4, 121–128 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Maximum-likelihood estimation in ptychography in the presence of poisson–gaussian noise statistics,

    J. Seifert, Y. Shao, R. Van Dam,et al., “Maximum-likelihood estimation in ptychography in the presence of poisson–gaussian noise statistics,” Opt. Lett.48, 6027–6030 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Born and E

    M. Born and E. Wolf,Principles of optics: electromagnetic theory of propagation, interference and diffraction of light(Elsevier, 2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Tensorflow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous distributed systems,

    M. Abadi, A. Agarwal, P. Barham,et al., “Tensorflow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous distributed systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.04467 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Phase retrieval of diffraction patterns from noncrystalline samples using the oversampling method,

    J. Miao, T. Ishikawa, E. H. Anderson, and K. O. Hodgson, “Phase retrieval of diffraction patterns from noncrystalline samples using the oversampling method,” Phys. Rev. B67, 174104 (2003)

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.