Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Compressive Imaging Reconstruction via Tensor Decomposed Multi-Resolution Grid Encoding

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A tensor-decomposed multi-resolution grid encoding can represent high-dimensional images with parameters that scale linearly in dimension, not exponentially.

desk verdict Solid empirical CI paper with a real efficiency win, but the headline Lipschitz bound for InstantNGP is wrong as stated and the theory section needs a rewrite. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07707 v1 pith:CXMU2XG7 submitted 2025-07-10 eess.IV cs.CV

Zhenyu Jin , Yisi Luo , Xile Zhao , Deyu Meng This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords compressiveimagingsnapshotdynamicMRIreconstructionimplicitneuralrepresentationmulti-resolutiongridencodinghashgridstensordecompositionplug-and-playADMM
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

The paper proposes GridTD, an unsupervised continuous representation for solving compressive imaging inverse problems such as video snapshot compressive imaging, spectral snapshot compressive imaging, and dynamic MRI reconstruction. It tries to prove that replacing the high-dimensional hash grids of InstantNGP with a set of one-dimensional multi-resolution grids, combined by a CP-style tensor product, yields a representation whose parameter count and computation scale linearly with data dimension while retaining or improving reconstruction quality. If correct, compressive imaging reconstruction could become practical for higher-dimensional data and faster per scene, without paired training data. The paper supports the claim with Lipschitz and generalization bounds, a fixed-point convergence result for its alternating optimization, and experiments across three imaging tasks.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the tensor-decomposed multi-resolution grid encoding (GridTD), defined by Eq. (6): one-dimensional multi-resolution grid encoders $H_d(\cdot)$ for each coordinate axis, combined by element-wise multiplication along a shared rank dimension $R=LF$. This is the CP-decomposition analogue of InstantNGP: the $D$-dimensional interpolation tensor is replaced by factor vectors from 1D hash grids, making the encoding a low-rank tensor whose factor matrices can be queried in parallel (Lemma 1). The other load-bearing pieces are the temporal affine adapter, which reuses the temporal grid code to predict per-frame translations, and the plug-and-play ADMM alternating scheme, whose fixed-point convergence is established in Theorem 4.

What would settle it

Compute the Lipschitz constant of InstantNGP's multilinear grid interpolation numerically for $D=2$ and $D=3$ under the paper's assumption $\|G_l[z,:]\|_{\ell^1}\le 1$; if the measured growth in $D$ is linear rather than $2^D\eta^D$, Theorem 1's bound is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a representation identity: a $D$-dimensional continuous grid encoding can be written as the element-wise product of $D$ one-dimensional multi-resolution grid encodings, $H_{\mathrm{GridTD}}(v) = \bigodot_{d=1}^D H_d(v[d])$, so that a tensor of size $n_1\times\cdots\times n_D$ is encoded by $n_1+\cdots+n_D$ queries of 1D grids rather than $n_1\cdots n_D$ queries of a $D$-dimensional grid. This turns InstantNGP's storage $O(LF N_l^D)$ and interpolation cost $O((2n)^D LF)$ into $O(LF D N_l)$ and $O(2nDLF)$, and the paper argues the resulting Lipschitz constant and generalization error bound scale linearly in $D$ instead of exponentially. A lightweight MLP then fuses the factorized features, and the whole model is plugged into a plug-and-play ADMM loop with TV and second-order spatial-spectral total variation regularizers, plus a temporal affine adapter for video. On video SCI, spectral SCI, and dynamic MRI benchmarks, the paper reports consistently higher PSNR/SSIM than prior unsupervised baselines and lower runtime than InstantNGP.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the asserted exponential Lipschitz bound for InstantNGP, stated without proof in the main text; if the true bound grows only linearly in dimension, the claimed superiority of GridTD's theoretical scaling collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Parameter count and interpolation cost for representing an $n^{\times D}$ tensor drop from exponential to linear in $D$, so continuous representations become usable for 4D and higher data such as 3D-plus-time volumes.
  • Because the Lipschitz and generalization bounds scale as $D$, not $2^D$, GridTD should not require re-tuning hyperparameters when the data dimension changes; the toy inpainting experiments show this stability.
  • On video SCI and spectral SCI, GridTD reports about 1 dB higher PSNR than the best unsupervised baselines, and on dynamic MRI it outperforms both INR-based and grid-based baselines across acceleration factors.
  • The fixed-point convergence theorem for the GridTD-induced PnP-ADMM means the alternating updates have a stable limit, which supports using the method in iterative reconstruction pipelines.
  • The temporal affine adapter lets a low-rank tensor representation capture frame-to-frame motion, making the method suitable for dynamic scenes rather than only static volumes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the linear-in-$D$ scaling is correct, the same 1D-factorized grid encoder could be applied to other inverse problems with high-dimensional unknowns, such as 4D light-field or dynamic spectral imaging, where full hash grids would be intractable.
  • The paper's generalization bound is proven for supervised coordinate-value samples; transferring it to the single compressed measurement used in CI is an assumption. A direct test would compare GridTD's reconstruction error against the bound on held-out coordinates for a known synthetic volume.
  • The temporal affine adapter suggests a general recipe: use a grid code for motion parameters instead of adding explicit motion fields. This could be adapted to non-rigid motion or optical-flow-constrained reconstructions, though the paper does not test those.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GridTD, an unsupervised continuous representation for compressive imaging reconstruction. GridTD replaces the D-dimensional multi-resolution hash grids of InstantNGP with D one-dimensional multi-resolution grids whose outputs are fused by element-wise multiplication, corresponding to a CP-decomposed tensor structure, and a lightweight MLP decodes the fused features. The method is integrated into a PnP-ADMM scheme with TV/SSTV regularization and a temporal affine adapter for dynamic data. The authors state theoretical results claiming that GridTD's Lipschitz and generalization bounds scale linearly with dimension while InstantNGP's scale exponentially, and that the induced ADMM converges to a fixed point. Experiments on video SCI, spectral SCI, and dynamic MRI report consistent PSNR/SSIM improvements over existing unsupervised methods (e.g., about 1 dB over LRSDN on KAIST and over InstantNGP on video SCI) with substantially lower runtime, together with ablations and parameter sensitivity analyses.

Significance. If the empirical results are taken at face value, GridTD is a practically useful and efficient unsupervised representation for CI reconstruction, with the storage and computational advantage over InstantNGP clearly demonstrated by the complexity table and runtime measurements. The experiments are broad, include ablations, and use standard benchmarks. The theoretical claims, however, are a central stated contribution and are not sound as written: Theorem 1 contains an apparently false exponential Lipschitz bound, and Theorem 3's supervised generalization setting does not match the unsupervised single-measurement reconstruction problem. The paper's theoretical 'intrinsic superiority' narrative therefore needs substantial revision or removal; the empirical contribution can stand on its own.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A.3, Theorem 1, Eq. (9)] Theorem 1 is stated without proof, and the claimed bound is false as written. For the composition g_Theta o H, the MLP can contribute at most a single factor eta = ||W1||_1 ||W2||_1 (times gamma), and a D-dimensional multilinear grid interpolant with vertex features bounded in ell_1 norm has Lipschitz constant at most D * sum_{l=1}^L (N_l - 1), up to constants, not (2*eta)^D. Concretely, take D=5, L=1, F=1, N_l=4, grid values alternating +1/-1 along coordinate 1 and constant elsewhere, W1=0.4, W2=1, and sigma=identity. Inside one cell the composed function has slope 2*0.4*3 = 2.4 in the first coordinate, whereas the right-hand side of Eq. (9) is 2^5 * 0.4^5 * 3 = 0.983, violating the inequality. Since Theorem 2 and the subsequent comparison are built on this bound, the claimed linear-versus-exponential theoretical advantage is not supported. The theorem must either be proved with correct constants or the exponential comparison must be removed.
  2. [Theorem 3, Eq. (12)] The generalization bound is derived for i.i.d. samples (x_i, y_i) from a distribution over coordinate-value pairs. In CI reconstruction, no paired samples are available; the method optimizes against a single compressed measurement. No argument establishes that the bound applies to the reconstruction error of the unsupervised optimization. Consequently, the bound does not provide the claimed support for GridTD's generalization in CI. The authors should either state the bound as applying only to a supervised coordinate-fitting problem and remove its use for CI, or provide an explicit transfer argument.
  3. [Section III.C, Theorem 4 and Lemma 2] The fixed-point convergence claim is conditional on the assumption ||V^{k+1} - (X^{k+1} + U^k)||_F <= alpha^2 / rho^k for all k. This is essentially the residual-decay condition that a convergence proof would need to establish; the paper gives no argument that the GridTD V-subproblem satisfies it. Lemma 2 only bounds the fidelity function in terms of ||X||_F and does not imply the required uniform Lipschitz-gradient condition. Thus Theorem 4 is better described as a conditional statement than as a convergence proof.
  4. [Section III.A.3, general comparison] Even if the erroneous eta^D factor in Theorem 1 is replaced by eta, the qualitative comparison between Theorems 1 and 2 fails: the correct Lipschitz bound for the InstantNGP-style interpolant is also linear in D, not exponential. The storage and computational complexity advantages of GridTD remain, but the claimed 'intrinsic superiority' in smoothness and generalization is not established by the present analysis.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I] The text says 'Section VI concludes the paper,' but the conclusions section is numbered V.
  2. [Section III.A.2] The statement that 'for any high-dimensional tensor, it can be exactly factorized into the CP decomposition with proper CP rank R' is trivially true only for sufficiently large R and does not by itself establish 'unblemished representation capacity'; the qualification should be clarified.
  3. [Section II.A] The notation paragraph has formatting issues: scalars, vectors, matrices, and tensors are all listed as 'x, x, X, X', which is confusing and should be typeset distinctly.
  4. [Section IV.A] The claim that GridTD is 'the first to leverage the continuous representation framework for the SCI problem' is too strong given the previously cited INR-based reconstruction methods for related inverse problems; the novelty statement should be softened or qualified.
  5. [Table I] The computational complexity entries O(2nDLF) and O((2n)^D LF) are not derived in the text; a brief derivation or reference for the interpolation count would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GridTD construction, efficiency analysis, and theoretical bounds do not reduce to their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. GridTD is explicitly constructed by applying element-wise products of 1D multi-resolution grid encodings (Definition 2, Eq. 6), and Lemma 1 is a direct calculation of this definition under tensor parallelism; the connection to CP decomposition is a stated structural property, not a hidden use of the reconstruction target. The storage and complexity comparisons (Table I) are parameter counts and interpolation counts, not fitted quantities relabeled as predictions. The Lipschitz bounds (Theorems 1 and 2) are stated as consequences of the l1 grid-norm and MLP-weight assumptions, and the generalization bound (Theorem 3) is a standard Rademacher-style bound on supervised coordinate-value samples; whether that bound transfers to the single-measurement CI setting is a scope assumption, but it is not a circular reduction. The ADMM fixed-point convergence (Theorem 4) is imported from the external reference [43], not from the authors' own prior work. Self-citations ([15], [16], [17], [32], [34], [36]) appear only as background or baselines and are not load-bearing for the claimed contributions. The toy inpainting experiments are consistency checks of the theory, not predictions forced by fitted parameters. Any concern about the correctness of Theorem 1's exponential factor is a mathematical correctness issue, not evidence that the derivation is definitionally equivalent to its inputs.

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

GridTD introduces no new physical entities; its theoretical claims depend on unenforced norm and boundedness assumptions and on the standard CP decomposition. Empirical performance depends on four tuned hyperparameters (F, L, lambda_1, lambda_2), with additional grid/hash settings left to the supplementary file.

free parameters (4)
  • Feature dimension F = 60
    CP rank R = LF; F=60 chosen via sensitivity scan (Table VI) on Runner video SCI, balancing capacity and stability.
  • Resolution number L = 60
    Number of multi-resolution grid levels; L=60 chosen via sensitivity scan (Table VII).
  • TV regularization weight lambda_1 = 2e-5 (5 x 4e-6)
    Balance parameter in the V-subproblem objective (19); selected by sensitivity analysis (Table VIII).
  • SSTV regularization weight lambda_2 = 1.4e-5 (3.5 x 4e-6)
    Balance parameter in the V-subproblem objective (19); selected by sensitivity analysis (Table IX).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math CP tensor decomposition can exactly represent any tensor given sufficiently large rank
    Invoked in Section III.A.2 to argue GridTD has unblemished representation capacity; standard result from Kolda and Bader [25].
  • ad hoc to paper Grid feature vectors satisfy ||G_l[z,:]||_1 <= 1 for all resolutions and vertices during optimization
    Assumed in Theorems 1-2 (Eq. 9 and 11); Algorithm 1 does not enforce this constraint, so the bounds may not hold for trained grids.
  • ad hoc to paper V-subproblem iterates satisfy ||V^{k+1} - (X^{k+1}+U^k)||_F <= alpha^2/rho^k for all k
    Assumed in Theorem 4 to import fixed-point convergence from the PnP-ADMM framework; no verification or sufficient condition is given.
  • domain assumption Dynamic data can be modeled as frame-wise affine transformations of a latent low-rank tensor
    The temporal affine adapter (Eq. 13) assumes this pseudo low-rank structure to capture motion in video SCI.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Compressive Imaging Reconstruction via Tensor Decomposed Multi-Resolution Grid Encoding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CXMU2XG7

@misc{pith2026250707707,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Compressive Imaging Reconstruction via Tensor Decomposed Multi-Resolution Grid Encoding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CXMU2XG7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07707}
}
read the original abstract

Compressive imaging (CI) reconstruction, such as snapshot compressive imaging (SCI) and compressive sensing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), aims to recover high-dimensional images from low-dimensional compressed measurements. This process critically relies on learning an accurate representation of the underlying high-dimensional image. However, existing unsupervised representations may struggle to achieve a desired balance between representation ability and efficiency. To overcome this limitation, we propose Tensor Decomposed multi-resolution Grid encoding (GridTD), an unsupervised continuous representation framework for CI reconstruction. GridTD optimizes a lightweight neural network and the input tensor decomposition model whose parameters are learned via multi-resolution hash grid encoding. It inherently enjoys the hierarchical modeling ability of multi-resolution grid encoding and the compactness of tensor decomposition, enabling effective and efficient reconstruction of high-dimensional images. Theoretical analyses for the algorithm's Lipschitz property, generalization error bound, and fixed-point convergence reveal the intrinsic superiority of GridTD as compared with existing continuous representation models. Extensive experiments across diverse CI tasks, including video SCI, spectral SCI, and compressive dynamic MRI reconstruction, consistently demonstrate the superiority of GridTD over existing methods, positioning GridTD as a versatile and state-of-the-art CI reconstruction method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07707 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the GridTD model for compressive imaging reconstruction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Toy examples on the data inpainting task. From top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Reconstruction comparison using various methods on two video frames for video SCI. The top row shows the results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reconstruction comparison using various methods on Scene 1 from the KAIST dataset for spectral SCI. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The recovered spectral curves and the corresponding correlation coefficients of different methods for spectral SCI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Reconstruction comparison using various methods for 21 spokes per frame (acceleration factor = 9.7) and 13 spokes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Compressed sensing in dynamic mri,

    U. Gamper, P. Boesiger, and S. Kozerke, “Compressed sensing in dynamic mri,” Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 365–373, 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Computational snapshot multispectral cameras: Toward dynamic capture of the spectral world,

    X. Cao, T. Yue, X. Lin, S. Lin, X. Yuan, Q. Dai, L. Carin, and D. J. Brady, “Computational snapshot multispectral cameras: Toward dynamic capture of the spectral world,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 95–108, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Coded aperture compressive temporal imaging,

    P. Llull, X. Liao, X. Yuan, J. Yang, D. Kittle, L. Carin, G. Sapiro, and D. J. Brady, “Coded aperture compressive temporal imaging,” Opt. Express, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 10 526–10 545, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Learning nonlocal sparse and low-rank models for image compressive sensing: Nonlocal sparse and low-rank modeling,

    Z. Zha, B. Wen, X. Yuan, S. Ravishankar, J. Zhou, and C. Zhu, “Learning nonlocal sparse and low-rank models for image compressive sensing: Nonlocal sparse and low-rank modeling,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 32–44, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Generalized alternating projection based total variation mini- mization for compressive sensing,

    X. Yuan, “Generalized alternating projection based total variation mini- mization for compressive sensing,” in 2016 IEEE International Confer- ence on Image Processing (ICIP) , 2016, pp. 2539–2543

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Snapshot compressive imaging: Theory, algorithms, and applications,

    X. Yuan, D. J. Brady, and A. K. Katsaggelos, “Snapshot compressive imaging: Theory, algorithms, and applications,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 65–88, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Deep learning for video compressive sensing,

    M. Qiao, Z. Meng, J. Ma, and X. Yuan, “Deep learning for video compressive sensing,” APL Photonics, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 030801, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Deep learning for accelerated and robust MRI reconstruction,

    R. Heckel, M. Jacob, A. Chaudhari, O. Perlman, and E. Shimron, “Deep learning for accelerated and robust MRI reconstruction,” Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine , vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 335–368, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Untrained neural network priors for inverse imaging prob- lems: A survey,

    A. Qayyum, I. Ilahi, F. Shamshad, F. Boussaid, M. Bennamoun, and J. Qadir, “Untrained neural network priors for inverse imaging prob- lems: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 6511–6536, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Understanding untrained deep models for inverse problems: Algorithms and theory,

    I. Alkhouri, E. Bell, A. Ghosh, S. Liang, R. Wang, and S. Ravishankar, “Understanding untrained deep models for inverse problems: Algorithms and theory,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18612 , 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Unsupervised deep learning methods for biological image reconstruction and enhancement: An overview from a signal processing perspective,

    M. Akc ¸akaya, B. Yaman, H. Chung, and J. C. Ye, “Unsupervised deep learning methods for biological image reconstruction and enhancement: An overview from a signal processing perspective,” IEEE Signal Pro- cessing Magazine, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 28–44, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Deep image prior,

    D. Ulyanov, A. Vedaldi, and V . Lempitsky, “Deep image prior,” Inter- national Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 128, no. 7, pp. 1867–1888, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Time- dependent deep image prior for dynamic MRI,

    J. Yoo, K. H. Jin, H. Gupta, J. Yerly, M. Stuber, and M. Unser, “Time- dependent deep image prior for dynamic MRI,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 3337–3348, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Untrained neural nets for snapshot compressive imaging: Theory and algorithms,

    M. Zhao, X. Chen, X. Yuan, and S. Jalali, “Untrained neural nets for snapshot compressive imaging: Theory and algorithms,” in International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2024. 13

    2024

  7. [15]

    Hyper- spectral denoising using unsupervised disentangled spatiospectral deep priors,

    Y .-C. Miao, X.-L. Zhao, X. Fu, J.-L. Wang, and Y .-B. Zheng, “Hyper- spectral denoising using unsupervised disentangled spatiospectral deep priors,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 60, p. 1–16, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Hyperspectral mixed noise removal via spatial-spectral constrained unsupervised deep image prior,

    Y .-S. Luo, X.-L. Zhao, T.-X. Jiang, Y .-B. Zheng, and Y . Chang, “Hyperspectral mixed noise removal via spatial-spectral constrained unsupervised deep image prior,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing , vol. 14, pp. 9435– 9449, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Hyperspectral compressive snapshot reconstruction via coupled low-rank subspace representation and self-supervised deep network,

    Y . Chen, W. Lai, W. He, X.-L. Zhao, and J. Zeng, “Hyperspectral compressive snapshot reconstruction via coupled low-rank subspace representation and self-supervised deep network,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 33, pp. 926–941, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Implicit neural representations with periodic activation functions,

    V . Sitzmann, J. Martel, A. Bergman, D. Lindell, and G. Wetzstein, “Implicit neural representations with periodic activation functions,” in International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 33, 2020, pp. 7462–7473

    2020

  11. [19]

    Coil: Coordinate-based internal learning for tomographic imaging,

    Y . Sun, J. Liu, M. Xie, B. Wohlberg, and U. S. Kamilov, “Coil: Coordinate-based internal learning for tomographic imaging,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging , vol. 7, pp. 1400–1412, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Nerp: Implicit neural representation learning with prior embedding for sparsely sampled image reconstruc- tion,

    L. Shen, J. Pauly, and L. Xing, “Nerp: Implicit neural representation learning with prior embedding for sparsely sampled image reconstruc- tion,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 770–782, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Neural tangent kernel: conver- gence and generalization in neural networks,

    A. Jacot, F. Gabriel, and C. Hongler, “Neural tangent kernel: conver- gence and generalization in neural networks,” in International Confer- ence on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2018, p. 8580–8589

    2018

  14. [22]

    Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimensional domains,

    M. Tancik, P. P. Srinivasan, B. Mildenhall, S. Fridovich-Keil, N. Ragha- van, U. Singhal, R. Ramamoorthi, J. T. Barron, and R. Ng, “Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimensional domains,” in International Conference on Neural Information Proce...

    2020

  15. [23]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,

    T. M ¨uller, A. Evans, C. Schied, and A. Keller, “Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1–15, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Spatiotemporal implicit neural representation for unsupervised dynamic MRI reconstruction,

    J. Feng, R. Feng, Q. Wu, X. Shen, L. Chen, X. Li, L. Feng, J. Chen, Z. Zhang, C. Liu, Y . Zhang, and H. Wei, “Spatiotemporal implicit neural representation for unsupervised dynamic MRI reconstruction,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 2143–2156, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Tensor decompositions and applications,

    T. G. Kolda and B. W. Bader, “Tensor decompositions and applications,” SIAM Review, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 455–500, 2009

    2009

  18. [26]

    Hand- held snapshot multi-spectral camera at tens-of-megapixel resolution,

    W. Zhang, J. Suo, K. Dong, L. Li, X. Yuan, C. Pei, and Q. Dai, “Hand- held snapshot multi-spectral camera at tens-of-megapixel resolution,” Nature Communications, vol. 14, no. 5043, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Plug-and-play algorithms for video snapshot compressive imaging,

    X. Yuan, Y . Liu, J. Suo, F. Durand, and Q. Dai, “Plug-and-play algorithms for video snapshot compressive imaging,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 7093– 7111, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Rank minimization for snapshot compressive imaging,

    Y . Liu, X. Yuan, J. Suo, D. J. Brady, and Q. Dai, “Rank minimization for snapshot compressive imaging,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 2990–3006, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    s2s2-transformer for mask-aware hyperspectral image reconstruction,

    J. Wang, K. Li, Y . Zhang, X. Yuan, and Z. Tao, “ s2s2-transformer for mask-aware hyperspectral image reconstruction,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 4299– 4316, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    Hybrid cnn-transformer ar- chitecture for efficient large-scale video snapshot compressive imaging,

    M. Cao, L. Wang, M. Zhu, and X. Yuan, “Hybrid cnn-transformer ar- chitecture for efficient large-scale video snapshot compressive imaging,” International Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 132, no. 10, pp. 4521– 4540, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Dual prior unfolding for snapshot compressive imaging,

    J. Zhang, H. Zeng, J. Cao, Y . Chen, D. Yu, and Y .-P. Zhao, “Dual prior unfolding for snapshot compressive imaging,” in 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024, pp. 25 742–25 752

    2024

  24. [32]

    Snapshot compressive imaging using domain-factorized deep video prior,

    Y .-C. Miao, X.-L. Zhao, J.-L. Wang, X. Fu, and Y . Wang, “Snapshot compressive imaging using domain-factorized deep video prior,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging , vol. 10, pp. 93–102, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Diffusion posterior sampling for general noisy inverse problems,

    H. Chung, J. Kim, M. T. Mccann, M. L. Klasky, and J. C. Ye, “Diffusion posterior sampling for general noisy inverse problems,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Hir-diff: Unsupervised hyperspectral image restoration via improved diffusion models,

    L. Pang, X. Rui, L. Cui, H. Wang, D. Meng, and X. Cao, “Hir-diff: Unsupervised hyperspectral image restoration via improved diffusion models,” in 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024, pp. 3005–3014

    2024

  27. [35]

    Dds2m: Self-supervised de- noising diffusion spatio-spectral model for hyperspectral image restora- tion,

    Y . Miao, L. Zhang, L. Zhang, and D. Tao, “Dds2m: Self-supervised de- noising diffusion spatio-spectral model for hyperspectral image restora- tion,” in 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023, pp. 12 052–12 062

    2023

  28. [36]

    Hlrtf: Hierarchical low- rank tensor factorization for inverse problems in multi-dimensional imaging,

    Y . Luo, X. Zhao, D. Meng, and T. Jiang, “Hlrtf: Hierarchical low- rank tensor factorization for inverse problems in multi-dimensional imaging,” in 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022, pp. 19 281–19 290

    2022

  29. [37]

    Convolutional recurrent neural networks for dynamic mr image reconstruction,

    C. Qin, J. Schlemper, J. Caballero, A. N. Price, J. V . Hajnal, and D. Rueckert, “Convolutional recurrent neural networks for dynamic mr image reconstruction,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 280–290, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Deep low-rank plus sparse network for dynamic mr imaging,

    W. Huang, Z. Ke, Z.-X. Cui, J. Cheng, Z. Qiu, S. Jia, L. Ying, Y . Zhu, and D. Liang, “Deep low-rank plus sparse network for dynamic mr imaging,” Medical Image Analysis , vol. 73, p. 102190, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Golden-angle radial sparse parallel MRI: combination of compressed sensing, parallel imaging, and golden- angle radial sampling for fast and flexible dynamic volumetric MRI,

    L. Feng, R. Grimm, K. T. Block, H. Chandarana, S. Kim, J. Xu, L. Axel, D. K. Sodickson, and R. Otazo, “Golden-angle radial sparse parallel MRI: combination of compressed sensing, parallel imaging, and golden- angle radial sampling for fast and flexible dynamic volumetric MRI,”...

    2014

  32. [40]

    Neural implicit k-space for binning-free non-cartesian cardiac mr imaging,

    W. Huang, H. B. Li, J. Pan, G. Cruz, D. Rueckert, and K. Hammernik, “Neural implicit k-space for binning-free non-cartesian cardiac mr imaging,” in International Conference on Information Processing in Medical Imaging, 2023, p. 548–560

    2023

  33. [41]

    Implicit neural networks with fourier-feature inputs for free-breathing cardiac MRI reconstruction,

    J. F. Kunz, S. Ruschke, and R. Heckel, “Implicit neural networks with fourier-feature inputs for free-breathing cardiac MRI reconstruction,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging , vol. 10, pp. 1280–1289, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Hyperspectral image denoising using spatio-spectral total variation,

    H. K. Aggarwal and A. Majumdar, “Hyperspectral image denoising using spatio-spectral total variation,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 442–446, 2016

    2016

  35. [43]

    Plug-and-play ADMM for image restoration: Fixed-point convergence and applications,

    S. H. Chan, X. Wang, and O. A. Elgendy, “Plug-and-play ADMM for image restoration: Fixed-point convergence and applications,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 84–98, 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    Self-supervised neural networks for spectral snapshot compressive imaging,

    Z. Meng, Z. Yu, K. Xu, and X. Yuan, “Self-supervised neural networks for spectral snapshot compressive imaging,” in IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2021, pp. 2602–2611

    2021

  37. [45]

    Blind video temporal consistency via deep video prior,

    C. Lei, Y . Xing, and Q. Chen, “Blind video temporal consistency via deep video prior,” in International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    High- quality hyperspectral reconstruction using a spectral prior,

    I. Choi, D. S. Jeon, G. Nam, D. Gutierrez, and M. H. Kim, “High- quality hyperspectral reconstruction using a spectral prior,” ACM Trans. Graph., vol. 36, no. 6, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Mask-guided spectral-wise transformer for efficient hyper- spectral image reconstruction,

    Y . Cai, J. Lin, X. Hu, H. Wang, X. Yuan, Y . Zhang, R. Timofte, and L. Van Gool, “Mask-guided spectral-wise transformer for efficient hyper- spectral image reconstruction,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2022, pp. 17 481–17 490

    2022

  40. [48]

    lambda-net: Reconstruct hyperspectral images from a snapshot measurement,

    X. Miao, X. Yuan, Y . Pu, and V . Athitsos, “lambda-net: Reconstruct hyperspectral images from a snapshot measurement,” in 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2019, pp. 4058– 4068

    2019

  41. [49]

    Hdnet: High-resolution dual-domain learning for spectral compressive imaging,

    X. Hu, Y . Cai, J. Lin, H. Wang, X. Yuan, Y . Zhang, R. Timofte, and L. Van Gool, “Hdnet: High-resolution dual-domain learning for spectral compressive imaging,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2022, pp. 17 521–17 530

    2022

  42. [50]

    End-to-end low cost compressive spectral imaging with spatial-spectral self-attention,

    Z. Meng, J. Ma, and X. Yuan, “End-to-end low cost compressive spectral imaging with spatial-spectral self-attention,” in European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , 2020, pp. 187–204

    2020

  43. [51]

    Coarse-to-fine sparse transformer for hyperspectral image reconstruction,

    Y . Cai, J. Lin, X. Hu, H. Wang, X. Yuan, Y . Zhang, R. Timofte, and L. Van Gool, “Coarse-to-fine sparse transformer for hyperspectral image reconstruction,” in European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , 2022, p. 686–704

    2022

  44. [52]

    Mst++: Multi-stage spectral-wise transformer for efficient spectral reconstruction,

    Y . Cai, J. Lin, Z. Lin, H. Wang, Y . Zhang, H. Pfister, R. Timofte, and L. V . Gool, “Mst++: Multi-stage spectral-wise transformer for efficient spectral reconstruction,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) , 2022, pp. 744–754

    2022

  45. [53]

    Ocmr (v1. 0)–open-access multi-coil k-space dataset for cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging,

    C. Chen, Y . Liu, P. Schniter, M. Tong, K. Zareba, O. Simonetti, L. Potter, and R. Ahmad, “Ocmr (v1. 0)–open-access multi-coil k-space dataset for cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.03410, 2020

    2008 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Espirit—an eigenvalue approach to autocalibrating parallel MRI: Where sense meets grappa,

    M. Uecker, P. Lai, M. J. Murphy, P. Virtue, M. Elad, J. M. Pauly, S. S. Vasanawala, and M. Lustig, “Espirit—an eigenvalue approach to autocalibrating parallel MRI: Where sense meets grappa,” Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 990–1001, 2014

    2014

Pith tools

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