Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

An Unsupervised Learning Method for Radio Interferometry Deconvolution

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The central claim is that a convolutional network can serve as the sparsifying dictionary inside the split Bregman solver, making unsupervised radio-interferometric deconvolution of faint extended sources possible without labeled training…

desk verdict Genuinely new unsupervised deep-dictionary deconvolution architecture, but the headline DR gains rest on residual metrics, not ground-truth error, and the CS justification is asserted rather than verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04887 v1 pith:5WUODIGS submitted 2025-05-08 astro-ph.IM

Lei Yu , Bin Liu , Cheng-Jin Jin , Ru-Rong Chen , Hong-Wei Xi , Bo Peng This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords RadiointerferometryDeconvolutionCompressivesensingSparserepresentationSplitBregmanDictionarylearningUnsuperviseddeepAstronomyimageprocessing
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

Radio interferometers sample only part of the spatial-frequency plane, so deconvolution is ill-posed; this paper argues that for such telescopes the whole compressive-sensing apparatus reduces to one practical requirement: the sky brightness must have a sparse representation. The authors then build DSB-net, a fully interpretable unsupervised network that learns a multi-resolution, overcomplete dictionary from the visibility data itself and alternates dictionary updates with image updates inside a split Bregman $\ell_1$-plus-TV solver. On simulated VLA observations of an M31 H II region and the radio galaxy 3C 288, DSB-net reports RMS error about 1% of multiscale CLEAN and dynamic range 45 to 100 times higher. If the simplification holds, this would make high-quality imaging of faint extended sources possible without labeled training sets.

What carries the argument

The central object is the deep dictionary $\Psi$, a cascaded multi-resolution convolutional network. Each level projects the signal through $K_d = 25$ orthogonal $5\times 5$ filters, applies ReLU as an adaptive soft-threshold, and downsamples before the next level; the synthesis stack inverts these operations from low to high resolution, making the dictionary overcomplete and data-adaptive. Its role is to make the sky brightness truly sparse in a basis learned from the same $(u,v)$ data, which is the precondition the paper claims for applying compressive sensing. The dictionary is embedded in a split Bregman iteration for $\min_I (\|\nabla_x I\|_1 + \|\nabla_y I\|_1 + \|\Psi I\|_1 + \tfrac{\mu}{2}\|M F I - V_m\|_2^2)$, with losses that enforce data fidelity, symmetry $\Psi^T(\Psi(V_m)) = V_m$, and spectral-norm orthogonality of the filters.

What would settle it

Measure the mutual coherence $\mu(\Phi,\Psi)$ in equation (22) between the VLA sampling matrix and a DSB-net dictionary learned from a given field; if $\mu$ is near its maximum or if replacing the learned filters with random fixed filters of the same size barely changes the recovered dynamic range on the same visibilities, then the sparse-representation guarantee is not carrying the reported performance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the paper's center is the claim that a convolutional network can supply the sparsifying transform for compressive-sensing radio deconvolution while remaining inside the classical optimization loop rather than replacing it. The analysis path of the deep dictionary applies orthogonal filters per level followed by ReLU (read as the shrinkage operator) to produce multi-resolution sparse coefficients; the synthesis path reconstructs the image from coarse to fine. Inserted into split Bregman, the network's parameters and the reconstructed image are updated alternately until the $\ell_1$ and total-variation objective converges. In the reported simulations this yields DR = 2173 versus 48 for MS-CLEAN on M31 and DR = 32606 versus 331 on 3C 288, with the point-source experiment showing only a mild gain, indicating the method's strength is extended emission.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's load-bearing premise is that for radio interferometry the conditions of compressive sensing reduce to sparse representation — that the VLA u-v sampling and the learned dictionary are incoherent enough for $\ell_1$ recovery to be stable; if that incoherence does not hold, the reported gains could come from per-image fitting rather than from the CS guarantee.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Extended, low-surface-brightness sources that sit below the noise level become recoverable without a labeled training set, since the dictionary adapts to the data at hand.
  • The same numerical machinery (split Bregman with $\ell_1$, TV, and a learned dictionary) transfers to other interferometers and to any linear inverse problem where a sparse prior is plausible.
  • Because every network operation maps to a step of split Bregman, the reconstruction is auditable: one can check whether a given feature traces to the data-fidelity term, the TV term, or the dictionary.
  • The point-source experiment shows the method's advantage is specific to extended structure: on point-like fields DSB-net's RMS is only about a third of MS-CLEAN's, so the practical use case is diffuse emission, not compact calibration sources.
  • The reported run times mean a single $1024\times 1024$ DSB-net reconstruction takes roughly 4700 seconds on a modern GPU versus about 290 seconds for MS-CLEAN on CPU, so the gain in fidelity is bought with compute.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the sparsity-only simplification is accepted, then the real test of DSB-net is not image quality on one field but whether the learned dictionary stays incoherent with the u-v sampling operator across array configurations; a coherence audit would turn the empirical gain into a guarantee.
  • The same design pattern — an overcomplete, data-adaptive dictionary inside an ADMM-style solver — could be applied to other ill-posed astronomical inversions where ground truth is unavailable, such as total-power short-spacing recovery, polarimetric imaging, or deconvolution of optical survey PSFs.
  • Because the dictionary is learned per observation rather than pre-trained on a corpus, the method is naturally robust to source types not seen before; a wider test on real LOFAR or MeerKAT data would show whether that adaptation transfers beyond VLA simulations.
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 paper proposes DSB-net, an unsupervised deconvolution method for radio interferometric imaging that integrates a learned 'deep dictionary' (implemented as a multi-resolution convolutional neural network) into a compressive-sensing split Bregman optimization framework. The authors argue that for radio interferometers the CS recovery conditions reduce to sparse representation, and they train the dictionary in an unsupervised, data-adaptive manner while alternating between image reconstruction and dictionary/parameter updates. The method is tested on simulated VLA observations of M31, 3C 288, and a point-source model, comparing against MS-CLEAN, IUWT-based CS, MORESANE, and a fixed-DWT version of the proposed algorithm. The headline results are RMS errors about 1% of MS-CLEAN's and dynamic ranges 45–100 times higher, with code made publicly available.

Significance. If the central numerical claims are established, the paper would present a substantial advance: an unsupervised, interpretable deep-learning deconvolution method that outperforms CLEAN-based and fixed-dictionary CS methods on extended, complex morphology sources, without requiring labeled training data. The method is clearly specified, the split Bregman formulation is a sound basis for integration with learned dictionaries, and the release of code is valuable. The qualitative error images suggest genuinely good reconstructions. However, the headline quantitative claim currently rests on residual-based metrics that may be inflated by in-sample fitting, and the theoretical CS justification is not verified for the learned dictionary or the specific array configurations used. These issues do not invalidate the method but require additional evidence before the performance claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (12)–(13), Tables 1 and 3] The central numerical claim relies on metrics that measure data-fitting residuals, not accuracy against the known ground-truth sky. Eq. (12) defines 'rms error' as the RMS of the residual image, and Eq. (13) defines dynamic range as max(restored image) divided by that residual RMS. Because the deep dictionary and the Bregman parameters are learned on the same visibility data (Algorithm 2, Section 3.3), a sufficiently flexible model can drive residuals below the thermal noise floor and inflate DR even when the restored image contains artifacts. The only quantitative accuracy-vs-truth evidence is the qualitative model-absolute-error images in Figs. 4, 8, and 12; no numerical error-to-truth metric (e.g., normalized RMS of the model error, PSNR, or SSIM) is reported for any method. The authors should report such metrics for all methods, ideally also on a held-out sky model or a different noise realization, to support the headline 'RMS error about 1% of MS-CLEAN' and the 45–100x DR advantage. The overfitting test in Section 5 (reducing the number of base vectors to 6) is not conclusive because it still evaluates in-sample residuals on the same data.
  2. [Section 2.1] The claim that CS applicability for radio interferometry reduces to sparse representation alone is asserted from citations (Candes & Plan 2011; Wright & Ma 2022) and from generic Fourier incoherence arguments, but it is not verified for the actual problem setting. The measurement matrix in the experiments is a specific VLA uv-coverage (B or C configuration, with robust weighting), and the sparsifying dictionary is a learned, data-dependent CNN basis, not a fixed wavelet or Fourier basis. The coherence μ(Φ,Ψ) defined in Eq. (22) could be computed numerically for the learned dictionary and the actual sampling matrix; without such a check, the theoretical guarantee motivating Eq. (2) is not established. Please add an empirical coherence or RIP assessment, or explicitly frame the method as heuristic and temper the CS-theory justification accordingly.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (9)] The symmetry loss L_symmetry = ||Ψ^T(Ψ(V_m)) – V_m||^2 applies the image-domain deep dictionary Ψ to the visibility data V_m, but the dictionary is intended to provide a sparse representation of the sky brightness image I in Eq. (4). It is not obvious why imposing symmetry on visibilities should produce a good sparsifying basis for images; the dictionary is never directly trained to reconstruct or sparsify I. The authors should either justify this design choice (e.g., by noting that V_m gridded on the same pixel grid approximates a linear transformation of I) or add a sparsity/symmetry term defined on the image domain.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The table title contains a typo: 'MS-CEALN' should be 'MS-CLEAN'.
  2. [Table 2 and Section 4] The runtime comparison is not apples-to-apples: DSB-net runs on an RTX 4090 GPU while MS-CLEAN runs on a CPU. This should be stated prominently or the comparison should be made on the same hardware.
  3. [References, Introduction] The reference 'Högbom & Cornwell (1974)' is incorrect: Högbom's 1974 paper has a single author; Cornwell is associated with later CLEAN variants such as multi-scale CLEAN. Please correct the citation and the reference list entry.
  4. [Eq. (5)] In Eq. (5), 'such to' should be 'subject to'. Also, the ReLU notation in Eqs. (35)–(37) with two arguments is unconventional; ReLU(x) = max(x, 0) should be used consistently.
  5. [Section 5 and Abstract] The word 'fully interpretable' is stronger than what is demonstrated: the learned filters are not analyzed or visualized, and the dictionary update is a black-box optimizer. Consider softening this claim.
Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the CS framework, which requires sparsity, incoherence, and RIP; the paper simplifies these to sparsity based on cited heuristics. The deep dictionary is learned from the same data, so the sparsity basis is not independent of the target. Many hyperparameters are set by hand. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Initial Bregman weights mu0, lambda0, gamma0 = 40, 100, 1/(3 N_sigma) for DSB; 40, 1/(3 N_sigma), 1/N_sigma for fixed DWT
    Hand-set in Section 3.3; they control the balance between data fidelity and l1/TV regularization.
  • Constraint weights alpha1, alpha2 = 0.001 and 0.01
    Hand-chosen in Section 3.3 for symmetry and orthogonality losses; the paper states alpha1 is small because perfect reconstruction is not required.
  • Decomposition level of deep dictionary = 5
    Sets dictionary depth; chosen to match the IUWT-based CS method in experiments.
  • Filter size and number of filters per level = 5x5 and 25 per level
    Filter size tied to synthesized beam; number of filters equals K_d^2 = 25 to construct orthogonal bases per layer.
  • Learning rate and optimizer = Adam, 0.001 for DSB; 0.1 for fixed dictionary
    Section 3.3; chosen by the authors for convergence.
  • Convergence thresholds = L_total = 0.7, L_fidelity = 1e-5, epsilon_d
    Stopping criteria set in Section 3.3 and Algorithm 1; they affect how much noise is fitted.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Compressed sensing conditions (sparsity, incoherence, RIP) guarantee stable recovery of sparse signals.
    Recalled in Appendix C; the paper relies on this to justify the l1 model.
  • domain assumption For radio interferometric telescopes, CS applicability reduces to sparse representation; incoherence and RIP are assumed to hold for UV coverage.
    Asserted in Section 2.1 with citations to Candes & Plan (2011) and Wright & Ma (2022); not verified for VLA coverage or the learned dictionary.
  • domain assumption The sky brightness can be sparsely represented in the learned deep dictionary.
    Central to the CS model in Eqs (2)-(4); the dictionary is learned on the same data being reconstructed.
  • domain assumption Measurement noise is white Gaussian and calibration is perfect.
    Used in the data model V_m = M(V+epsilon) in Eq (17) and in the fidelity term.
  • ad hoc to paper The deep dictionary is a tight frame, Psi^T Psi approximately I, and filters are orthogonal per layer.
    Enforced only through soft losses L_symmetry and L_orthogonality (Eqs 9-10); no exact constraint, so the split Bregman update assumes Psi^T Psi = I (Appendix D).
  • standard math Split Bregman iteration converges for the alternating image and dictionary updates.
    The method follows Goldstein & Osher (2009) for fixed dictionaries, but convergence for the alternating update with a learned dictionary is not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Unsupervised Learning Method for Radio Interferometry Deconvolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5WUODIGS

@misc{pith2026250504887,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Unsupervised Learning Method for Radio Interferometry Deconvolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5WUODIGS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04887}
}
read the original abstract

Given the incomplete sampling of spatial frequencies by radio interferometers, achieving precise restoration of astrophysical information remains challenging. To address this ill-posed problem, compressive sensing(CS) provides a robust framework for stable and unique recovery of sky brightness distributions in noisy environments, contingent upon satisfying specific conditions. We explore the applicability of CS theory and find that for radio interferometric telescopes, the conditions can be simplified to sparse representation. {{Building on this insight, we develop a deep dictionary (realized through a convolutional neural network), which is designed to be multi-resolution and overcomplete, to achieve sparse representation and integrate it within the CS framework. The resulting method is a novel, fully interpretable unsupervised learning approach that combines}} the mathematical rigor of CS with the expressive power of deep neural networks, effectively bridging the gap between deep learning and classical dictionary methods. {{During the deconvolution process, the model image and the deep dictionary are updated alternatively.}} This approach enables efficient and accurate recovery of extended sources with complex morphologies from noisy measurements. Comparative analyses with state-of-the-art algorithms demonstrate the outstanding performance of our method, i.e., achieving a dynamic range (DR) nearly 45 to 100 times higher than that of multiscale CLEAN (MS-CLEAN).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04887 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The structure of the deep dictionary analysis step. This example features four decomposition levels, with an input signal dimension of 512x512 and orthogonal filters sized at 5x5. At each level, the signal is projected into a vector space through a convolution operation consisting of 25 bases. The output from the convolution, followed by the ReLU operator, represents the coefficients for that level. These coefficien… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The structure of the deep dictionary synthesis step. In each layer of the synthesis dictionary, the sparse coefficients are first up-sampled through a transposed convolution operator (with stride 2) and then convolved with orthogonal filters. This output is then added to the sparse coefficients produced from the analysis step at the same resolution. The size and number of filters in each layer are identical to those… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The simulated observation of an HII region in M31. Left: the sky model, where the brightness ranges from 1 × 10−9 to 1.006 Jy/pixel. Middle: the dirty beam displayed with logarithmic scaling. Right: the observed dirty map. All images demonstrated the central regions. 4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS In this section, we simulate observations from the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) telescope using CASA2 (Common Astronom… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reconstructed images of the simulated M31 observation with VLA. from top to bottom in rows are the results of the MS-CLEAN, the IUWT-based CS, the MORESANE method, the proposed method employing the DWT dictionary, and the proposed DSB-net, respectively. From left to ri…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: From left to right: The recovery results of the M31 sky model using the MS-CLEAN, IUWT-based CS, MORESANE, and the proposed method, respectively. The models are plotted along the y-axis and the true sky image is plotted along the x-axis(the blue dots). The red dots rep…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A sky model and its reconstruction from significant IUWT coefficients. (a): A noisy sky model, generated by adding Gaussian noise (with 𝜇 = 0, 𝜎 = 0.01) to the normalized sky model (sky model/max(sky model)). (b): The IUWT coefficients of the noisy sky model, sorted in…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: the 3C 288 radio galaxy model padding with zeros. Middle: the 8 h observation dirty beam displayed with logarithmic scaling. Right: the observed dirty map. All images demonstrated the central regions. method. We set the decomposition level to 5, the thresh￾old to…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The recovery images from the simulated 3C 288 radio galaxy observations with VLA. From top to bottom: in rows are the results of the MS-CLEAN, the IUWT-based CS, the MORESANE method, the proposed Algorithm 1, and the DSB-net, respectively. From left to right, (a) the m…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The plots of the reconstructed models(y-axis) versus the true sky image model(x-axis). From left to right: the recovery results through the MS-CLEAN, IUWT-based CS, MORESANE, the proposed Algorithm 1, and the DSB-net, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p01…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: the IUWT-based CS error image. Right: the DWT￾based CS error image. The error is the absolute difference between the reference model image and the reconstructed model image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: the sky model padding with zeros. Middle: the 8 h observation dirty beam displayed with logarithmic scaling. Right: the observed dirty map. All images demonstrated the central regions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The recovery images from the simulated point sources model. From top to bottom: in rows are the results of the MS-CLEAN, the proposed Algorithm 1 and the DSB-net, respectively. From left to right, (a) the model images, (b) model absolute error images (the absolute dif…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    z Q . ,p C. ror lN, @

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    2017, The Astronomical Journal, 153, 159, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6302

    Akiyama, K., Ikeda, S., Pleau, M., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 153, 159, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6302

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa6302 2017

  5. [5]

    2010, Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 3, 1, 10.1561/2200000016

    Boyd, S. 2010, Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 3, 1, 10.1561/2200000016

    doi:10.1561/2200000016 2010

  6. [6]

    Cai, X., Pereyra, M., & McEwen, J. D. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 4170, 10.1093/mnras/sty2015

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2015 2018

  7. [7]

    2008, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 25, 21, 10.1109/MSP.2007.914731

    Candes, E., & Wakin, M. 2008, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 25, 21, 10.1109/MSP.2007.914731

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    J., & Plan, Y

    Candes, E. J., & Plan, Y. 2011, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 57, 7235, 10.1109/TIT.2011.2161794

    work page arXiv 2011

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    J., Romberg, J

    Candès, E. J., Romberg, J. K., & Tao, T. 2006, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 59, 1207, 10.1002/cpa.20124

    2006 doi

  2. [10]

    E., McEwen, J

    Carrillo, R. E., McEwen, J. D., & Wiaux, Y. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 426, 1223, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21605.x

    2012

  3. [11]

    N., Girard, J

    Chiche, B. N., Girard, J. N., Frontera-Pons, J., Woiselle, A., & Starck, J.-L. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 675, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245013

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2019, in Inverse Acoustic and Electromagnetic Scattering Theory , Vol

    Colton, D., & Kress, R. 2019, in Inverse Acoustic and Electromagnetic Scattering Theory , Vol. 93 (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 111--136, 10.1007/978-3-030-30351-8_4

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Cornwell, T. J. 2008, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 2, 793, 10.1109/JSTSP.2008.2006388

    2008

  6. [14]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 576, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424602

    Dabbech, A., Ferrari, C., Mary, D., et al. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 576, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424602

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    2006 a , IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 52, 1289, 10.1109/TIT.2006.871582

    Donoho, D. 2006 a , IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 52, 1289, 10.1109/TIT.2006.871582

    2006

  8. [16]

    Donoho, D. L. 2006 b , Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 59, 907, 10.1002/cpa.20131

    2006 doi

  9. [17]

    2010, Sparse and redundant representations: from theory to applications in signal and image processing (New York: Springer)

    Elad, M. 2010, Sparse and redundant representations: from theory to applications in signal and image processing (New York: Springer)

    2010

  10. [18]

    2013, A Mathematical Introduction to Compressive Sensing , Applied and Numerical Harmonic Analysis (New York, NY: Springer New York), 10.1007/978-0-8176-4948-7

    Foucart, S., & Rauhut, H. 2013, A Mathematical Introduction to Compressive Sensing , Applied and Numerical Harmonic Analysis (New York, NY: Springer New York), 10.1007/978-0-8176-4948-7

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    N., Starck, J

    Garsden, H., Girard, J. N., Starck, J. L., et al. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 575, A90, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424504

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    2012, Image Processing On Line, 2, 158, 10.5201/ipol.2012.g-tvdc

    Getreuer, P. 2012, Image Processing On Line, 2, 158, 10.5201/ipol.2012.g-tvdc

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 677, A167, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347073

    Geyer, F., Schmidt, K., Kummer, J., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 677, A167, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347073

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    2009, SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 2, 323, 10.1137/080725891

    Goldstein, T., & Osher, S. 2009, SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 2, 323, 10.1137/080725891

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    2020, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34, 10933, 10.1609/aaai.v34i07.6726

    Han, X., Wu, B., Shou, Z., et al. 2020, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34, 10933, 10.1609/aaai.v34i07.6726

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. H. 2009, The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction, 2nd edn., Springer series in statistics (New York, NY: Springer)

    2009

  17. [25]

    A., & Cornwell, T

    H \"o gbom, J. A., & Cornwell, T. J. 1974, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 500, 55. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:116934453

    1974

  18. [26]

    2022, IEEE Access, 10, 69741, 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3185621

    Kim, T., & Yun, S.-Y. 2022, IEEE Access, 10, 69741, 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3185621

    2022

  19. [27]

    2015, Nature, 521, 436, 10.1038/nature14539

    LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. 2015, Nature, 521, 436, 10.1038/nature14539

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    J., & De Hoog, F

    Li, F., Cornwell, T. J., & De Hoog, F. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 528, A31, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015045

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    I., Mars, M., Price, M

    Liaudat, T. I., Mars, M., Price, M. A., et al. 2024, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 3, 505, 10.1093/rasti/rzae030

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Mallat, S. G. 2009, A wavelet tour of signal processing: the sparse way, 3rd edn. (Amsterdam ; Boston: Elsevier/Academic Press)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Müller, H., & Lobanov, A. P. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 666, A137, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243244

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    N., et al

    Nammour, F., Akhaury, U., Girard, J. N., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 663, A69, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142626

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    2017, The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18, 2887

    Papyan, V., Romano, Y., & Elad, M. 2017, The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18, 2887

    2017

  26. [34]

    M., & Elad, M

    Rubinstein, R., Bruckstein, A. M., & Elad, M. 2010, Proceedings of the IEEE, 98, 1045, 10.1109/JPROC.2010.2040551

    2010

  27. [35]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 664, A134, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142113

    Schmidt, K., Geyer, F., Fröse, S., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 664, A134, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142113

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    2021, Compressive Sensing , Colóquios Brasileiros de Matemática (Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Associação Instituto Nacional de Matemática Pura e Aplicada)

    Schulz, A. 2021, Compressive Sensing , Colóquios Brasileiros de Matemática (Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Associação Instituto Nacional de Matemática Pura e Aplicada)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Schwab, F. R. 1984, The Astronomical Journal, 89, 1076, 10.1086/113605

    1984 doi

  30. [38]

    Starck, J.-L., Murtagh, F., & Fadili, J. M. 2010, Sparse image and signal processing: wavelets, curvelets, morphological diversity (Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Taylor, G., Carilli, C., Perley, R., & (U.S.), N. R. A. O. 1999, Synthesis imaging in radio astronomy II : a collection of lectures from the Sixth NRAO / NMIMT Synthesis Imaging Summer School held at Socorro , New Mexico , USA , 17-23 June , 1998, Astronomical Society of the P...

    1999

  32. [40]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 604, 10.1093/mnras/stac2672

    Terris, M., Dabbech, A., Tang, C., & Wiaux, Y. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 604, 10.1093/mnras/stac2672

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    R., Moran, J

    Thompson, A. R., Moran, J. M., & Swenson, G. W. 2017, Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy , Astronomy and Astrophysics Library (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 10.1007/978-3-319-44431-4

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    2020, An introduction to compressed sensing (Philadelphia: SIAM, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics)

    Vidyasagar, M. 2020, An introduction to compressed sensing (Philadelphia: SIAM, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics)

    2020

  35. [43]

    2022, High- Dimensional Data Analysis with Low - Dimensional Models : Principles , Computation , and Applications , 1st edn

    Wright, J., & Ma, Y. 2022, High- Dimensional Data Analysis with Low - Dimensional Models : Principles , Computation , and Applications , 1st edn. (Cambridge University Press), 10.1017/9781108779302

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    2021, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 40, 1329, 10.1109/TMI.2021.3054167

    Xiang, J., Dong, Y., & Yang, Y. 2021, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 40, 1329, 10.1109/TMI.2021.3054167

    2021

  37. [45]

    2017, arXiv, 10.48550/ARXIV.1705.10941

    Yoshida, Y., & Miyato, T. 2017, arXiv, 10.48550/ARXIV.1705.10941

    2017 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    2018, in 2018 IEEE / CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (Salt Lake City, UT: IEEE), 1828--1837, 10.1109/CVPR.2018.00196

    Zhang, J., & Ghanem, B. 2018, in 2018 IEEE / CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (Salt Lake City, UT: IEEE), 1828--1837, 10.1109/CVPR.2018.00196

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.