Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Generalizable Deep Learning Approach for 3D Particle Imaging using Holographic Microscopy

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One hologram model reads particles it never trained on.

desk verdict A genuinely new two-branch architecture with solid synthetic results, but the real-world generalizability claim rests on three holograms and an overclaimed speed figure. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16439 v1 pith:E5ASHLJV submitted 2024-11-25 physics.optics

Shyam Kumar , Jiarong Hong This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords digitalinlineholographyparticledetection3Dimagingdeeplearninglongitudinaldiffractionvariationrecurrentconvolutionalnetworktransferholographicmicroscopy
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 key to generalizable particle analysis in holographic microscopy is not the lateral appearance of a particle but the way its diffraction pattern changes along the optical axis: fringes converge to the particle shape at the in-focus plane and spread out symmetrically on either side. To exploit this, the authors design a two-branch neural network that reads a stack of reconstructed planes and outputs, for each plane, a binary map of in-focus particles and their shapes. They report that a model trained on simple synthetic holograms and fine-tuned on only 30 real water-droplet holograms generalizes to holograms of dense water sprays, oil-in-water droplets, and irregular sugar particles, with extraction rates above 90% and false positive rates below 6% in the tested cases. If the claim holds, holographic particle diagnostics would gain a single small model, about seven times faster than a U-Net baseline on the same GPU, that can move from research labs to real-time monitoring without retraining per particle type.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the longitudinal variation network, a recurrent convolutional layer that treats the stack of reconstructed planes as a time sequence and propagates hidden states along the optical axis, thereby learning how fringes converge and diverge. A parallel lateral network of thirteen 3 by 3 convolutional layers with a recurrent input connection supplies morphology, and its output is reshaped and repeated before merging with the longitudinal branch. The merge uses MeanReLU, which averages along the longitudinal axis and separately activates positive and negative components to separate real features from noise, and MeanReducer, which collapses the longitudinal axis while preserving other dimensions. The training loss is a sum of plane-weighted mean square error that favors planes containing labels, binary cross-entropy for segmentation, and class-weighted mean square error that upweights the rare white pixels; a second output channel, the maximum projection, acts as a regularizer during training.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to take the fine-tuned model from Section 3.4 and run it, without additional training, on experimental holograms of strongly absorbing non-spherical particles such as metal flakes, with manual ground truth for a few hundred particles; if the extraction rate falls below about 90% or the false positive rate rises above 6%, the claimed generalization to optical properties and shapes beyond the training set is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the longitudinal variation of a particle's diffraction pattern is a reliable, generalizable signature that holds across particle shapes and optical properties. The model operationalizes this claim by combining a lateral convolutional branch for morphology with a recurrent convolutional branch that tracks the sequence of reconstructed planes; the merged features pass through MeanReLU and MeanReducer layers and are supervised by a combined loss of plane-weighted mean square error, binary cross-entropy, and class-weighted mean square error. The paper reports that this single architecture, trained on synthetic holograms and fine-tuned with a small real-droplet set, achieves extraction rates above 90%, false positive rates below 5%, and shape overlap (IoU) above 0.9 on the tested real holograms of dense sprays, oil-in-water, and sugar particles, while detecting particles up to four times larger than the training maximum and processing a 512 by 512 hologram in 4 to 6 seconds on an RTX 4090 GPU.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the way a diffraction pattern changes along the optical axis is essentially the same for all particle types, so a model that learns this from simple synthetic spheres and a handful of real droplets will recognize particles it has never seen.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single set of weights can replace the separate U-Net and U-Net plus VGG16 models previously needed for different spray conditions, since the same fine-tuned model handles high-concentration water sprays, oil-in-water droplets, and irregular sugar particles.
  • Processing a 512 by 512 hologram drops from 3 to 4 minutes with conventional methods and 30 to 40 seconds with U-Net variants to 4 to 6 seconds, and the 4.3 MB model is small enough to run on edge or resource-constrained devices.
  • Training-data requirements fall dramatically: synthetic holograms plus roughly 30 real holograms are enough, removing the need for large, diverse manually labeled datasets.
  • Because the model keys on longitudinal diffraction behavior rather than lateral appearance, it remains accurate at particle concentrations where fringes overlap and where individual particles are four times larger than any seen in training.
  • The same architecture should transfer to new particle types without per-case threshold tuning, since the plane-weighted loss was designed to avoid case-dependent thresholds for shape delineation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The invariance claim could be stress-tested by sweeping refractive index, absorption, and aspect ratio over many particles per condition with manual ground truth; if the longitudinal signature is truly universal, the same weights should hold without per-case tuning.
  • Extending the training targets from 2D masks to 3D masks would directly address the paper's stated failure on elongated structures such as diatom chains and spray ligaments, where different parts focus on different planes.
  • The speed and model-size figures suggest a camera-level deployment path in which the reconstruction stack is computed on device and every frame is classified in real time, turning holography into a live monitoring tool rather than an offline analysis task.
  • The same longitudinal-variation principle may apply to other coherent imaging systems where defocus carries information, such as lensless microscopy or quantitative phase imaging, not just in-line holography.
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 manuscript introduces a two-branch deep learning architecture for extracting three-dimensional particle positions and shapes from digital inline holograms. A lateral convolutional branch processes reconstructed xy planes, while a longitudinal recurrent branch with convolutional gating captures the evolution of diffraction patterns along the optical axis; the two branches are merged with custom MeanReLU/MeanReducer layers and trained with a combined MSE/BCE loss. Training uses synthetic holograms of tracer particles, polydisperse droplets, and irregular transparent/opaque particles; a model pre-trained on polydisperse droplets is additionally fine-tuned on 30 real low-concentration water-droplet holograms and then tested on three real holograms: a high-concentration water spray, oil-in-water droplets, and irregular sugar particles. The authors report extraction rates above 90%, false positive rates below 5% in most synthetic and real tests, and a processing time of 4-6 s per 512x512 hologram, and claim that the method generalizes across particle concentrations, shapes, and optical properties without retraining.

Significance. The proposed architecture is a plausible and interesting departure from purely lateral 2D CNN processing, and the synthetic validation is broad: concentration sweeps from 1e-3 to 1.5e-1 ppp, polydisperse size ranges, and 2000 holograms with varied shapes and optical properties. The model is also much smaller than prior U-Net baselines (4.3 MB vs 303-376 MB), which is a concrete practical advantage. If the real-hologram results are reproducible, the method could offer a genuine improvement in generalizability for holographic particle diagnostics. However, the evidence for cross-domain generalization is currently thin: three single real holograms, manual ground truth without error bars, no ablation of the fine-tuning step, and no head-to-head comparison with prior models on the same data. The central claim is therefore plausible but not yet established at the level claimed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.4, Figs. 6-7] The central generalization claim rests on only three real holograms, one per condition (high-concentration water spray, oil-in-water, irregular sugar), plus one additional high-noise spray hologram in Fig. 7; each is scored against manually generated ground truth with no error bars, no repeated measurements, and no inter-annotator assessment. The reported ER/FPR/IoU values (94%/1.3%, 92%/4.8%, IoU 0.94) could be frame-specific rather than representative. Additionally, the high-concentration water-spray case is the same particle type as the fine-tuning set, so it does not actually test cross-optical-property or cross-shape generalization. To support the broad claim in the abstract and Section 4, the authors should report statistics over multiple holograms per condition or explicitly restrict the claim to these preliminary demonstrations.
  2. [Section 3.4, fine-tuning protocol] The paper does not report a zero-shot baseline or an ablation of the fine-tuning step. Because the authors state that real and synthetic holograms differ in phase behavior, it is unclear how much of the real-hologram performance comes from the synthetic pre-training versus the 30 real holograms used for fine-tuning. Reporting performance without fine-tuning, with a smaller fine-tuning set, and with a different selection of fine-tuning images would directly test the claimed generalizability and the contribution of the fine-tuning stage.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract claims 'orders of magnitude improvement in processing speed,' but Section 4 reports a nearly seven times speedup over U-Net models (4-6 s vs 30-40 s). The speedup relative to conventional processing (3-4 min) is roughly 40x, which is arguably 'an order of magnitude,' but the claim as written is ambiguous. Please specify the comparator and the actual speedup range in the abstract.
  4. [Section 2, Fig. 1] The premise that longitudinal convergence/divergence of diffraction patterns is invariant to particle morphology and optical properties is stated qualitatively and illustrated with only a few examples. Since this invariance is the architectural motivation for the longitudinal branch, a quantitative demonstration across a range of refractive indices, sizes, and aspect ratios (e.g., simulated intensity profiles along z for several particle classes) would strengthen the paper. As written, the claim is plausible but not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The notation is ambiguous: N denotes both the total number of samples in the loss and the sequence length of reconstructed planes, and X_i/Y_i are vectors but written without a norm or argument. Please clarify the dimensions and the averaging.
  2. [Section 3.3] The sentence 'Qualitatively, based on the test of 2000 holograms, our approach achieves ER >95%...' should say 'Quantitatively'.
  3. [Fig. 3(d)] The vertical dashed lines for previous studies are not labeled; a legend or caption note is needed to identify the corresponding works.
  4. [Section 3.1] Mean lateral and longitudinal errors are reported without standard deviations or confidence intervals; adding error bars would help assess the claim that errors remain below 1 voxel across concentrations.
  5. [Table 1] The table would be more informative if it included quantitative KPI values or representative references for each row; currently it is a qualitative summary.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found: the central generalizability claim is an empirical ML result evaluated on held-out holograms, not a quantity forced by the training fit or by a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The model is a fit to synthetic and fine-tuned real holograms, but the reported metrics (ER, FPR, IoU) are computed on separate test holograms: 100 per concentration in Sec. 3.1, 250 in Sec. 3.2, 2000 in Sec. 3.3, and three distinct real holograms plus a hollow-cone nozzle case in Sec. 3.4. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted output to a training label or fitted parameter; the loss weights and network weights are optimized on training data, which is standard supervised learning, not a self-fulfilling prediction. The physics premise in Sec. 2—that longitudinal convergence/divergence of diffraction fringes is morphology- and material-independent—is an assumption illustrated by simulation, not a conclusion imported by definition. The self-citations (e.g., refs. 10, 26, 38, 39, 51) serve as data sources, prior baselines, and background; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the architecture. The abstract's 'orders of magnitude' speedup is inconsistent with the measured ~7x speedup in Sec. 4, but overstatement of a measured empirical result is not circularity. The real-hologram evidence is limited (one hologram per condition, manual ground truth), which weakens confidence in the generalization claim, but underdetermination is not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the empirical assumption that longitudinal diffraction variation is transferable across particle types, plus the reliability of synthetic data and manual ground truth. The loss weights are fitted hyperparameters, but they do not directly generate the claimed outcomes.

free parameters (2)
  • Plane weight delta_i = 5.0 when labels present, 1.0 otherwise
    Hand-set hyperparameter in the plane-weighted MSE loss (Eq. 2) to emphasize planes containing particles.
  • Class weight gamma_i,j = 2.0 for positive pixels, 1.0 for negative
    Set based on inverse class frequencies in the training dataset; a fitted parameter for segmentation loss.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Rayleigh-Sommerfeld diffraction equation
    Used to simulate holograms and to reconstruct the input stacks (Eq. 1). Standard physics.
  • domain assumption Longitudinal variation of diffraction patterns is invariant to particle morphology and optical properties
    The central premise of the architecture, illustrated in Fig. 1 but not proven; the model's generalizability relies on it.
  • domain assumption Synthetic holograms generated with 2D masks are sufficiently similar to real holograms after fine-tuning
    The paper acknowledges phase differences due to particle depth are not captured by 2D masks, and relies on fine-tuning with real data to bridge the gap.
  • domain assumption Manual labeling of real holograms provides accurate ground truth
    Used for evaluating real hologram performance (e.g., 200 planes manually analyzed for the TXA8003 case), which can introduce subjective bias.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalizable Deep Learning Approach for 3D Particle Imaging using Holographic Microscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5ASHLJV

@misc{pith2026241116439,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalizable Deep Learning Approach for 3D Particle Imaging using Holographic Microscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5ASHLJV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16439}
}
read the original abstract

Despite its potential for label-free particle diagnostics, holographic microscopy is limited by specialized processing methods that struggle to generalize across diverse settings. We introduce a deep learning architecture leveraging human perception of longitudinal variation of diffracted patterns of particles, which enables highly generalizable analysis of 3D particle information with orders of magnitude improvement in processing speed. Trained with minimal synthetic and real holograms of simple particles, our method demonstrates exceptional performance on various challenging cases including those with high particle concentrations and noises and a wide range of particle sizes, complex shapes, and optical properties exceeding the diversity of the training datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16439 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fig.1. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fig.2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fig.3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fig.4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fig.5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fig.6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Experiment dataset using TXA8003 VK hollow-cone spray nozzle. (a) sample hologram (b) corresponding detection (c) zoomed in view of the region marked in red in (b). The black dots are the extracted true particles, red dots are false positive and green dots are the unpa…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantitative measurement of size and three-dimensional position of fast-moving bubbles in air-water mixture flows using digital holography,

    L. Tian, N. Loomis, J.A. Domínguez-Caballero, and G. Barbastathis, "Quantitative measurement of size and three-dimensional position of fast-moving bubbles in air-water mixture flows using digital holography," Applied optics 49, 1549-1554 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Applications of holography in fluid mechanics and particle dynamics,

    J. Katz and J. Sheng, "Applications of holography in fluid mechanics and particle dynamics," Annual review of fluid mechanics 42, 531-555 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Tutorial: Aerosol characterization with digital in-line holography,

    M.J. Berg, "Tutorial: Aerosol characterization with digital in-line holography," Journal of Aerosol Science 165, 106023 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Kim and M.K

    M.K. Kim and M.K. Kim, Digital holographic microscopy, (Springer, 2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Lensless imaging and sensing,

    A. Ozcan and E. McLeod, "Lensless imaging and sensing," Annual review of biomedical engineering 18, 77-102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Holographic characterization of protein aggregates,

    C. Wang, X. Zhong, D.B. Ruffner, A. Stutt, L.A. Philips, M.D. Ward, and D.G. Grier, "Holographic characterization of protein aggregates," Journal of pharmaceutical sciences 105, 1074-1085 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Non -destructive inspection and quantification of soldering defects in PCB using an autofocusing digital holographic camera,

    G. Dwivedi, L. Pensia, V. Lohchab, and R. Kumar, "Non -destructive inspection and quantification of soldering defects in PCB using an autofocusing digital holographic camera," IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Design of an in-line, digital holographic imaging system for airborne measurement of clouds,

    S.M. Spuler and J. Fugal, "Design of an in-line, digital holographic imaging system for airborne measurement of clouds," Applied optics 50, 1405-1412 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Imaging atmospheric aerosol particles from a UAV with digital holography,

    O. Kemppinen, J.C. Laning, R.D. Mersmann, G. Videen, and M.J. Berg, "Imaging atmospheric aerosol particles from a UAV with digital holography," Scientific reports 10, 16085 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Visualization and characterization of agricultural sprays using machine learning based digital inline holography,

    M.S. Kumar, C.J. Hogan, S.A. Fredericks, and J. Hong, "Visualization and characterization of agricultural sprays using machine learning based digital inline holography," Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 216, 108486 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Three-dimensional volumetric monitoring of settling particulate matters on a leaf using digital in-line holographic microscopy,

    T. Go, J. Kim and S.J. Lee, "Three-dimensional volumetric monitoring of settling particulate matters on a leaf using digital in-line holographic microscopy," Journal of Hazardous Materials 404, 124116 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Digital in-line holography with photons and electrons,

    H.J. Kreuzer, M.J. Jericho, I.A. Meinertzhagen, and W. Xu, "Digital in-line holography with photons and electrons," Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 13, 10729 (2001)

    2001

  5. [13]

    Optical conveyors: a class of active tractor beams,

    D.B. Ruffner and D.G. Grier, "Optical conveyors: a class of active tractor beams," Physical review letters 109, 163903 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Digital holographic microscopy reveals prey-induced changes in swimming behavior of predatory dinoflagellates,

    J. Sheng, E. Malkiel, J. Katz, J. Adolf, R. Belas, and A.R. Place , "Digital holographic microscopy reveals prey-induced changes in swimming behavior of predatory dinoflagellates," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 17512-17517 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    Review of digital holographic microscopy for three - dimensional profiling and tracking,

    X. Yu, J. Hong, C. Liu, and M.K. Kim , "Review of digital holographic microscopy for three - dimensional profiling and tracking," Optical engineering 53, 112306-112306 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Recent advances in holographic 3D particle tracking,

    P. Memmolo, L. Miccio, M. Paturzo, G.D. Caprio, G. Coppola, P.A. Netti, and P. Ferraro, "Recent advances in holographic 3D particle tracking," Advances in Optics and Photonics 7, 713-755 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    High fidelity digital inline holographic method for 3D flow measurements,

    M. Toloui and J. Hong, "High fidelity digital inline holographic method for 3D flow measurements," Optics Express 23, 27159-27173 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Digital in -line holography: influence of the shadow density on particle field extraction,

    M. Malek, D. Allano, S. Coëtmellec, and D. Lebrun, "Digital in -line holography: influence of the shadow density on particle field extraction," Optics Express 12, 2270-2279 (2004)

    2004

  11. [19]

    Refinement of particle detection by the hybrid method in digital in-line holography,

    J. Gao, D.R. Guildenbecher, L. Engvall, P.L. Reu, and J. Chen, "Refinement of particle detection by the hybrid method in digital in-line holography," Applied optics 53, G130-G138 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Accurate size measurement of needle -shaped particles using digital holography,

    T. Khanam, M. N. Rahman, A. Rajendran, V. Kariwala, and A.K. Asundi , "Accurate size measurement of needle -shaped particles using digital holography," Chemical engineering science 66, 2699-2706 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    Deep learning in holography and coherent imaging,

    Y. Rivenson, Y. Wu, and A. Ozcan, "Deep learning in holography and coherent imaging," Light: Science & Applications 8, 85 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Roadmap on digital holography,

    B. Javidi, A. Carnicer, A. Anand, G. Barbastathis, W. Chen, P. Ferraro, J.W. Goodman, R. Horisaki, K. Khare, M. Kujawinska, and R.A. Leitgeb, "Roadmap on digital holography," Optics Express 29, 35078-35118 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Deep learning for digital holography: a review,

    T. Zeng, Y. Zhu, and E. Y. Lam, "Deep learning for digital holography: a review," Optics express 29, no. 24, 40572-40593 (2021). 15

    2021

  16. [24]

    Recent advances and applications of digital holography in multiphase reactive/nonreactive flows: a review,

    J. Huang, W. Cai, Y. Wu and X. Wu, "Recent advances and applications of digital holography in multiphase reactive/nonreactive flows: a review," Measurement Science and Technology 33, 022001 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Machine learning enables precise holographic characterization of colloidal materials in real time,

    L. E. Altman, and D. G. Grier, "Machine learning enables precise holographic characterization of colloidal materials in real time," Soft Matter 19, 3002-3014 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Particle generation and dispersion from high-speed dental drilling,

    M.S. Kumar, R. He, L. Feng, P. Olin, H.P. Chew, P. Jardine, G.C. Anderson, and J. Hong, "Particle generation and dispersion from high-speed dental drilling," Clinical oral investigations, 27(9), 5439- 5448 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Adaptive in-focus particle detection and segmentation in holographic 3D image with mechanism - guided machine learning,

    H. Zhang, B. Wang, L. Zhang, Y. Zhao, Y. Wang, J. Feng, W. Xiao, G. Wang, Y. Wu, and X. Wu , "Adaptive in-focus particle detection and segmentation in holographic 3D image with mechanism - guided machine learning," Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 181, 108400 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Real-time 3D tracking of swimming microbes using digital holographic microscopy and deep learning,

    S. A. Matthews, C. Coelho, E. E. Rodriguez Salas, E. E. Brock, V. J. Hodge, J. A. Walker, and L. G. Wilson, "Real-time 3D tracking of swimming microbes using digital holographic microscopy and deep learning," Plos one, 19(4), e0301182 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Microplastic identification via holographic imaging and machine learning ,

    V. Bianco, P. Memmolo, P. Carcagnì, F. Merola, M. Paturzo, C. Distante, and P. Ferraro, "Microplastic identification via holographic imaging and machine learning ," Advanced Intelligent Systems, 2(2), 1900153 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    No-search focus prediction at the single cell level in digital holographic imaging with deep convolutional neural network,

    K. Jaferzadeh, S. H. Hwang, I. Moon, and B. Javidi, "No-search focus prediction at the single cell level in digital holographic imaging with deep convolutional neural network, " Biomedical optics express, 10(8), 4276-4289 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Focus prediction in digital holographic microscopy using deep convolutional neural networks,

    T. Pitkäaho, A. Manninen, and T. J. Naughton, "Focus prediction in digital holographic microscopy using deep convolutional neural networks," Applied optics, 58(5), A202-A208 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Deep learning-based accurate and rapid tracking of 3D positional information of microparticles using digital holographic microscopy,

    S. J. Lee, G. Y. Yoon, and T. Go, "Deep learning-based accurate and rapid tracking of 3D positional information of microparticles using digital holographic microscopy, " Experiments in fluids, 60, 1- 10 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Deep learning enables high-throughput analysis of particle -aggregation-based biosensors imaged using holography,

    Y. Wu, A. Ray, Q. Wei, A. Feizi, X. Tong, E. Chen, Y. Luo, and A. Ozcan, "Deep learning enables high-throughput analysis of particle -aggregation-based biosensors imaged using holography, " Acs Photonics, 6(2), 294-301(2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Holographic image reconstruction with phase recovery and autofocusing using recurrent neural networks,

    L. Huang, T. Liu, X. Yang, Y. Luo, Y. Rivenson, and A. Ozcan, "Holographic image reconstruction with phase recovery and autofocusing using recurrent neural networks," ACS Photonics, 8(6), 1763- 1774 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Learning-based nonparametric autofocusing for digital holography,

    Z. Ren, Z. Xu, and E. Y. Lam, "Learning-based nonparametric autofocusing for digital holography," Optica, 5(4), 337-344 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Holographic 3D particle reconstruction using a one -stage network,

    Y. Zhang, Y. Zhu, and E. Y . Lam , "Holographic 3D particle reconstruction using a one -stage network," Applied Optics 61, B111-B120 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Digital holographic particle volume reconstruction using a deep neural network,

    T. Shimobaba, T. Takahashi, Y. Yamamoto, Y. Endo, A. Shiraki, T. Nishitsuji, N. Hoshikawa, T. Kakue, and T. Ito, "Digital holographic particle volume reconstruction using a deep neural network," Applied optics, 58(8), 1900-1906 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Machine learning holography for measuring 3D particle distribution,

    S. Shao, K. Mallery, and J. Hong, "Machine learning holography for measuring 3D particle distribution," Chemical Engineering Science 225, 115830 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Machine learning holography for 3D particle field imaging,

    S. Shao, K. Mallery, S. S. Kumar, and J. Hong, "Machine learning holography for 3D particle field imaging," Optics Express 28, 2987-2999 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Holographic 3D particle imaging with model -based deep network,

    N. Chen, C. Wang, and W. Heidrich, "Holographic 3D particle imaging with model -based deep network," IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging 7, 288-296 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Digital in -line holography for biological applications,

    W. Xu, M. H. Jericho, I. A. Meinertzhagen, and H.J. Kreuzer, "Digital in -line holography for biological applications," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98, 11301-11305 (2001)

    2001

  34. [42]

    Recent advances in digital holography,

    W. Osten, A. Faridian, P. Gao, K. Körner, D. Naik, G. Pedrini, A.K. Singh, M. Takeda, and M. Wilke, "Recent advances in digital holography," Applied optics 53, G44-G63 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Trends in process analytical technology,

    W. Chew, and P. Sharratt, "Trends in process analytical technology," Analytical Methods 2, 1412- 1438 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    Atmospheric aerosol diagnostics with UAV -based holographic imaging and computer vision,

    N. R. Bristow, N. Pardoe, and J. Hong, "Atmospheric aerosol diagnostics with UAV -based holographic imaging and computer vision," IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Fourcastnet: A global data-driven high-resolution weather model using adaptive fourier neural operators,

    J. Pathak, S. Subramanian, P. Harrington, S. Raja, A. Chattopadhyay, M. Mardani, T. Kurth, D. Hall, Z. Li, K. Azizzadenesheli, and P. Hassanzadeh , "Fourcastnet: A global data-driven high-resolution weather model using adaptive fourier neural operators," arXiv preprint arXiv:2...

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Binary cross entropy with deep learning technique for image classification,

    U. Ruby, and V. Yendapalli , "Binary cross entropy with deep learning technique for image classification," Int. J. Adv. Trends Comput. Sci. Eng 9, (2020). 16

    2020

  39. [47]

    Digital holographic microscope for measuring three-dimensional particle distributions and motions,

    J. Sheng, E. Malkiel, and J. Katz, "Digital holographic microscope for measuring three-dimensional particle distributions and motions," Applied optics 45, 3893-3901 (2006)

    2006

  40. [48]

    Digital holographic particle image velocimetry: eliminating a sign-ambiguity error and a bias error from the measured particle field displacement,

    T. Ooms, W. Koek, and J. Westerweel, "Digital holographic particle image velocimetry: eliminating a sign-ambiguity error and a bias error from the measured particle field displacement," Measurement Science and Technology 19, 074003 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    Lagrangian particle tracking in three dimensions via single -camera in -line digital holography,

    J. Lu, J.P. Fugal, H. Nordsiek, E.W. Saw, R.A. Shaw, and W. Yang, "Lagrangian particle tracking in three dimensions via single -camera in -line digital holography," New Journal of Physics 10, 125013 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    ANSI/ASAE S572.3

    ASABE 2020 Spray Nozzle Classification by Droplet Spectra. ANSI/ASAE S572.3

    2020

  43. [51]

    Characterization of biophysical interactions in the water column using in situ digital holography,

    S. Talapatra, J. Hong, M. McFarland, A.R. Nayak, C. Zhang, J. Katz, J. Sullivan, M. Twardowski, J. Rines, and P. Donaghay, "Characterization of biophysical interactions in the water column using in situ digital holography," Marine Ecology Progress Series, 473, 29-51 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.