Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 155 references

Learned iterative networks: An operator learning perspective

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that learned iterative reconstruction networks are all special cases of one abstract operator, so the loss, not the architecture, determines what they compute.

desk verdict A clean operator-learning survey of unrolled networks whose practical claim about nonlinear update directions rests on an imported comparison that does not appear in this manuscript. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.08444 v2 pith:5UK5LCU4 submitted 2025-12-09 eess.IV cs.LGcs.NAmath.FAmath.NAmath.OC

Andreas Hauptmann , Ozan Öktem This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.LGcs.NAmath.FAmath.NAmath.OC MSC 65J2268T07
keywords learnediterativenetworksoperatorlearningalgorithmunrollinginverseproblemsreconstructionvariationalprimal-dualgradient
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 chapter is a survey, but it makes a concrete scientific claim: the many learned iterative reconstruction networks in the literature are not genuinely different algorithms. If you write down the learned reconstruction operator—the recursive map obtained by truncating an iterative scheme and replacing handcrafted updates with neural networks—then learned gradient, learned proximal, variational, and learned primal-dual networks are all special cases that differ only in how the neural updating operator is parametrized. The authors split this into two independent questions: the reconstruction operator says how to compute, and the learning problem (loss plus training data) says what to compute. The practical payoff of the framework is twofold: it explains why unrolling more iterations does not mean converging to the true minimizer, and its numerical experiments indicate that for nonlinear inverse problems the choice of handcrafted update direction matters more than the network architecture.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the abstract unrolled recursion Rθ(g)=f_N with f_k=Λ^k_{θ_k}(g,f_0,…,f_{k−1}), in which each handcrafted update of an iterative scheme is replaced by a neural operator Λ^k_{θ_k}. The paper treats this operator formulation as independent of both discretization and learning problem. The workhorse inside the recursion is the neural updating operator, typically an image-to-image CNN; the update direction ∇Q_g(f)=A*(Af−g) (or its nonlinear analogue) is what injects the forward model. Different architectures then correspond to different placements of Λ around the update direction: variational networks use f−∇Q+Γθ(f), learned proximal networks use Γθ(f−∇Q), and learned primal-dual

What would settle it

Re-run the linear CT comparison using an out-of-distribution test set and per-algorithm optimized hyperparameters; if the primal-dual advantage disappears or reverses, the claim that architecture is secondary for linear problems weakens. Re-run the QPAT comparison with the radiative transfer equation instead of the diffusion approximation; if the Gauss-Newton advantage over gradient and quasi-Newton updates vanishes, the nonlinear result may be an artifact of model mismatch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is that a single abstraction—the learned reconstruction operator Rθ:Y→X defined by f_k = Λ^k_{θ_k}(g, f_0,…,f_{k−1}) for k=1,…,N—captures essentially every learned iterative network. In this abstraction the update scheme and the learning problem are decoupled. The authors show that variational networks, learned proximal networks, learned least-squares networks, and learned primal-dual networks are all obtained from this recursion by selecting a particular form for the neural updating operator: the primal-dual architecture adds a second neural operator in data space, but it reduces to a learned least-squares network when the dual update is fixed to Γ(h,h′,h″)=h′−h″. Because

Load-bearing premise

The numerical conclusions assume that matching parameter counts and training protocols isolates the effect of the update direction, and that the diffusion-approximation QPAT test stands in for nonlinear inverse problems in general.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Unrolling more iterations does not by itself bring a network closer to the minimizer of the underlying variational problem; it increases capacity.
  • The loss function and training data, not the unrolled architecture, determine the statistical estimator: L2 loss approximates conditional expectation, L1 loss conditional median.
  • Learned primal-dual networks are an extension of learned gradient networks; they reduce to a learned least-squares network when the dual update is fixed.
  • For linear inverse problems, the choice among gradient-based unrolling formulations changes PSNR by less than 0.1 dB under comparable settings, whereas for nonlinear problems the update direction has a major effect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the separation of 'how to compute' from 'what to compute' holds, comparisons between reconstruction networks should control for the learning problem before crediting architecture; otherwise apparent gains may be estimator changes, not design wins.
  • The nonlinear result suggests a cheap screening strategy: choose the handcrafted update direction (gradient vs Gauss-Newton vs quasi-Newton) using short greedy-trained runs before committing to expensive end-to-end training.
  • The linear result that less handcrafted structure performs slightly better in-distribution implies the benefit of unrolling for linear problems is mostly computational and generalization-oriented; a proper out-of-distribution test would reveal whether the architectural structure actually helps.
  • The framework predicts that swapping the loss function on a fixed unrolled network should move the learned estimator toward the corresponding Bayes estimator; this could be tested by training the same architecture with L2, L1, and adversarial losses on the same data.
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 a unified operator-learning perspective for learned iterative networks in inverse problems. It defines a learned reconstruction operator and separates the 'how to compute' (architecture) from the 'what to compute' (learning problem), then surveys learned gradient networks, learned proximal networks, variational networks, learned primal-dual networks, and extensions to nonlinear problems and Newton-type methods. The main structural claim is that popular unrolled architectures—learned least squares, proximal gradient, variational networks, and learned primal-dual—are special cases of a common abstract update (Eqs. (17), (20), (42)). A short numerical study is presented to compare update formulations for linear CT and to report a comparison for nonlinear QPAT.

Significance. If the survey's framework is accepted, it provides a genuinely useful conceptual simplification: it identifies the statistical estimator as determined by the loss and training data, while the architecture determines approximation capacity and generalization behavior. The paper's strength is that the containment claims are given explicitly: Eq. (18), (19), (35), and Remark 7.1 show how specific architectures arise from the general update. The functional-analytic gradient and Hessian calculations in Appendix A are standard and correct. The survey also covers topics often omitted from such reviews, including PnP/DEQ connections, greedy training, and Newton-type unrolling. The numerical evidence is less conclusive and needs to be strengthened or qualified.

major comments (3)
  1. [§10.2 and §11] The conclusion that in nonlinear inverse problems 'the choice of update direction ... has a major effect on the performance' is supported only by the QPAT discussion in §10.2. The text states that 'the results are presented in Figure 3', but no Figure 3 appears in the manuscript; no numerical table, error bars, or experimental details are included. The forward model is also the diffusion approximation (Eq. (57)), and the entire study is imported from the preprint [108]. As written, this is not sufficient evidence for the strong conclusion in §11. The manuscript should either include the actual comparison (with variance or error bars) or clearly present it as a reported result from [108] and qualify the conclusion accordingly.
  2. [§8.2.3, Eqs. (51)–(52)] The formulas labeled BFGS are not the BFGS update formulas as defined. With H_k denoting a Hessian approximation and B_k denoting an inverse-Hessian approximation, the displayed B_k update is the DFP inverse-Hessian update, not the BFGS inverse-Hessian update; the H_k update is the BFGS inverse-Hessian update if H_k were the inverse Hessian, which contradicts the definition in Eq. (49). This is a technical error in a section that is meant to give readers correct quasi-Newton formulas and their Hilbert-space versions. Please correct the formulas and verify them against [143].
  3. [§10.1, Table 1] The linear numerical comparison reports average PSNR over 50 test samples without error bars or repeated runs. The differences between the learned gradient networks are 0.05–0.23 dB, which is likely within run-to-run variation for the same architecture. The subsequent statements that 'performance increases with decreasing structure' and that LPD 'clearly' improves visually should be supported by error bars, statistical significance, or at least qualified as preliminary. If this is intended only as an illustrative study, the wording in the text should make that explicit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6, Eq. (19)] Eq. (19) writes Λ_θ(f,∇Q_g(f)) := Γ_θ(f−∇Q_g(f)), but the left-hand side is a two-argument map and the right-hand side is a one-argument map. This is presumably a shorthand in which the first argument is ignored. Please state explicitly that the proximal update is obtained from the two-argument Λ_θ by Λ_θ(a,b)=Γ_θ(a−b), so that the containment of Eq. (29) in Eq. (17) is exact.
  2. [§8.2.2, Eq. (48)] There is an indexing mismatch in the special case discussed after Eq. (48): the general form uses f_k := Λ^k_{θ_k}(f_0, Δf_0, ..., f_{k-1}, Δf_{k-1}), but the no-memory special case writes f_{k+1} := Λ_{θ_k}(f_k, ...). Please align the indices for clarity.
  3. [§6.1.2, Eq. (28)] The proximal operator prox_S is stated as 'prox_S : X → R', but it is a map X → X. Please correct the type.
  4. [§6.1.1, Eq. (23)] The statement 'f_k := 0 if k < 0' is not a standard initialization condition. It likely should be 'f_k := 0 for k < 0' or should define the initial boundary values more carefully. Please clarify.
  5. [Appendix A, Eq. (62)] Equation (62) has a typographical error: the subscript on the second inner product is 'E' but should be X or Y. Also, the reference [118] in the bibliography contains the typo 'Lunz ansd Okan Oktem'; please fix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the unification is explicit equation-level rewriting; the only self-cited numerical support is an imported experiment, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper is a survey/unification. Definition 2.1 defines a learned reconstruction operator and Eq. (8) defines unrolling; Sections 6-8 then write the known architectures (Eqs. 17, 22, 29, 35, 42) in that common form. This is an explicit equation-level comparison, not a fitted-parameter-then-predicted cycle. For example, Remark 7.1 shows learned primal-dual reduces to learned least-squares by the explicit choice Gamma(h,h',h'') = h' - h''; that is a constructional identity stated in the paper, not a hidden input to the conclusion. Section 10.1's linear comparison is an in-paper experiment; its caveats (similar-but-not-identical parameter counts, no error bars) are empirical-quality issues, not circularity. Section 10.2 imports the nonlinear QPAT comparison from the author-associated preprint [108], and the manuscript only refers to 'Figure 3' and says 'We refer to [108] for the experiments.' The concluding remark that update direction matters for nonlinear problems is therefore supported by an external (and not re-derived) study by an overlapping author. This is a self-citation burden and an evidence gap, but it is an empirical comparison rather than an analytic step that reduces by construction to its own inputs. No circular step satisfies the required standard of exhibiting Eq. X = Eq. Y or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; the score reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The conceptual framework introduces no fitted constants, no new physical entities, and no ad hoc parameters. The free parameters listed belong only to the numerical illustration; the central survey claim is a reorganization of existing material.

free parameters (3)
  • step-size ω = learned, shared across iterates
    In the proximal and variational network updates (54)–(55), the step-size is learned during training; the numerical comparison depends on it, but the central survey claim does not.
  • unrolled iteration count N = 10 (5 for one LPD variant)
    Chosen by hand in Section 10.1; affects parameter count and performance, but is not part of the operator-learning framework.
  • training hyperparameters = 25,000 iterations, lr 1e-3, cosine annealing, 5-layer 32-channel ResNet
    Used for the linear numerical comparison in Section 10.1; not tied to the conceptual framework.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption X and Y are Hilbert spaces and the forward operator A: X→Y is known and Fréchet differentiable in the nonlinear case.
    Definition 2.1 and Section 8.1: unrolled updates rely on evaluating A and A* or (∂A(f))*.
  • domain assumption Training data are IID draws from measures consistent with g = A(f) + e.
    Definition 2.1 and Section 4: the definition of a learned reconstruction operator presumes this data-generation model.
  • standard math Riesz representation theorem identifies gradients in Hilbert space.
    Used in Appendix A.1 to derive ∇Q_g(f) = (∂A(f))*(A(f)−g) and related formulas.
  • domain assumption Replacing handcrafted updates in a truncated iterative scheme by neural operators preserves the operator-learning interpretation.
    Section 5.3.1, Eq. (8): the entire survey rests on this unrolling construction.
  • domain assumption The diffusion approximation (57) adequately models QPAT for the numerical comparison.
    Section 10.2: the nonlinear numerical conclusions about update directions are obtained under this model simplification rather than the full radiative transfer model.
  • standard math Hilbert-space quasi-Newton formulas from [143] are correct.
    Section 8.2.3 relies on [143, Corollary 3.3] for the functional-analytic versions of BFGS, DFP, SR1, and PSB updates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learned iterative networks: An operator learning perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5UK5LCU4

@misc{pith2026251208444,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learned iterative networks: An operator learning perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5UK5LCU4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.08444}
}
read the original abstract

Learned image reconstruction has become a pillar in computational imaging and inverse problems. Among the most successful approaches are learned iterative networks, which are formulated by unrolling classical iterative optimisation algorithms for solving variational problems. While the underlying algorithm is usually formulated in the functional analytic setting, learned approaches are often viewed as purely discrete. In this survey we present a unified operator view for learned iterative networks. Specifically, we formulate a learned reconstruction operator, defining how to compute, and separately the learning problem, which defines what to compute. In this setting we present common approaches and show that many approaches are closely related in their core. We review linear as well as non-linear inverse problems in this framework and present a short numerical study to conclude.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.08444 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of measurement setup. (Left) ground-truth, (Middle) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of reconstructions for the trained networks for one sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of training update directions and training schemes for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

155 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [108]

    Towards robust quantitative photoacoustic tomography via learned iterative methods

    Anssi Manninen, Janek Gr¨ ohl, Felix Lucka, and Andreas Hauptmann. Towards robust quantitative photoacoustic tomography via learned itera- tive methods. 2025.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510.27487. arXiv:2510. 27487 [eess.IV]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.27487 2025

  2. [143]

    On the Derivation of Quasi-Newton Formulas for Optimization in Function Spaces

    Radoslav G. Vuchkov, Cosmin G. Petra, and No´ emi Petra. “On the Derivation of Quasi-Newton Formulas for Optimization in Function Spaces”. In:Numerical Functional Analysis and Optimization41.13 (2020), pp. 1564– 1587.doi:10.1080/01630563.2020.1785496

    arXiv 2020

  3. [1]

    Fast and flexible X-ray tomography using the ASTRA toolbox

    Wim van Aarle et al. “Fast and flexible X-ray tomography using the ASTRA toolbox”. In:Optics Express24.22 (2016), pp. 25129–25147. doi:10.1364/OE.24.02512

    work page doi:10.1364/oe.24.02512 2016

  4. [2]

    The ASTRA Toolbox: A platform for advanced algorithm development in electron tomography

    Wim van Aarle et al. “The ASTRA Toolbox: A platform for advanced algorithm development in electron tomography”. In:Ultramicroscopy157 (2015), pp. 35–47.doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2015.05.002

    doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2015.05.002 2015

  5. [3]

    TensorFlow: a system for large-scale machine learn- ing

    Mart ´ ın Abadi et al. “TensorFlow: a system for large-scale machine learn- ing”. In:Proceedings of the 12th USENIX conference on Operating Sys- tems Design and Implementation Pages (OSDI’16). 2016, pp. 265–283

    2016

  6. [4]

    Learned Iterative Reconstruction

    Jonas Adler. “Learned Iterative Reconstruction”. In:Handbook of Math- ematical Models and Algorithms in Computer Vision and Imaging: Math- ematical Imaging and Vision. Ed. by Ke Chen, Carola-Bibiane Sch¨ onlieb, Xue-Cheng Tai, and Laurent Younes. Springer Verlag, 2023, pp. 751–771. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-98661-2_67

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-98661-2_67 2023

  7. [5]

    Learned Primal-Dual Reconstruction

    Jonas Adler and Ozan ¨Oktem. “Learned Primal-Dual Reconstruction”. In:IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging37.6 (2018), pp. 1322–1332. doi:10.1109/TMI.2018.2799231

    arXiv 2018

  8. [6]

    Solving ill-posed inverse problems us- ing iterative deep neural networks

    Jonas Adler and Ozan ¨Oktem. “Solving ill-posed inverse problems us- ing iterative deep neural networks”. In:Inverse problems33.12 (2017), 124007 (24pp).doi:10.1088/1361-6420/aa9581

    doi:10.1088/1361-6420/aa9581 2017

Show all 155 references
  1. [7]

    Published in NeurIPS Optimal Transport workshop 2017, which was part of the 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2017)

    Jonas Adler, Axel Ringh, Ozan ¨Oktem, and Johan Karlsson.Learning to solve inverse problems using Wasserstein loss. Published in NeurIPS Optimal Transport workshop 2017, which was part of the 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2017). 2017.doi: 10...

    2017 doi arXiv

  2. [8]

    A Comprehensive Survey of Transformers in Text Recognition: Techniques, Challenges, and Future Directions

    Ali Afkari-Fahandari, Elham Shabaninia, Fatemeh Asadi-Zeydabadi, and Hossein Nezamabadi-Pour. “A Comprehensive Survey of Transformers in Text Recognition: Techniques, Challenges, and Future Directions”. In:ACM Computing Surveys(2025). Accepted for publication.doi:10. 1145/3771273

    2025

  3. [9]

    The R2D2 deep neural network series paradigm for fast precision imag- ing in radio astronomy

    Amir Aghabiglou, Chung San Chu, Arwa Dabbech, and Yves Wiaux. “The R2D2 deep neural network series paradigm for fast precision imag- ing in radio astronomy”. In:The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Se- ries273.1 (2024), p. 3.doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad46f5. 45

    2024 doi

  4. [10]

    Alberti, Damiana Lazzaro, Serena Morigi, Luca Ratti, and Matteo Santacesaria.Deep Unfolding Network for Nonlinear Multi-Frequency Electrical Impedance Tomography

    Giovanni S. Alberti, Damiana Lazzaro, Serena Morigi, Luca Ratti, and Matteo Santacesaria.Deep Unfolding Network for Nonlinear Multi-Frequency Electrical Impedance Tomography. 2025.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2507. 16678. arXiv:2507.16678 [math.NA]

    2025 doi arXiv

  5. [11]

    The FEniCS Project Version 1.5

    Martin S. Alnæs et al. “The FEniCS Project Version 1.5”. In:Archive of Numerical Software3.100 (2015), pp. 9–23.doi:10.11588/ans.2015. 100.20553

    2015 doi

  6. [12]

    Deep microlocal reconstruction for limited-angle tomography

    H´ ector Andrade-Loarca, Gitta Kutyniok, Ozan ¨Oktem, and Philipp Pe- tersen. “Deep microlocal reconstruction for limited-angle tomography”. In:Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis59 (2022), pp. 155– 197.doi:10.1016/j.acha.2021.12.007

    2022 doi

  7. [13]

    On instabilities of deep learning in image reconstruction and the potential costs of AI

    Vegard Antun, Francesco Renna, Clarice Poon, Ben Adcock, and Anders C. Hansen. “On instabilities of deep learning in image reconstruction and the potential costs of AI”. In:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America117 (2020), pp. 30088–300...

    2020 doi

  8. [14]

    Optical tomography in medical imaging

    Simon Arridge. “Optical tomography in medical imaging”. In:Inverse problems15.2 (1999), R41.doi:10.1088/0266-5611/15/2/022

    1999 doi

  9. [15]

    Networks for nonlinear dif- fusion problems in imaging

    Simon Arridge and Andreas Hauptmann. “Networks for nonlinear dif- fusion problems in imaging”. In:Journal of mathematical imaging and vision62.3 (2020), pp. 471–487.doi:10.1007/s10851-019-00901-3

    2020 doi

  10. [16]

    Inverse prob- lems with learned forward operators

    Simon Arridge, Andreas Hauptmann, and Yury Korolev. “Inverse prob- lems with learned forward operators”. In:Data-driven Models in Inverse Problems. Ed. by Tatiana A. Bubba. Vol. 31. Radon Series on Computa- tional and Applied Mathematics. Walter de Gruyter, 2025, pp. 73–106. d...

    2025 doi

  11. [17]

    Solving inverse problems using data-driven models

    Simon Arridge, Peter Maass, Ozan ¨Oktem, and Carola-Bibiane Sch¨ onlieb. “Solving inverse problems using data-driven models”. In:Acta Numerica 28 (2019), pp. 1–174.doi:10.1017/S0962492919000059

    2019 doi

  12. [18]

    Gradient method for concave programming, I: local results

    Kenneth J. Arrow and Leonid Hurwicz. “Gradient method for concave programming, I: local results”. In:Studies in Linear and Non-linear Programming. Stanford Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences 11. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1958

    1958

  13. [19]

    Invertible generative models for inverse problems: mitigating rep- resentation error and dataset bias

    Muhammad Asim, Max Daniels, Oscar Leong, Ali Ahmed, and Paul Hand. “Invertible generative models for inverse problems: mitigating rep- resentation error and dataset bias”. In:Proceedings of Machine Learn- ing Research: The 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICM...

    2020

  14. [20]

    Adaptive Compu- tation and Machine Learning series

    Francis Bach.Learning Theory from First Principles. Adaptive Compu- tation and Machine Learning series. MIT Press, 2024

    2024

  15. [21]

    Computed tomography reconstruction using deep image prior and learned reconstruction methods

    Daniel Otero Baguer, Johannes Leuschner, and Maximilian Schmidt. “Computed tomography reconstruction using deep image prior and learned reconstruction methods”. In:Inverse Problems36.9 (2020), p. 094004. doi:10.1088/1361-6420/aba415

    2020 doi

  16. [22]

    2014.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1409.0473

    Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio.Neural Ma- chine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translate. 2014.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1409.0473. arXiv:1409.0473 [cs.CL]. 46

    2014 doi arXiv

  17. [23]

    Deep equilibrium mod- els

    Shaojie Bai, J Zico Kolter, and Vladlen Koltun. “Deep equilibrium mod- els”. In:Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Neural In- formation Processing Systems (NIPS’19). Vol. 32. 2019, 690–701 (Article no.: 63)

    2019

  18. [24]

    The problem of the convergence of the iteratively regularized Gauss–Newton method

    Anatolii Borisovich Bakushinskii. “The problem of the convergence of the iteratively regularized Gauss–Newton method”. In:Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics32.9 (1992), pp. 1353–1359

    1992

  19. [25]

    A Comprehensive Survey on Transformer-Based Machine Translation: Identifying Research Gaps and Solutions for Large Language Models

    Anasua Banerjee and Debajyoty Banik. “A Comprehensive Survey on Transformer-Based Machine Translation: Identifying Research Gaps and Solutions for Large Language Models”. In:ACM Computing Surveys (2025). Accepted for publication.doi:10.1145/3773076

    2025 doi

  20. [26]

    Data-driven nonsmooth optimization

    Sebastian Banert, Axel Ringh, Jonas Adler, Johan Karlsson, and Ozan ¨Oktem. “Data-driven nonsmooth optimization”. In:SIAM Journal on Optimization30.1 (2020), pp. 102–131.doi:10.1137/18M1207685

    2020 doi

  21. [27]

    Accelerated Forward-Backward Optimization using Deep Learning

    Sebastian Banert, Jevgenjia Rudzusika, Ozan ¨Oktem, and Jonas Adler. “Accelerated Forward-Backward Optimization using Deep Learning”. In: SIAM Journal on Optimization34.2 (2024), pp. 1236–1263.doi:10 . 1137/22M1532548

    2024

  22. [28]

    An educated warm start for deep image prior- based micro CT reconstruction

    Riccardo Barbano et al. “An educated warm start for deep image prior- based micro CT reconstruction”. In:IEEE Transactions on Computa- tional Imaging8 (2022), pp. 1210–1222.doi:10 . 1109 / TCI . 2022 . 3233188

    2022

  23. [29]

    Automatic differentiation in machine learn- ing: a survey

    Atilim G¨ une¸ s Baydin, Barak A Pearlmutter, Alexey Andreyevich Radul, and Jeffrey Mark Siskind. “Automatic differentiation in machine learn- ing: a survey”. In:Journal of Machine Learning Research18.1 (2018), pp. 5595–5637

    2018

  24. [30]

    2019.doi:10.48550/arXiv.1904.03908

    Shabab Bazrafkan, Vincent Van Nieuwenhove, Joris Soons, Jan De Been- houwer, and Jan Sijbers.Deep Learning Based Computed Tomography Whys and Wherefores. 2019.doi:10.48550/arXiv.1904.03908. arXiv: 1904.03908 [eess.IV]

    2019 doi arXiv

  25. [31]

    Biomedical photoacoustic imaging

    Paul Beard. “Biomedical photoacoustic imaging”. In:Interface Focus1.4 (2011), pp. 602–631.doi:10.1098/rsfs.2011.0028

    2011

  26. [32]

    2024.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.14606

    Mathieu Blondel and Vincent Roulet.The Elements of Differentiable Programming. 2024.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.14606. arXiv:2403. 14606 [cs.LG]

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [33]

    Com- pressed sensing using generative models

    Ashish Bora, Ajil Jalal, Eric Price, and Alexandros G. Dimakis. “Com- pressed sensing using generative models”. In:Proceedings of Machine Learning Research: The 34th International Conference on Machine Learn- ing (ICML 2017). Vol. 70. 2017, pp. 537–546

    2017

  28. [34]

    Optimiz- ing Models Performance: A Comprehensive Review and Case Study of Hyperparameters Tuning

    Ikhlass Boukrouh, Faouzi Tayalati, and Abdellah Azmani. “Optimiz- ing Models Performance: A Comprehensive Review and Case Study of Hyperparameters Tuning”. In:Proceedings of Data Analytics and Man- agement (ICDAM 2024). Ed. by Abhishek Swaroop, Bal Virdee, S´ ergio Duarte Corr...

    2024 doi

  29. [35]

    A mathematical guide to opera- tor learning

    Nicolas Boull´ e and Alex Townsend. “A mathematical guide to opera- tor learning”. In:Handbook of Numerical Analysis: Numerical Analysis Meets Machine Learning. Ed. by Siddhartha Mishra and Alex Townsend. Vol. 25. Elsevier, 2024. Chap. 3, pp. 83–125.doi:10.1016/bs.hna.2024. 05.003

    2024 doi

  30. [36]

    PINTO: Physics- informed transformer neural operator for learning generalized solutions of partial differential equations for any initial and boundary condition

    Sumanth Kumar Boya and Deepak N. Subramani. “PINTO: Physics- informed transformer neural operator for learning generalized solutions of partial differential equations for any initial and boundary condition”. In:Computer Physics Communications315 (2025), p. 109702.doi:10. 1016/...

    2025

  31. [37]

    Version 0.2.5

    James Bradbury et al.JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs. Version 0.2.5. 2018

    2018

  32. [38]

    Choose a transformer: Fourier or Galerkin

    Shuhao Cao. “Choose a transformer: Fourier or Galerkin”. In:35th Con- ference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2021). 2021, 24924–24940 (Article No.: 1909)

    2021

  33. [39]

    Unsupervised approaches based on optimal transport and convex anal- ysis for inverse problems in imaging

    Marcello Carioni, Subhadip Mukherjee, Hong Ye Tan, and Junqi Tang. “Unsupervised approaches based on optimal transport and convex anal- ysis for inverse problems in imaging”. In:Data-driven Models in Inverse Problems. Ed. by Tatiana A. Bubba. Vol. 31. Radon Series on Compu- ta...

    2025 doi

  34. [40]

    A First-Order Primal-Dual Al- gorithm for Convex Problems with Applications to Imaging

    Antonin Chambolle and Thomas Pock. “A First-Order Primal-Dual Al- gorithm for Convex Problems with Applications to Imaging”. In:Jour- nal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision40 (2011), pp. 120–145.doi: 10.1007/s10851-010-0251-1

    2011 doi

  35. [41]

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

    Stanley H. Chan, Xiran Wang, and Omar A. Elgendy. “Plug-and-play ADMM for image restoration: Fixed-point convergence and applications”. In:IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging3.1 (2016), pp. 84–98. doi:10.1109/TCI.2016.2629286

    2016

  36. [42]

    Universal approximation to nonlinear operators by neural networks with arbitrary activation functions and its application to dynamical systems

    Tianping Chen and Hong Chen. “Universal approximation to nonlinear operators by neural networks with arbitrary activation functions and its application to dynamical systems”. In:IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks6.4 (1995), pp. 911–917.doi:10.1109/72.392253

    1995 doi

  37. [43]

    Insights into analysis op- erator learning: From patch-based sparse models to higher order MRFs

    Yunjin Chen, Rene Ranftl, and Thomas Pock. “Insights into analysis op- erator learning: From patch-based sparse models to higher order MRFs”. In:IEEE Transactions on Image Processing23.3 (2014), pp. 1060–1072. doi:10.1109/TIP.2014.2299065

    2014

  38. [44]

    Variational Model- Based Deep Neural Networks for Image Reconstruction

    Yunmei Chen, Xiaojing Ye, and Qingchao Zhang. “Variational Model- Based Deep Neural Networks for Image Reconstruction”. In:Handbook of Mathematical Models and Algorithms in Computer Vision and Imag- ing: Mathematical Imaging and Vision. Ed. by Ke Chen, Carola-Bibiane Sch¨ onli...

    2023 doi

  39. [45]

    2023.doi:10

    Chun-Wun Cheng et al.Continuous U-Net: Faster, Greater and Noise- less. 2023.doi:10 . 48550 / arXiv . 2302 . 00626. arXiv:2302 . 00626 [cs.CV]. 48

    2023

  40. [46]

    To understand double descent, we need to understand VC theory

    Vladimir Cherkassky and Eng Hock Lee. “To understand double descent, we need to understand VC theory”. In:Neural Networks169 (2024), pp. 242–256.doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2023.10.014

    2024 doi

  41. [47]

    Learning Nonlinear Electrical Impedance Tomography

    Francesco Colibazzi, Damiana Lazzaro, Serena Morigi, and Andrea Samor´ e. “Learning Nonlinear Electrical Impedance Tomography”. In:Journal of Scientific Computing90 (2022), Article No.: 58.doi:10.1007/s10915- 021-01716-4

    2022 doi

  42. [48]

    In- termediate layer optimization for inverse problems using deep generative models

    Giannis Daras, Joseph Dean, Ajil Jalal, and Alexandros G. Dimakis. “In- termediate layer optimization for inverse problems using deep generative models”. In:Proceedings of Machine Learning Research: The 38th Inter- national Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2021). Vol. 139....

    2021

  43. [49]

    Restarted con- tractive operators to learn at equilibrium

    Leo Davy, Luis M. Brice˜ no-Arias, and Nelly Pustelnik. “Restarted con- tractive operators to learn at equilibrium”. In:Machine Learning Solu- tions for Inverse Problems: Part A. Ed. by Andreas Hauptmann, Bangti Jin, and Carola-Bibiane Sch¨ onlieb. Vol. 26. Handbook of Numeric...

    2025 doi

  44. [50]

    Regularization by architecture: A deep prior approach for inverse prob- lems

    S¨ oren Dittmer, Tobias Kluth, Peter Maass, and Daniel Otero Baguer. “Regularization by architecture: A deep prior approach for inverse prob- lems”. In:Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision62.3 (2020), pp. 456–470.doi:10.1007/s10851-019-00923-x

    2020 doi

  45. [51]

    Plug-and-play image reconstruc- tion is a convergent regularization method

    Andrea Ebner and Markus Haltmeier. “Plug-and-play image reconstruc- tion is a convergent regularization method”. In:IEEE Transactions on Image Processing33 (2024), pp. 1476–1486.doi:10.1109/TIP.2024. 3361218

    2024 doi

  46. [52]

    A survey on semi-supervised learning

    Jesper E. van Engelen and Holger H. Hoos. “A survey on semi-supervised learning”. In:Machine Learning109 (2020), pp. 373–440.doi:10.1007/ s10994-019-05855-6

    2020

  47. [53]

    BCR-Net: A neural network based on the nonstandard wavelet form

    Yuwei Fan, Cindy Orozco Bohorquez, and Lexing Ying. “BCR-Net: A neural network based on the nonstandard wavelet form”. In:Journal of Computational Physics384 (2019), pp. 1–15.doi:10 . 1016 / j . jcp . 2019.02.002

    2019

  48. [54]

    A multiscale neural network based on hierarchical nested bases

    Yuwei Fan, Jordi Feliu-Fab` a, Lin Lin, Lexing Ying, and Leonardo Zepeda- N´ u˜ nez. “A multiscale neural network based on hierarchical nested bases”. In:Research in the Mathematical Sciences6.21 (2019), 28 pp.doi:10. 1007/s40687-019-0183-3

    2019

  49. [55]

    A Mul- tiscale Neural Network Based on Hierarchical Matrices

    Yuwei Fan, Lin Lin, Lexing Ying, and Leonardo Zepeda-N´ u˜ nez. “A Mul- tiscale Neural Network Based on Hierarchical Matrices”. In:Multiscale Modeling & Simulation17.4 (2019), pp. 1–15.doi:10.1137/18M1203602

    2019 doi

  50. [56]

    Meta-learning pseudo- differential operators with deep neural networks

    Jordi Feliu-Fab` a, Yuwei Fan, and Lexing Ying. “Meta-learning pseudo- differential operators with deep neural networks”. In:Journal of Com- putational Physics408 (2020), 109309 (18 pp.)doi:10.1016/j.jcp. 2020.109309. 49

    2020

  51. [57]

    Deep learning tomographic reconstruction through hierarchical decomposition of domain transforms

    Lin Fu and Bruno De Man. “Deep learning tomographic reconstruction through hierarchical decomposition of domain transforms”. In:Visual Computing for Industry, Biomedicine, and Art5 (2022), Article No.: 30. doi:10.1186/s42492-022-00127-y

    2022 doi

  52. [58]

    Jfb: Jacobian-free backpropagation for implicit networks

    Samy Wu Fung et al. “Jfb: Jacobian-free backpropagation for implicit networks”. In:Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence. Vol. 36. 6. 2022, pp. 6648–6656

    2022

  53. [59]

    Deep equilibrium architectures for inverse problems in imaging

    Davis Gilton, Gregory Ongie, and Rebecca Willett. “Deep equilibrium architectures for inverse problems in imaging”. In:IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging7 (2021), pp. 1123–1133.doi:10.1109/TCI. 2021.3118944

    2021

  54. [60]

    Isotropic and anisotropic total variation regularization in electrical impedance to- mography

    Gerardo Gonz´ alez, Ville Kolehmainen, and Aku Sepp¨ anen. “Isotropic and anisotropic total variation regularization in electrical impedance to- mography”. In:Computers & Mathematics with Applications74.3 (2017), pp. 564–576

    2017

  55. [61]

    Learning fast approximations of sparse coding

    Karol Gregor and Yann LeCun. “Learning fast approximations of sparse coding”. In:Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Inter- national Conference on Machine Learning (ICML’10). 2010, pp. 399– 406

    2010

  56. [62]

    Digital twins enable full-reference quality assessment of photoacoustic image reconstructions

    Janek Gr¨ ohl et al. “Digital twins enable full-reference quality assessment of photoacoustic image reconstructions”. In:The Journal of the Acous- tical Society of America158.1 (July 2025), pp. 590–601.doi:10.1121/ 10.0037188

    2025

  57. [63]

    Fourier Neural Op- erator Network for Fast Photoacoustic Wave Simulations

    Steven Guan, Ko-Tsung Hsu, and Parag V. Chitnis. “Fourier Neural Op- erator Network for Fast Photoacoustic Wave Simulations”. In:Algorithms 16.2 (2023).doi:10.3390/a16020124

    2023 doi

  58. [64]

    Variational Models and Their Combinations with Deep Learning in Medical Image Segmentation: A Survey

    Luying Gui, Jun Ma, and Xiaoping Yang. “Variational Models and Their Combinations with Deep Learning in Medical Image Segmentation: A Survey”. In:Handbook of Mathematical Models and Algorithms in Com- puter Vision and Imaging: Mathematical Imaging and Vision. Ed. by Ke Chen, C...

    2023 doi

  59. [65]

    Stable architectures for deep neural networks

    Eldad Haber and Lars Ruthotto. “Stable architectures for deep neural networks”. In:Inverse problems34.1 (2017), p. 014004.doi:10.1088/ 1361-6420/aa9a90

    2017

  60. [66]

    Learning a variational network for reconstruc- tion of accelerated MRI data

    Kerstin Hammernik et al. “Learning a variational network for reconstruc- tion of accelerated MRI data”. In:Magnetic resonance in medicine79.6 (2018), pp. 3055–3071.doi:10.1002/mrm.26977

    2018 doi

  61. [67]

    GNOT: A General Neural Operator Transformer for Operator Learning

    Zhongkai Hao et al. “GNOT: A General Neural Operator Transformer for Operator Learning”. In:Journal of Machine Learning Research202 (2023). Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine (ICML 2023), 12556–12569 (Article No.: 509)

    2023

  62. [68]

    Multi-scale learned iterative reconstruction

    Andreas Hauptmann, Jonas Adler, Simon Arridge, and Ozan ¨Oktem. “Multi-scale learned iterative reconstruction”. In:IEEE transactions on computational imaging6 (2020), pp. 843–856.doi:10.1109/TCI.2020. 2990299. 50

    2020 doi

  63. [69]

    2025.doi:10

    Andreas Hauptmann, Leonid Kunyansky, and Jenni Poimala.Fast algo- rithms enabling optimization and deep learning for photoacoustic tomog- raphy in a circular detection geometry. 2025.doi:10 . 48550 / arXiv . 2510.24687. arXiv:2510.24687 [eess.IV]

    2025 doi

  64. [70]

    Convergent regularization in inverse problems and linear plug-and-play denoisers

    Andreas Hauptmann, Subhadip Mukherjee, Carola-Bibiane Sch¨ onlieb, and Ferdia Sherry. “Convergent regularization in inverse problems and linear plug-and-play denoisers”. In:Foundations of Computational Math- ematics(2024), pp. 1–34.doi:10.1007/s10208-024-09654-x

    2024 doi

  65. [71]

    2023.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.01963

    Andreas Hauptmann and Jenni Poimala.Model-corrected learned primal- dual models for fast limited-view photoacoustic tomography. 2023.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.01963. arXiv:2304.01963 [eess.IV]

    2023 doi arXiv

  66. [72]

    Approximate k-space models and deep learn- ing for fast photoacoustic reconstruction

    Andreas Hauptmann et al. “Approximate k-space models and deep learn- ing for fast photoacoustic reconstruction”. In:Machine Learning for Medical Image Reconstruction (MLMIR 2018), held in Conjunction with MICCAI 2018. Ed. by Florian Knoll, Andreas Maier, and Daniel Rueck- ert....

    2018 doi

  67. [73]

    Model-Based Learning for Accelerated, Limited- View 3-D Photoacoustic Tomography

    Andreas Hauptmann et al. “Model-Based Learning for Accelerated, Limited- View 3-D Photoacoustic Tomography”. In:IEEE Transactions on Med- ical Imaging37.6 (2018), pp. 1382–1393.doi:10 . 1109 / TMI . 2018 . 2820382

    2018

  68. [74]

    Deep Resid- ual Learning for Image Recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. “Deep Resid- ual Learning for Image Recognition”. In:IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR(2016), pp. 770–778.doi:10. 1109/CVPR.2016.90

    2016

  69. [75]

    Do- main independent post-processing with graph U-nets: applications to electrical impedance tomographic imaging

    William Herzberg, Andreas Hauptmann, and Sarah J Hamilton. “Do- main independent post-processing with graph U-nets: applications to electrical impedance tomographic imaging”. In:Physiological measure- ment44.12 (2023), p. 125008.doi:10.1088/1361-6579/ad0b3d

    2023 doi

  70. [76]

    Graph convolutional networks for model-based learning in nonlinear inverse problems

    William Herzberg, Daniel B Rowe, Andreas Hauptmann, and Sarah J Hamilton. “Graph convolutional networks for model-based learning in nonlinear inverse problems”. In:IEEE transactions on computational imaging7 (2021), pp. 1341–1353.doi:10.1109/TCI.2021.3132190

    2021

  71. [77]

    DiffTaichi: Differentiable programming for physical simulation

    Yuanming Hu et al. “DiffTaichi: Differentiable programming for physical simulation”. In:8th International Conference on Learning Representa- tions (ICLR 2020). 2020

    2020

  72. [78]

    Convergent bregman plug-and-play image restoration for pois- son inverse problems

    Samuel Hurault, Ulugbek Kamilov, Arthur Leclaire, and Nicolas Pa- padakis. “Convergent bregman plug-and-play image restoration for pois- son inverse problems”. In:Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36 (2023), pp. 27251–27280

    2023

  73. [79]

    Gradient Step Denoiser for convergent Plug-and-Play

    Samuel Hurault, Arthur Leclaire, and Nicolas Papadakis. “Gradient Step Denoiser for convergent Plug-and-Play”. In:10th International Confer- ence on Learning Representations (ICLR 2022). 2022

    2022

  74. [80]

    Deep Learning Advances in Computer Vision with 3D Data: A Survey

    Anastasia Ioannidou, Elisavet Chatzilari, Spiros Nikolopoulos, and Ioan- nis Kompatsiaris. “Deep Learning Advances in Computer Vision with 3D Data: A Survey”. In:ACM Computing Surveys50.2 (2017), Article No.: 20 (38 pp.)doi:10.1145/3042064. 51

    2017 doi

  75. [81]

    Version 3.1.1

    Wenzel Jakob et al.Mitsuba 3 renderer. Version 3.1.1. https://mitsuba- renderer.org. 2022

    2022

  76. [82]

    Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Inverse Problems in Imaging

    Kyong Hwan Jin, Michael T. McCann, Emmanuel Froustey, and Michael Unser. “Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Inverse Problems in Imaging”. In:IEEE Transactions on Image Processing26.9 (2017), pp. 4509– 4522.doi:10.1109/TIP.2017.2713099

    2017

  77. [83]

    Physics Based Differentiable Rendering for Inverse Problems and Beyond

    Preetish Kakkar, Srijani Mukherjee, Hariharan Ragothaman, and Vishal Mehta. “Physics Based Differentiable Rendering for Inverse Problems and Beyond”. In:Journal of Electrical Systems20.11 (2024).doi:10. 52783/jes.7210

    2024

  78. [84]

    Plug-and-play methods for integrating physical and learned models in computational imaging: Theory, algorithms, and applications

    Ulugbek S Kamilov, Charles A Bouman, Gregery T Buzzard, and Brendt Wohlberg. “Plug-and-play methods for integrating physical and learned models in computational imaging: Theory, algorithms, and applications”. In:IEEE Signal Processing Magazine40.1 (2023), pp. 85–97.doi:10. 110...

    2023

  79. [85]

    A deep convolutional neural network using directional wavelets for low-dose X-ray CT recon- struction

    Eunhee Kang, Junhong Min, and Jong Chul Ye. “A deep convolutional neural network using directional wavelets for low-dose X-ray CT recon- struction”. In:Medical physics44.10 (2017), e360–e375.doi:10.1002/ mp.12344

    2017

  80. [86]

    Alias-free generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras et al. “Alias-free generative adversarial networks”. In:35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2021). 2021, 852–863 (Article No.: 66)

    2021

  81. [87]

    Transformers in Vision: A Survey

    Salman Khan et al. “Transformers in Vision: A Survey”. In:ACM Com- puting Surveys54.10 (2022), Article No.: 200 (41 pp.)doi:10.1145/ 3505244

    2022

  82. [88]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization”. In:6th International Conference on Learning Represen- tations (ICLR 2015). 2015

    2015

  83. [89]

    2025.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.16222

    Teresa Klatzer, Savvas Melidonis, Marcelo Pereyra, and Konstantinos C Zygalakis.Efficient Bayesian Computation Using Plug-and-Play Priors for Poisson Inverse Problems. 2025.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.16222. arXiv:2503.16222 [stat.CO]

    2025 doi

  84. [90]

    To- tal deep variation for linear inverse problems

    Erich Kobler, Alexander Effland, Karl Kunisch, and Thomas Pock. “To- tal deep variation for linear inverse problems”. In:Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR). 2020, pp. 7549–7558.doi:10.1109/CVPR42600.2020.00757

    2020

  85. [91]

    To- tal Deep Variation: A Stable Regularization Method for Inverse Prob- lems

    Erich Kobler, Alexander Effland, Karl Kunisch, and Thomas Pock. “To- tal Deep Variation: A Stable Regularization Method for Inverse Prob- lems”. In:IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence44.12 (2022), pp. 9163–9180.doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3124086

    2022

  86. [92]

    Variational networks: connecting variational methods and deep learn- ing

    Erich Kobler, Teresa Klatzer, Kerstin Hammernik, and Thomas Pock. “Variational networks: connecting variational methods and deep learn- ing”. In:Pattern Recognition Proceedings of the 39th German Conference (GCPR 2017), Basel, Switzerland, September 12–15, 2017. Ed. by Volker ...

    2017 doi

  87. [93]

    Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to PDEs

    Nikola Kovachki et al. “Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to PDEs”. In:Journal of Machine Learning Research24.89 (2023), pp. 1–97

    2023

  88. [94]

    Opera- tor learning: Algorithms and analysis

    Nikola B. Kovachki, Samuel Lanthaler, and Andrew M. Stuart. “Opera- tor learning: Algorithms and analysis”. In:Handbook of Numerical Anal- ysis: Numerical Analysis Meets Machine Learning. Ed. by Siddhartha Mishra and Alex Townsend. Vol. 25. Elsevier, 2024. Chap. 9, pp. 419– 46...

    2024 doi

  89. [95]

    2024.doi:10

    Marc Lafon and Alexandre Thomas.Understanding the Double Descent Phenomenon in Deep Learning. 2024.doi:10 . 48550 / arXiv . 2403 . 10459. arXiv:2403.10459 [cs.LG]

    2024 doi arXiv

  90. [96]

    Deep learning

    Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. “Deep learning”. In: Nature521 (2015), pp. 436–444.doi:10.1038/nature14539

    2015 doi

  91. [97]

    Fundamental Capabilities and Applications of Large Language Models: A Survey

    Jiawei Li et al. “Fundamental Capabilities and Applications of Large Language Models: A Survey”. In:ACM Computing Surveys58.2 (2025), Article No.: 38 (42 pp.)doi:10.1145/3735632

    2025 doi

  92. [98]

    Yingzhou Li, Xiuyuan Cheng, and Jianfeng Lu.Butterfly-Net: Optimal Function Representation Based on Convolutional Neural Networks. 2018. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1805.07451. arXiv:1805.07451 [math.NA]

    2018 doi arXiv

  93. [99]

    Fourier Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differ- ential Equations

    Zongyi Li et al. “Fourier Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differ- ential Equations”. In:International Conference on Learning Representa- tions (ICLR 2021). 2021

    2021

  94. [100]

    Automatic Functional Differentiation in JAX

    Min Lin. “Automatic Functional Differentiation in JAX”. In:Interna- tional Conference on Representation Learning 2024 (ICLR 2024). 2024

    2024

  95. [101]

    DuDoNet: Dual domain network for CT metal artifact reduction

    Wei-An Lin et al. “DuDoNet: Dual domain network for CT metal artifact reduction”. In:Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 2019, pp. 10512–10521.doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2019.01076

    2019

  96. [102]

    Architectures, variants, and performance of neu- ral operators: A comparative review

    Shengjun Liu et al. “Architectures, variants, and performance of neu- ral operators: A comparative review”. In:Neurocomputing648 (2025), p. 130518.doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2025.130518

    2025

  97. [103]

    Anders Logg, Kent-Andre Mardal, and Garth Wells.Automated Solution of Differential Equations by the Finite Element Method: The FEniCS Book. Vol. 84. Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering. Springer Verlag, 2012.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23099-8

    2012 doi

  98. [104]

    DOLFIN: Automated finite element computing

    Anders Logg and Garth N. Wells. “DOLFIN: Automated finite element computing”. In:ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software37.2 (2010), Article No.: 20 (28 pp.)doi:10.1145/1731022.1731030

    2010

  99. [105]

    Learned Regularizers for Inverse Problems

    Sebastian Lunz. “Learned Regularizers for Inverse Problems”. In:Hand- book of Mathematical Models and Algorithms in Computer Vision and Imaging: Mathematical Imaging and Vision. Ed. by Ke Chen, Carola- Bibiane Sch¨ onlieb, Xue-Cheng Tai, and Laurent Younes. Springer Verlag, 20...

    2023 doi

  100. [106]

    On learned operator correction in inverse problems

    Sebastian Lunz, Andreas Hauptmann, Tanja Tarvainen, Carola-Bibiane Sch¨ onlieb, and Simon Arridge. “On learned operator correction in inverse problems”. In:SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences14.1 (2021), pp. 92– 127.doi:10.1137/20M1338460

    2021 doi

  101. [107]

    2024.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.14745

    Junyu Luo et al.Semi-supervised Fine-tuning for Large Language Models. 2024.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.14745. arXiv:2410.14745 [cs.CL]

    2024 doi arXiv

  102. [109]

    2025.doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2410.10807

    Youngjae Min and Navid Azizan.HardNet: Hard-Constrained Neural Networks with Universal Approximation Guarantees. 2025.doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2410.10807. arXiv:2410.10807 [cs.LG]

    2025 doi

  103. [110]

    Algorithm Unrolling: Interpretable, efficient deep learning for signal and image processing

    Vishal Monga, Yuelong Li, and Yonina C. Eldar. “Algorithm Unrolling: Interpretable, efficient deep learning for signal and image processing”. In:IEEE Signal Processing Magazine38.2 (Mar. 2021), pp. 18–44.doi: 10.1109/MSP.2020.3016905

    2021

  104. [111]

    A Model-Based Iterative Learning Ap- proach for Diffuse Optical Tomography

    Meghdoot Mozumder, Andreas Hauptmann, Ilkka Nissil¨ a, Simon R. Ar- ridge, and Tanja Tarvainen. “A Model-Based Iterative Learning Ap- proach for Diffuse Optical Tomography”. In:IEEE Transactions on Med- ical Imaging41.5 (2022), pp. 1289–1299.doi:10 . 1109 / TMI . 2021 . 3136461

    2022

  105. [112]

    End-to-end reconstruction meets data-driven regularization for inverse problems

    Subhadip Mukherjee, Marcello Carioni, Ozan ¨Oktem, and Carola-Bibiane Sch¨ onlieb. “End-to-end reconstruction meets data-driven regularization for inverse problems”. In:Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34 (2021), pp. 21413–21425

    2021

  106. [113]

    Learned Reconstruction Methods With Convergence Guarantees: A survey of concepts and applications

    Subhadip Mukherjee, Andreas Hauptmann, Ozan ¨Oktem, Marcelo Pereyra, and Carola-Bibiane Sch¨ onlieb. “Learned Reconstruction Methods With Convergence Guarantees: A survey of concepts and applications”. In: IEEE Signal Processing Magazine40.1 (2023), pp. 164–182.doi:10 . 1109/M...

    2023

  107. [114]

    Fixed- point and objective convergence of plug-and-play algorithms

    Pravin Nair, Ruturaj G. Gavaskar, and Kunal Narayan Chaudhury. “Fixed- point and objective convergence of plug-and-play algorithms”. In:IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging7 (2021), pp. 337–348.doi:10. 1109/TCI.2021.3066053

    2021

  108. [115]

    Nelsen and Yunan Yang.Operator learning meets inverse problems: A probabilistic perspective

    Nicholas H. Nelsen and Yunan Yang.Operator learning meets inverse problems: A probabilistic perspective. 2025.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2508. 20207. arXiv:2508.20207 [math.NA]

    2025 doi

  109. [116]

    A Review of Differentiable Simulators

    Rhys Newbury et al. “A Review of Differentiable Simulators”. In:IEEE Access12 (2024).doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3425448

    2024

  110. [117]

    ETER-net: End to End MR Image Reconstruction Us- ing Recurrent Neural Network

    Changheun Oh, Dongchan Kim, Jun-Young Chung, Yeji Han, and Hyun- Wook Park. “ETER-net: End to End MR Image Reconstruction Us- ing Recurrent Neural Network”. In:International Workshop on Machine Learning for Medical Image Reconstruction (MLMIR 2018). Ed. by Flo- rian Knoll, And...

    2018

  111. [118]

    Adver- sarial regularizers in inverse problems

    Sebastian Lunz ansd Ozan ¨Oktem and Carola-Bibiane Sch¨ onlieb. “Adver- sarial regularizers in inverse problems”. In:Proceedings of the 32nd Inter- national Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS’18). 2018, pp. 8516–8525

    2018

  112. [119]

    PyTorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library

    Adam Paszke et al. “PyTorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library”. In:Proceedings of the 33rd International Confer- ence on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2019). 2019, 8026–8037 (Article No.: 721)

    2019

  113. [120]

    Tunability: Importance of Hyperparameters of Machine Learning Algorithms

    Philipp Probst, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, and Bernd Bischl. “Tunability: Importance of Hyperparameters of Machine Learning Algorithms”. In: Journal of Machine Learning Research20.1 (2019), pp. 1934–1965

    2019

  114. [121]

    2017.doi:10.48550/arXiv.1706.04008

    Patrick Putzky and Max Welling.Recurrent Inference Machines for Solv- ing Inverse Problems. 2017.doi:10.48550/arXiv.1706.04008. arXiv: 1706.04008 [cs.NE]

    2017 doi arXiv

  115. [122]

    A systematic review of hyper- parameter optimization techniques in Convolutional Neural Networks

    Mohaimenul Azam Khan Raiaan et al. “A systematic review of hyper- parameter optimization techniques in Convolutional Neural Networks”. In:Decision Analytics Journal11 (2024), p. 100470.doi:10.1016/j. dajour.2024.100470

    2024

  116. [123]

    Convolutional Neural Operators for robust and accurate learning of PDEs

    Bogdan Raoni´ c et al. “Convolutional Neural Operators for robust and accurate learning of PDEs”. In:37th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2023). 2023, 77187–77200 (Article No.: 3376)

    2023

  117. [124]

    Fields of experts

    Stefan Roth and Michael J Black. “Fields of experts”. In:International Journal of Computer Vision82.2 (2009), pp. 205–229.doi:10.1007/ s11263-008-0197-6

    2009

  118. [125]

    Fields of experts: A framework for learning image priors

    Stefan Roth and Michael J Black. “Fields of experts: A framework for learning image priors”. In:2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’05). Vol. 2. IEEE. 2005, pp. 860–867.doi:10.1109/CVPR.2005.160

    2005 doi

  119. [126]

    2016.doi:10.48550/arXiv.1609.04747

    Sebastian Ruder.An overview of gradient descent optimization algo- rithms. 2016.doi:10.48550/arXiv.1609.04747. arXiv:1609.04747 [cs.LG]

    2016 doi arXiv

  120. [127]

    3D helical CT Reconstruction with a Memory Efficient Learned Primal- Dual Architecture

    Jevgenija Rudzusika, Buda Baji´ c, Thomas Koehler, and Ozan ¨Oktem. “3D helical CT Reconstruction with a Memory Efficient Learned Primal- Dual Architecture”. In:IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging 10 (2024), pp. 1414–1424.doi:10.1109/TCI.2024.3463485

    2024

  121. [128]

    Con- tinuous Learned Primal Dual

    Christina Runkel, Ander Biguri, and Carola-Bibiane Sch¨ onlieb. “Con- tinuous Learned Primal Dual”. In:2024 IEEE 34th International Work- shop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing (MLSP). 2024.doi: 10.1109/MLSP58920.2024.10734760

    2024

  122. [129]

    Deep Neural Networks Motivated by Partial Differential Equations

    Lars Ruthotto and Eldad Haber. “Deep Neural Networks Motivated by Partial Differential Equations”. In:Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision62 (2020), pp. 352–364.doi:10.1007/s10851-019-00903-1. 55

    2020 doi

  123. [130]

    Plug-and-Play Methods Provably Converge with Prop- erly Trained Denoisers

    Ernest Ryu et al. “Plug-and-Play Methods Provably Converge with Prop- erly Trained Denoisers”. In:Proceedings of the 36th International Con- ference on Machine Learning. Ed. by Kamalika Chaudhuri and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Vol. 97. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. Long...

    2019

  124. [131]

    On comparison of learned reconstructions in supervised and unsupervised training settings with Noise2Inverse

    Antti S¨ allinen. “On comparison of learned reconstructions in supervised and unsupervised training settings with Noise2Inverse”. MA thesis. Uni- versity of Oulu, 2024

    2024

  125. [132]

    ICLR 2024 BlogPost

    Rylan Schaeffer et al.Double Descent Demystified: Identifying, Inter- preting & Ablating the Sources of a Deep Learning Puzzle. ICLR 2024 BlogPost. 2024

    2024

  126. [133]

    Learning to deblur

    Christian J. Schuler, Michael Hirsch, Stefan Harmeling, and Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf. “Learning to deblur”. In:IEEE Transactions on Pattern Anal- ysis and Machine Intelligence38.7 (2016), pp. 1439–1451.doi:10.1109/ TPAMI.2015.2481418

    2016

  127. [134]

    Solving linear inverse problems using GAN priors: An algorithm with provable guarantees

    Viraj Shah and Chinmay Hegde. “Solving linear inverse problems using GAN priors: An algorithm with provable guarantees”. In:2018 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). 2018, pp. 4609–4613.doi:10.1109/ICASSP.2018.8462233

    2018

  128. [135]

    Transformers as neural operators for solutions of differential equations with finite regularity

    Benjamin Shih, Ahmad Peyvan, Zhongqiang Zhang, and George Em Kar- niadakis. “Transformers as neural operators for solutions of differential equations with finite regularity”. In:Computer Methods in Applied Me- chanics and Engineering434 (2025), p. 117560.doi:10.1016/j.cma. 2024.117560

    2025

  129. [136]

    An efficient quasi-Newton method for nonlinear inverse problems via learned singular values

    Danny Smyl, Tyler N Tallman, Dong Liu, and Andreas Hauptmann. “An efficient quasi-Newton method for nonlinear inverse problems via learned singular values”. In:IEEE Signal Processing Letters28 (2021), pp. 748– 752.doi:10.1109/LSP.2021.3063622

    2021

  130. [137]

    Photon- counting CT reconstruction with a learned forward operator

    Emanuel Str¨ om, Mats Persson, Alma Eguizabal, and Ozan¨Oktem. “Photon- counting CT reconstruction with a learned forward operator”. In:IEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging8 (2022), pp. 536–550.doi:10. 1109/TCI.2022.3183405

    2022

  131. [138]

    2025.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2505

    Juli´ an Tachella et al.DeepInverse: A Python package for solving imaging inverse problems with deep learning. 2025.doi:10.48550/arXiv.2505. 20160. arXiv:2505.20160 [eess.IV]

    2025 doi arXiv

  132. [139]

    A math- ematical explanation of UNet

    Xue-Cheng Tai, Hao Liu, Raymond H. Chan, and Lingfeng Li. “A math- ematical explanation of UNet”. In:Mathematical Foundations of Com- puting8.5 (2025), pp. 874–889.doi:10.3934/mfc.2024040

    2025 doi

  133. [140]

    Recent Advances in Stochas- tic Gradient Descent in Deep Learning

    Yingjie Tian, Yuqi Zhang, and Haibin Zhang. “Recent Advances in Stochas- tic Gradient Descent in Deep Learning”. In:Mathematics11.3 (2023), p. 682.doi:10.3390/math11030682

    2023 doi

  134. [141]

    Graph convolutional networks enable fast hemor- rhagic stroke monitoring with electrical impedance tomography

    J. Toivanen et al. “Graph convolutional networks enable fast hemor- rhagic stroke monitoring with electrical impedance tomography”. In: IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering(2025), pp. 1–11.doi: 10.1109/TBME.2025.3594249. 56

    2025

  135. [142]

    Plug-and-play priors for model based reconstruction

    Singanallur V. Venkatakrishnan, Charles A. Bouman, and Brendt Wohlberg. “Plug-and-play priors for model based reconstruction”. In:2013 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing. IEEE. 2013, pp. 945–948.doi:10.1109/GlobalSIP.2013.6737048

    2013

  136. [144]

    Parameter-efficient fine-tuning in large language models: a survey of methodologies

    Luping Wang et al. “Parameter-efficient fine-tuning in large language models: a survey of methodologies”. In:Artificial Intelligence Review58 (2025), Article No.: 227 (64 pp.)doi:10.1007/s10462-025-11236-4

    2025 doi

  137. [145]

    Generative Adversar- ial Networks in Computer Vision: A Survey and Taxonomy

    Zhengwei Wang, Qi She, and Tom´ as E. Ward. “Generative Adversar- ial Networks in Computer Vision: A Survey and Taxonomy”. In:ACM Computing Surveys54.2 (2021), Article No.: 37 (38 pp.)doi:10.1145/ 3439723

    2021

  138. [146]

    Hilde J. P. Weerts, Andreas C. Mueller, and Joaquin Vanschoren.Impor- tance of Tuning Hyperparameters of Machine Learning Algorithms. 2022. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2007.07588. arXiv:2007.07588 [cs.LG]

    2022 doi arXiv

  139. [147]

    GAN Inversion: A Survey

    Weihao Xia et al. “GAN Inversion: A Survey”. In:IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45.3 (2023), pp. 3121–3138. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2022.3181070

    2023

  140. [148]

    On hyperparameter optimization of ma- chine learning algorithms: Theory and practice

    Li Yang and Abdallah Shami. “On hyperparameter optimization of ma- chine learning algorithms: Theory and practice”. In:Neurocomputing415 (2020), pp. 295–316.doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2020.07.061

    2020 doi

  141. [149]

    A survey on multimodal large language models

    Shukang Yin et al. “A survey on multimodal large language models”. In: National Science Review11.12 (2024).doi:10.1093/nsr/nwae403

    2024 doi

  142. [150]

    Lipton, Mu Li, and Alex J

    Aston Zhang, Zack C. Lipton, Mu Li, and Alex J. Smola.Dive into Deep Learning. Online book. 2025

    2025

  143. [151]

    A Systematic Survey of Text Summarization: From Statistical Methods to Large Language Models

    Haopeng Zhang, Philip S. Yu, and Jiawei Zhang. “A Systematic Survey of Text Summarization: From Statistical Methods to Large Language Models”. In:ACM Computing Surveys57.11 (2025), Article No.: 277 (41 pp.)doi:10.1145/3731445

    2025 doi

  144. [152]

    2025.doi:10.48550/arXiv

    Keyao Zhang et al.GoCkpt: Gradient-Assisted Multi-Step overlapped Checkpointing for Efficient LLM Training. 2025.doi:10.48550/arXiv. 2511.07035. arXiv:2511.07035 [cs.OS]

    2025 doi

  145. [153]

    Physics-based differen- tiable rendering: from theory to implementation

    Shuang Zhao, Wenzel Jakob, and Tzu-Mao Li. “Physics-based differen- tiable rendering: from theory to implementation”. In:ACM SIGGRAPH 2020 Courses. 2020, Article No.: 14 (30 pp.)doi:10.1145/3388769. 3407454

    2020 doi

  146. [154]

    Image reconstruction by domain-transform man- ifold learning

    Bo Zhu, Jeremiah Z. Liu, Stephen F. Cauley, Bruce R. Rosen, and Matthew S. Rosen. “Image reconstruction by domain-transform man- ifold learning”. In:Nature555 (2018), pp. 487–492.doi:10 . 1038 / nature25988. 57

    2018

  147. [155]

    Overview of Multimodal Machine Learning

    Aya M. Al-Zoghby, Esraa Mohamed K. Al-Awadly, Ahmed Ismail Ebada, and Wael A. Awad. “Overview of Multimodal Machine Learning”. In: ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing24.1 (2025), Article No.: 10 (20 pp.)doi:10.1145/3701031. 58

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.