Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 96 references

Parallel Phase-shifting Digital Ghost Holography

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes parallel phase-shifting digital ghost holography, which measures the complex amplitude of an object with the same number of measurements as conventional ghost imaging by recording four $\pi/2$-phase-shifted…

desk verdict Real idea, sign error in the central derivation, and experiments too qualitative; worth a careful referee but not publication as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16454 v1 pith:TPRVWEKH submitted 2025-05-22 physics.optics

Shuhei Yoshida This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords ghostimagingsingle-pixeldigitalholographyparallelphase-shiftingcomplexamplitudemeasurementHadamardpatterns
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to remove the main penalty of digital ghost holography, a single-pixel technique that reconstructs an object's complex field by correlating measured interference intensities with phase patterns displayed on a spatial light modulator. In the usual approach, removing unwanted zeroth-order and conjugate terms via phase shifting costs at least three extra measurements per pattern. The proposed method records four interferograms phase-shifted in steps of 90 degrees at once, using waveplates and polarization beam splitters feeding two balanced detectors. From those four intensities the object-light coefficient for each phase pattern is extracted directly, so the full complex amplitude is reconstructed with the same number of measurements and resolution as conventional ghost imaging and single-pixel imaging. Experiments on a microlens array show that the wavefront phase can indeed be recovered.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the parallel four-step phase-shifting interferometer: a beam splitter creates two outputs that pass through a quarter-wave plate and a half-wave plate, and polarization beam splitters divide each output so that four interferograms with phases shifted in steps of $\pi/2$ are recorded simultaneously. The identity $(I_1-I_2)+i(I_3-I_4)=\langle e^{-i\phi_n}|\alpha\rangle$ cancels the zeroth-order terms and the conjugate terms, leaving only the object-light coefficient for that phase pattern. Balanced detectors measure the two differences $I_1-I_2$ and $I_3-I_4$ directly, and the complex amplitude is assembled as a linear combination of the reference patterns using Hadamard basis patterns, whose $+1/-1$ entries are mapped to phase shifts $0$ and $\pi$ and ordered by spatial frequency.

What would settle it

Measure a known phase object twice, once with a uniform flat-top reference beam and once with the same reference beam clipped or apodized so its amplitude varies across the field; the method predicts identical reconstructions under its uniform-reference assumption, so any beam-shape-dependent change in the recovered phase falsifies that assumption. Alternatively, place a weak neutral-density gradient in the reference arm and observe a position-dependent phase error proportional to the gradient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that adding parallel four-step phase-shifting optics to digital ghost holography recovers the full complex amplitude of the object without increasing the number of measurements or sacrificing resolution. The core identity is $(I_1-I_2)+i(I_3-I_4)=\langle e^{-i\phi_n}|\alpha\rangle$, where $I_1,\ldots,I_4$ are the intensities of four simultaneously recorded interferograms, $\phi_n$ is the $n$-th Hadamard phase pattern, and $\alpha$ is the object's complex amplitude. Balanced detectors output the differences $I_1-I_2$ and $I_3-I_4$, and collecting these coefficients over the phase basis reconstructs the object field as $|\alpha\rangle=\sum_n \langle e^{-i\phi_n}|\alpha\rangle |e^{-i\phi_n}\rangle$. The author demonstrates the reconstruction experimentally at $32\times32$, $64\times64$, and $128\times128$ resolutions, recovering a spherical aberration wavefront and a microlens array phase profile.

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction assumes the reference light is a spatially uniform plane wave with amplitude equal to 1; if the reference varies across the field, each recovered coefficient is multiplied by a position-dependent factor and the phase image is corrupted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Digital ghost holography can measure phase with the same number of measurements and same spatial resolution as conventional ghost imaging and single-pixel imaging, removing the usual three-to-four-fold pattern penalty.
  • Only two balanced-detector outputs are needed per pattern, so the method stays within the single-pixel detection paradigm and can operate where two-dimensional sensor arrays are unavailable or insensitive.
  • The reconstruction is a direct linear combination of known reference phase patterns, so no iterative or compressive algorithm is required for full-resolution wavefront recovery.
  • Wavefront measurement becomes feasible at wavelengths where image sensors are weak, because the detector remains a single-pixel photodiode, provided the optics and laser are stabilized.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the uniform-reference assumption ($\beta=1$) can be relaxed by adding a calibration measurement with a known object, which would extend the method to reference beams with measured amplitude and phase structure.
  • Inference: combining the parallel phase-shifting front end with compressive sensing could reduce the number of patterns below the Nyquist count while still recovering phase, in analogy with compressed single-pixel imaging.
  • Inference: because the four intensities implement quadrature detection of the object-light coefficient, the same optical combination could serve as a single-pixel heterodyne or temporal phase detector beyond static wavefront imaging.
  • Inference: the reported noise from interference fluctuation and laser mode drift suggests a quantitative error metric across averaging time would let users trade measurement time for phase accuracy; the paper demonstrates reconstructions but does not report such a curve.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a parallel phase-shifting variant of digital ghost holography (DGH) that aims to measure the complex amplitude of a sample with the same number of illumination patterns as intensity-only ghost imaging. The idea is to use a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, apply quarter- and half-wave plates to the two outputs, split each into two polarization components, and detect four interferograms simultaneously with two balanced detectors. The paper derives a reconstruction formula, Eq. (10)-(11), in which the sample field is expanded in a Hadamard phase basis from the balanced-detector outputs, then reports proof-of-principle wavefront measurements of an empty path and of a microlens array.

Significance. If the central equations are corrected and the validation is strengthened, the method would be a useful addition to single-pixel complex-amplitude imaging: it removes the 3-4x pattern-count penalty of sequential phase-shifting DGH while retaining single-pixel detection, and it avoids the spatial-bandwidth-product loss of off-axis approaches such as COSHI. The reconstruction is parameter-free, the derivation is compact, and the author makes the code publicly available, which are notable strengths. However, the printed derivation contains a sign inconsistency in the central formula, and the experimental support is currently qualitative rather than quantitative. These issues are fixable within the scope of the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (8)-(11)] Equations (8c)-(8d), (9c)-(9d), and (10) are mutually inconsistent. With A=e^{iφ_n}α and B=β, Eq. (8c) gives |u3⟩=(1/2)(A-iB)|H⟩, so I3=(1/4)(|A|^2+|B|^2 - i⟨A|B⟩ + i⟨B|A⟩), and Eq. (8d) gives I4=(1/4)(|A|^2+|B|^2 + i⟨A|B⟩ - i⟨B|A⟩). The printed Eq. (9c) and (9d) have these two cross-term signs interchanged. Consequently the combination (I1-I2)+i(I3-I4) in Eq. (10), when evaluated from the fields in (8c)-(8d), equals ⟨A|B⟩, not ⟨B|A⟩ as printed; the printed Eq. (10) only equals ⟨B|A⟩ if one uses the incorrect printed (9c)-(9d). Since Eq. (11) reconstructs |α⟩ from those coefficients, a literal implementation of the printed equations would produce the complex-conjugate field and a sign-inverted phase. Please correct the signs in (9c)-(9d) or in the balanced-detector combination in Eq. (10), and specify which detector polarity corresponds to the setup in Fig. 3.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (10)] The reconstruction assumes the reference light is a spatially uniform plane wave with β=1. The measured coefficient is actually ⟨β|e^{iφ_n}α⟩; if β varies spatially or carries wavefront distortion, the reconstructed |α⟩ is multiplied by the reference profile β(x), directly corrupting the phase map. The paper provides no calibration of the reference field, no sensitivity analysis, and no procedure for separating reference nonuniformity from the sample phase. Given that the central claim is quantitative phase measurement, this assumption needs at least a reference-arm characterization or a test with a known phase object.
  3. [Section 3.2, Figs. 4-6] The experimental validation is qualitative. Figures 4 and 5 show phase maps with no error bars, no comparison to an independent wavefront sensor or to a phase-shifting digital holography reference, and no quantitative phase profile across the microlens array. The text itself reports large interference fluctuations, SLM flicker, and slow baseline drift in the balanced-detector output, as shown in Fig. 6. The claim of 'same number of measurements and resolution as conventional GI and SPI' is not quantified: there is no resolution target, no SNR or RMS phase-error metric, and no comparison of the measurement count against a sequential phase-shifting DGH baseline. At least one quantitative accuracy comparison and a stated noise/error metric are needed to support the paper's central claims.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (10)] Please define the inner product notation used in Eqs. (10)-(11) explicitly (e.g., ⟨f|g⟩ = ∫ f*(x)g(x)dx) and state the normalization of the discrete Hadamard basis, since Eq. (11) relies on orthonormality.
  2. [Section 3.2, Fig. 6] Please specify which balanced-detector output (I1-I2 or I3-I4) is plotted and provide the time scale; the current caption does not allow the reader to interpret the fluctuation and drift statements.
  3. [Section 3.2, Figs. 4-5] Please state whether the displayed phase is wrapped or unwrapped and add scale bars; the color scale alone is insufficient for quantitative comparison.
  4. [References] Reference [2] contains a typo in the journal name: 'Phys.l Rev. Lett.' should be 'Phys. Rev. Lett.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the measured coefficients in Eq. (10) and the orthogonal expansion in Eq. (11) are direct operations with no fitted parameters or prediction that reduces to an input.

full rationale

The reconstruction chain is self-contained. The paper measures four interferogram intensities (Eqs. (8)-(9)), forms the balanced-detector combinations I1-I2 and I3-I4, and then states the complex coefficient relation in Eq. (10): (I1-I2)+i(I3-I4) = <e^{-iφ_n}|α>. The final reconstruction, Eq. (11), is literally the orthogonal expansion of |α> in the Hadamard phase basis using these measured coefficients. No parameter is fitted to data, no quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim is imported from a self-citation. The only self-citation is the GitHub data/code availability note (Ref. [92]), which is not used to justify any scientific result. The assumption that the reference light is spatially uniform with β=1 is an explicitly stated normalization condition, not a fitting knob, and the paper nowhere treats this assumption as a predicted outcome. The reader-identified sign inconsistency between Eqs. (9c)-(9d) and Eq. (10) is a correctness/consistency concern, not a circularity: even if the printed equations reverse the sign of the cross terms, the output would be the complex-conjugate field rather than the input, so the derivation is not circular, only internally inconsistent as written.

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

The derivation has no fitted parameters and no invented entities. It rests on the standard orthonormal Hadamard basis, the thin-object transmission model, the assumption of a uniform reference beam β=1, ideal polarization optics, and aberration-free imaging of the patterns. The most fragile of these is the uniform reference assumption, which enters directly in Eq. (10).

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Hadamard matrices of order 2^k form an orthonormal basis for real-valued patterns on 2^k pixels.
    Used in Section 2.1 to justify that the set of phase patterns e^{-iϕn} is a complete basis for reconstructing α via Eq. (11).
  • domain assumption The sample is a thin complex-amplitude object, so the field transmitted by the object is the product e^{iϕn} α.
    Invoked in Eq. (1) where the illuminating pattern e^{iϕn} multiplies the sample complex amplitude α; this is the standard transmission approximation but is not validated for the microlens sample.
  • domain assumption The reference light is a spatially uniform plane wave with complex amplitude β = 1.
    Stated after Eq. (10): 'the amplitude of the reference light is assumed to be spatially uniform and β = 1.' If false, the measured coefficient becomes ⟨β e^{-iϕn}|α⟩ and the reconstruction no longer yields α.
  • domain assumption The beam splitter is lossless and symmetric as modeled by Eq. (3), and the waveplates produce exact π/2 phase shifts with perfect polarization separation by the PBSs.
    The derivation of Eqs. (5)-(9) depends on the ideal Jones matrices; deviations from these ideal conditions introduce crosstalk between the components and are not analyzed.
  • domain assumption Each illumination pattern is imaged onto the object without aberration or misalignment.
    The reconstruction treats the basis functions e^{-iϕn} as defined on the object plane; relay lens aberrations would distort the effective basis. The paper measures system aberration without a sample but does not incorporate it into the reconstruction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parallel Phase-shifting Digital Ghost Holography." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TPRVWEKH

@misc{pith2026250516454,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parallel Phase-shifting Digital Ghost Holography},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TPRVWEKH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16454}
}
abstract

The ghost imaging (GI) technique, which has attracted attention as a highly sensitive and noise-resistant technique, employs a spatially modulated illuminating light and a single-pixel detector. Generally, the information acquired by GI is the transmittance or reflectance distribution of an object. A method has also been proposed to measure the complex amplitude by applying digital holography (DH) techniques. These methods irradiate phase-modulated illuminating lights onto an object, and the intensities of the interference lights between the lights interacting with the object and the reference light are measured. Then, the complex amplitude of the object light is reconstructed based on the correlation between the light intensities and the phase patterns. In DH-based GI, it is necessary to remove unwanted components from the interferogram by phase shifting, which requires more measurements than the conventional GI method. Thus, we propose a technique to reconstruct the complex amplitude in DH-based GI without increasing the number of measurements using parallel phase-shifting optics. In the proposed method, interferograms phase-shifted in steps of $\pi/2$ with waveplates are divided into four using polarization beam splitters (PBS), and their intensities are measured simultaneously. The object light component can be extracted from the intensities of these four interferograms. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method through experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16454 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Relationship between |φ⟩, |ψ⟩ and I1, . . . , I4. Here, we assume that the BS is symmetric for both the input and output. The angles of QWP and HWP are the inclination of the fast axis to the horizontal axis. (I1 − I2) + i(I3 − I4) = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of spatial orthogonal pattern Wij , where +1 and −1 are shown in white and black, respectively. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Optics of the proposed method (SF: spatial filter; L: lens; M: mirror; FC: fiber [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Wavefront measurement results obtained using the proposed method: (a) 32 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Phase measurement result of the microlens array (resolution: 128 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Output voltage of the balanced detectors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [91]

    Kakue, Y

    T. Kakue, Y. Moritani, K. Ito, Y. Shimozato, Y. Awatsuji, K. Nishio, S. Ura, T. Kubota, O. Matoba, Image quality improvement of paral- lel four-step phase-shifting digital holography by using the algorithm of parallel two-step phase-shifting digital holography, Opt. Express 18 (2010) 9555–9560. doi:10.1364/OE.18.009555

    work page doi:10.1364/oe.18.009555 2010

  2. [1]

    T. B. Pittman, Y. H. Shih, D. V. Strekalov, A. V. Sergienko, Optical imaging by means of two-photon quantum entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 52 (1995) R3429–R3432. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.52.R3429

    doi:10.1103/physreva.52.r3429 1995

  3. [2]

    D. V. Strekalov, A. V. Sergienko, D. N. Klyshko, Y. H. Shih, Observation of two-photon ”ghost” interference and diffraction, Phys.l Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 3600–03603. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.3600

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.74.3600 1995

  4. [3]

    R. S. Bennink, S. J. Bentley, R. W. Boyd, ”two-photon” coincidence imaging with a classical source, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 113601. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.113601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.89.113601 2002

  5. [4]

    Gatti, E

    A. Gatti, E. Brambilla, M. Bache, L. A. Lugiato, Ghost imaging with thermal light: Comparing entanglement and classical correlation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 093602. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.093602

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.93.093602 2004

  6. [5]

    Ferri, D

    F. Ferri, D. Magatti, A. Gatti, M. Bache, E. Brambilla, L. A. Lugiato, High-resolution ghost image and ghost diffraction exper- iments with thermal light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 183602. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.183602

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.94.183602 2005

  7. [6]

    J. H. Shapiro, Computational ghost imaging, Phys, Rev. A 78 (2008) 061802. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.78.061802

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.78.061802 2008

  8. [7]

    Bromberg, O

    Y. Bromberg, O. Katz, Y. Silberberg, Ghost imaging with a single detec- tor, Phys. Rev. A 79 (2009) 053840. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.79.053840. 12

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.79.053840 2009

Show all 96 references
  1. [8]

    R. E. Meyers, K. S. Deacon, Y. Shih, Turbulence-free ghost imaging, Appl. Phys. Lett. 98 (2011) 111115. doi:10.1063/1.3567931

    2011 doi

  2. [9]

    Shibuya, K

    K. Shibuya, K. Nakae, Y. Mizutani, T. Iwata, Comparison of recon- structed images between ghost imaging and hadamard transform imag- ing, Opt. Rev. 22 (2015) 897–902. doi:10.1007/s10043-015-0138-x

    2015 doi

  3. [10]

    W. L. Chan, K. Charan, D. Takhar, K. F. Kelly, R. G. Baraniuk, D. M. Mittleman, A single-pixel terahertz imaging system based on compressed sensing, Appl. Phys. Lett. 93 (sep 2008). doi:10.1063/1.2989126/131743

    2008 doi

  4. [11]

    Z. Xu, E. Y. Lam, Image reconstruction using spectroscopic and hy- perspectral information for compressive terahertz imaging, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 27 (2010) 1638–1646. doi:10.1364/JOSAA.27.001638

    2010 doi

  5. [12]

    C. M. Watts, D. Shrekenhamer, J. Montoya, G. Lipworth, J. Hunt, T. Sleasman, S. Krishna, D. R. Smith, W. J. Padilla, Terahertz compres- sive imaging with metamaterial spatial light modulators, Nat. Photonics 8 (2014) 605–609. doi:10.1038/nphoton.2014.139

    2014 doi

  6. [13]

    Radwell, K

    N. Radwell, K. J. Mitchell, G. M. Gibson, M. P. Edgar, R. Bowman, M. J. Padgett, Single-pixel infrared and visible microscope, Optica 1 (2014) 285–289. doi:10.1364/OPTICA.1.000285

    2014 doi

  7. [14]

    G. M. Gibson, B. Sun, M. P. Edgar, D. B. Phillips, N. Hempler, G. T. Maker, G. P. A. Malcolm, M. J. Padgett, Real-time imaging of methane gas leaks using a single-pixel camera, Opt. Express 25 (2017) 2998–3005. doi:10.1364/OE.25.002998

    2017 doi

  8. [15]

    M. F. Duarte, M. A. Davenport, D. Takhar, J. N. Laska, T. Sun, K. F. Kelly, R. G. Baraniuk, Single-pixel imaging via com- pressive sampling, IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 25 (2008) 83–91. doi:10.1109/MSP.2007.914730

    2008

  9. [16]

    O. Katz, Y. Bromberg, Y. Silberberg, Compressive ghost imaging, Appl. Phys. Lett. 95 (2009) 131110. doi:10.1063/1.3238296

    2009 doi

  10. [17]

    G. M. Gibson, S. D. Johnson, M. J. Padgett, Single-pixel imag- ing 12 years on: a review, Opt. Express 28 (2020) 28190–28208. doi:10.1364/OE.403195. 13

    2020 doi

  11. [18]

    Studera, J

    V. Studera, J. Bobin, M. Chahida, H. S. Mousavia, E. Candes, M. Dahane, Compressive fluorescence microscopy for biological and hyperspectral imaging, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 (2012) E1679–E1687. doi:10.1073/PNAS.1119511109/ASSET/39EE90CC-852E-4E76-B974- 29CED57434E4/ASSETS/G...

    2012 doi

  12. [19]

    Zhao, H.-Y

    Y.-N. Zhao, H.-Y. Hou, J.-C. Han, S. Gao, S.-W. Cui, D.-Z. Cao, B.-L. Liang, H.-C. Liu, S.-H. Zhang, Single-pixel phase mi- croscopy without 4f system, Opt. Lasers Eng. 163 (2023) 107474. doi:10.1016/J.OPTLASENG.2023.107474

    2023

  13. [20]

    Zhang, J

    Z. Zhang, J. Zhong, Three-dimensional single-pixel imaging with far fewer measurements than effective image pixels, Opt. Lett. 41 (2016) 2497–2500. doi:10.1364/OL.41.002497

    2016 doi

  14. [21]

    M.-J. Sun, M. P. Edgar, G. M. Gibson, B. Sun, N. Radwell, R. Lamb, M. J. Padgett, Single-pixel three-dimensional imaging with time-based depth resolution, Nat. Commun. 7 (2016) 12010. doi:10.1038/ncomms12010

    2016 doi

  15. [22]

    M. J. Sun, J. M. Zhang, Single-pixel imaging and its application in three-dimensional reconstruction: A brief review, Sensors 19 (2019) 732. doi:10.3390/S19030732

    2019 doi

  16. [23]

    Olivieri, J

    L. Olivieri, J. S. T. Gongora, L. Peters, V. Cecconi, A. Cutrona, J. Tunesi, R. Tucker, A. Pasquazi, M. Peccianti, Hyperspectral tera- hertz microscopy via nonlinear ghost-imaging, Optica 7 (2020) 186–191. doi:10.1364/optica.381035

    2020 doi

  17. [24]

    Vall´ es, J

    A. Vall´ es, J. He, S. Ohno, T. Omatsu, K. Miyamoto, Broadband high- resolution terahertz single-pixel imaging, Opt. Express 28 (2020) 28868– 28881. doi:10.1364/OE.404143

    2020 doi

  18. [25]

    Zanotto, R

    L. Zanotto, R. Piccoli, J. Dong, D. Caraffini, R. Morandotti, L. Razzari, Time-domain terahertz compressive imaging, Opt. Express 28 (2020) 3795–3802. doi:10.1364/OE.384134

    2020 doi

  19. [26]

    Ismagilov, A

    A. Ismagilov, A. Lappo-Danilevskaya, Y. Grachev, B. Nasedkin, V. Zali- paev, N. V. Petrov, A. Tcypkin, Ghost imaging via spectral multiplexing in the broadband terahertz range, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 39 (2022) 2335–

    2022

  20. [27]

    Y. Deng, R. She, W. Liu, Y. Lu, G. Li, High-efficiency terahertz single- pixel imaging based on a physics-enhanced network, Opt. Express 31 (2023) 10273–10286. doi:10.1364/OE.486297

    2023 doi

  21. [28]

    Liu, K.-C

    J.-P. Liu, K.-C. Tsai, Y.-C. Lin, K.-H. Chen, Single-pixel three- dimensional imaging of the terahertz-wave by complex-field synthesis, Opt. Express 31 (2023) 4357–4366. doi:10.1364/OE.480212

    2023 doi

  22. [29]

    S. Guan, J. Cheng, Z. Tan, F. Fan, Y. Ji, S. Chang, Ter- ahertz single pixel imaging with frequency-multiplexed meta- surface modulation, Opt. Lasers Eng. 169 (2023) 107694. doi:10.1016/J.OPTLASENG.2023.107694

    2023

  23. [30]

    L. Bian, J. Suo, G. Situ, Z. Li, J. Fan, F. Chen, Q. Dai, Multispec- tral imaging using a single bucket detector, Sci. Rep. 6 (2016) 24752. doi:10.1038/srep24752

    2016 doi

  24. [31]

    Z. Li, J. Suo, X. Hu, C. Deng, J. Fan, Q. Dai, Efficient single-pixel multispectral imaging via non-mechanical spatio-spectral modulation, Sci. Rep. 7 (2017) 41435. doi:10.1038/srep41435

    2017 doi

  25. [32]

    S. Jin, W. Hui, Y. Wang, K. Huang, Q. Shi, C. Ying, D. Liu, Q. Ye, W. Zhou, J. Tian, Hyperspectral imaging using the single-pixel fourier transform technique, Sci. Rep. 7 (2017) 45209. doi:10.1038/srep45209

    2017 doi

  26. [33]

    Q. Pian, R. Yao, N. Sinsuebphon, X. Intes, Compressive hyperspectral time-resolved wide-field fluorescence lifetime imaging, Nat. Photonics 11 (2017) 411–414. doi:10.1038/nphoton.2017.82

    2017 doi

  27. [34]

    Jiang, Z

    X. Jiang, Z. Li, G. Du, J. Jia, Q. Wang, N. Chi, Q. Dai, Fast hyperspec- tral single-pixel imaging via frequency-division multiplexed illumination, Opt. Express 30 (2022) 25995–26005. doi:10.1364/OE.458742

    2022 doi

  28. [35]

    Z. Zhao, Z. Yu, H. Qi, J. Han, Y. Zhang, L. Bai, F. Xiong, Redundant compressed single-pixel hyperspectral imaging system, Opt. Commun. 546 (2023) 129797. doi:10.1016/J.OPTCOM.2023.129797

    2023

  29. [36]

    Zhang, X

    Y. Zhang, X. Liu, Z. Xu, Q. Zhang, C. Wang, Z. Zheng, Spatial-spectral encoding and dictionary optimization in compressive single-pixel hyper- spectral imaging based on mutual coherence minimization, Opt. Express 32 (2024) 29620–29637. doi:10.1364/OE.531917. 15

    2024 doi

  30. [37]

    Zuljevic, A

    A. Zuljevic, A. Ebner, P. Gattinger, I. Zorin, C. Rankl, K. Hingerl, M. Brandstetter, Mid-infrared hyperspectral single-pixel microscopy with a quantum cascade laser, Opt. Express 32 (2024) 35184–35193. doi:10.1364/OE.535296

    2024 doi

  31. [38]

    Wenwen, S

    M. Wenwen, S. Dongfeng, H. Jian, W. Yingjian, Multispectral single- pixel imaging using predecoded virtual patterns, Opt. Lasers Eng. 176 (2024) 108099. doi:10.1016/J.OPTLASENG.2024.108099

    2024

  32. [39]

    Tajahuerce, V

    E. Tajahuerce, V. Dur´ an, P. Clemente, E. Irles, F. Soldevila, P. Andr´ es, J. Lancis, Image transmission through dynamic scattering media by single-pixel photodetection, Opt. Express 22 (2014) 16945–16955. doi:10.1364/OE.22.016945

    2014 doi

  33. [40]

    Dur´ an, F

    V. Dur´ an, F. Soldevila, E. Irles, P. Clemente, E. Tajahuerce, P. Andr´ es, J. Lancis, Compressive imaging in scattering media, Opt. Express 23 (2015) 14424–14433. doi:10.1364/OE.23.014424

    2015 doi

  34. [41]

    Jauregui-S´ anchez, P

    Y. Jauregui-S´ anchez, P. Clemente, J. Lancis, E. Tajahuerce, Single-pixel imaging with fourier filtering: application to vision through scattering media, Opt. Lett. 44 (2019) 679–682. doi:10.1364/OL.44.000679

    2019 doi

  35. [42]

    Soltanlou, H

    K. Soltanlou, H. Latifi, Three-dimensional imaging through scattering media using a single pixel detector, Appl. Opt. 58 (2019) 7716–7726. doi:10.1364/AO.58.007716

    2019 doi

  36. [43]

    L.-X. Lin, J. Cao, D. Zhou, H. Cui, Q. Hao, Ghost imaging through scattering medium by utilizing scattered light, Opt. Express 30 (2022) 11243–11253. doi:10.1364/OE.453403

    2022 doi

  37. [44]

    Z. Gao, X. Cheng, J. Yue, Q. Hao, Extendible ghost imaging with high reconstruction quality in strong scattering medium, Opt. Express 30 (2022) 45759–45775. doi:10.1364/OE.474579

    2022 doi

  38. [45]

    Y. Xiao, L. Zhou, W. Chen, High-resolution ghost imaging through complex scattering media via a temporal correction, Opt. Lett. 47 (2022) 3692–3695. doi:10.1364/OL.463897

    2022 doi

  39. [46]

    Y. Peng, W. Chen, Learning-based correction with gaussian constraints for ghost imaging through dynamic scattering media, Opt. Lett. 48 (2023) 4480–4483. doi:10.1364/OL.499787. 16

    2023 doi

  40. [47]

    L.-X. Lin, J. Cao, D. Zhou, Q. Hao, Scattering medium-robust computa- tional ghost imaging with random superimposed-speckle patterns, Opt. Commun. 529 (2023) 129083. doi:10.1016/J.OPTCOM.2022.129083

    2023

  41. [48]

    Y. Hao, Y. Xiao, W. Chen, High-fidelity ghost diffraction through com- plex scattering media using a modified gerchberg-saxton algorithm, Opt. Express 31 (2023) 14389–14402. doi:10.1364/OE.486123

    2023 doi

  42. [49]

    Y. Hao, W. Chen, A dual-modality optical system for single-pixel imag- ing and transmission through scattering media, Opt. Lett. 49 (2024) 371–374. doi:10.1364/OL.506637

    2024 doi

  43. [50]

    P. Wang, K. Guo, Z. Guo, Single-pixel imaging through scattering media employing a circular polarization multiplexing metasurface, Appl. Opt. 63 (2024) 9029–9036. doi:10.1364/AO.542323

    2024 doi

  44. [51]

    Y. Hao, W. Chen, Single-pixel complex-field imaging through scattering media, Opt. Lett. 50 (2025) 1949–1952. doi:10.1364/OL.551397

    2025 doi

  45. [52]

    X. Yang, Z. Yu, L. Xu, J. Hu, L. Wu, C. Yang, W. Zhang, J. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Underwater ghost imaging based on generative adversarial networks with high imaging quality, Opt. Express 29 (2021) 28388– 28405. doi:10.1364/OE.435276

    2021 doi

  46. [53]

    W. Feng, S. Zhou, S. Li, Y. Yi, Z. Zhai, High-turbidity underwater active single-pixel imaging based on generative adversarial networks with double attention u-net under low sampling rate, Opt. Commun. 538 (2023) 129470. doi:10.1016/J.OPTCOM.2023.129470

    2023

  47. [54]

    Y. Li, M. Chen, J. Qi, C. Deng, L. Du, Z. Bo, C. Han, Z. Mao, Y. He, X. Shao, S. Han, Underwater ghost imaging with detection distance up to 9.3 attenuation lengths, Opt. Express 31 (2023) 38457–38474. doi:10.1364/OE.499186

    2023 doi

  48. [55]

    X. Gao, C. Zhang, X. Li, Computational underwater ghost imaging based on scattering-and-absorption degradation, Opt. Lett. 49 (2024) 4461–4464. doi:10.1364/OL.533548

    2024 doi

  49. [56]

    J. Hu, X. Chen, Y. Cui, S. Liu, Z. Lin, Oam-basis underwater single- pixel imaging based on deep learning at a low sampling rate, Opt. Ex- press 32 (2024) 49006–49020. doi:10.1364/OE.543358. 17

    2024 doi

  50. [57]

    W. Feng, S. Li, B. Wang, Z. Zhai, High-turbidity underwater fourier single-pixel 3d imaging based on pseudo-camera calibration with pixel- mapping at low sampling rates, Opt. Lasers Eng. 186 (2025) 108737. doi:10.1016/J.OPTLASENG.2024.108737

    2025

  51. [58]

    Zhang, X

    Z. Zhang, X. Li, S. Zheng, M. Yao, G. Zheng, J. Zhong, Image-free classification of fast-moving objects using ”learned” structured illumi- nation and single-pixel detection, Opt. Express 28 (2020) 13269–13278. doi:10.1364/OE.392370

    2020 doi

  52. [59]

    Cao, Y.-H

    J.-N. Cao, Y.-H. Zuo, H.-H. Wang, W.-D. Feng, Z.-X. Yang, J. Ma, H.-R. Du, L. Gao, Z. Zhang, Single-pixel neural network object classi- fication of sub-nyquist ghost imaging, Appl. Opt. 60 (2021) 9180–9187. doi:10.1364/AO.438392

    2021 doi

  53. [60]

    Hanawa, T

    J. Hanawa, T. Niiyama, Y. Endo, S. Sunada, Gigahertz-rate random speckle projection for high-speed single-pixel image classification, Opt. Express 30 (2022) 22911–22921. doi:10.1364/OE.460681

    2022 doi

  54. [61]

    J. Yao, S. Jiao, X. Wang, Y. Zhang, Fast terahertz image classifica- tion with a single-pixel detector, Opt. Commun. 550 (2024) 130016. doi:10.1016/J.OPTCOM.2023.130016

    2024

  55. [62]

    Z. He, S. Dai, J. Liu, Single-pixel object classification using or- dered illumination patterns, Opt. Commun. 573 (2024) 131023. doi:10.1016/J.OPTCOM.2024.131023

    2024

  56. [63]

    J. Yang, X. Liu, L. Zhang, L. Zhang, T. Yan, S. Fu, T. Sun, H. Zhan, F. Xing, Z. You, Real-time localization and classification of the fast- moving target based on complementary single-pixel detection, Opt. Ex- press 33 (2025) 11301–11316. doi:10.1364/OE.550513

    2025 doi

  57. [64]

    W. Lai, G. Lei, Q. Meng, Y. Ma, W. Cui, D. Shi, H. Liu, Y. Wang, K. Han, Ghost imaging based on fermat spiral laser ar- ray designed for remote sensing, Opt. Express 31 (2023) 36656–36667. doi:10.1364/OE.500794

    2023 doi

  58. [65]

    J. Yin, Y. Bai, L. Zhou, X. Zhu, X. Zou, Q. Zhou, X. Huang, X. Fu, Remote sensing ghost imaging based on hadamard mod- ulated gaussian array beam, Opt. Commun. 574 (2025) 131108. doi:10.1016/J.OPTCOM.2024.131108. 18

    2025

  59. [66]

    S. Zhao, X. Yu, L. Wang, W. Li, B. Zheng, Secure optical encryption based on ghost imaging with fractional fourier transform, Opt. Commun. 474 (2020) 126086. doi:10.1016/j.optcom.2020.126086

    2020

  60. [67]

    Zheng, Q

    P. Zheng, Q. Tan, H. chao Liu, Inverse computational ghost imag- ing for image encryption, Opt. Express 29 (2021) 21290–21299. doi:10.1364/OE.428036

    2021 doi

  61. [68]

    S. Lin, X. Wang, A. Zhu, J. Xue, B. Xu, Steganographic optical im- age encryption based on single-pixel imaging and an untrained neural network, Opt. Express 30 (2022) 36144–36154. doi:10.1364/OE.467708

    2022 doi

  62. [69]

    Zheng, Z

    P. Zheng, Z. Ye, J. Xiong, H. chao Liu, Computational ghost imaging encryption with a pattern compression from 3d to 0d, Opt. Express 30 (2022) 21866–21875. doi:10.1364/OE.455975

    2022 doi

  63. [70]

    Y. Liu, P. Zheng, H.-C. Liu, Anti-loss-compression image encryption based on computational ghost imaging using discrete cosine trans- form and orthogonal patterns, Opt. Express 30 (2022) 14073–14087. doi:10.1364/OE.455736

    2022 doi

  64. [71]

    Y. Kang, S. Kanwal, S. Pu, B. Liu, D. Zhang, Ghost imaging-based optical multilevel authentication scheme using visual cryptography, Opt. Commun. 526 (2023) 128896. doi:10.1016/J.OPTCOM.2022.128896

    2023

  65. [72]

    Dur´ an, P

    V. Dur´ an, P. Clemente, M. Fern´ andez-Alonso, E. Tajahuerce, J. Lan- cis, Single-pixel polarimetric imaging, Opt. Lett. 37 (2012) 824–826. doi:10.1364/OL.37.000824

    2012 doi

  66. [73]

    Soldevila, E

    F. Soldevila, E. Irles, V. Dur´ an, P. Clemente, M. Fern´ andez-Alonso, E. Tajahuerce, J. Lancis, Single-pixel polarimetric imaging spectrom- eter by compressive sensing, Appl. Phys. B 113 (2013) 551–558. doi:10.1007/s00340-013-5506-2

    2013 doi

  67. [74]

    D. Shi, S. Hu, Y. Wang, Polarimetric ghost imaging, Opt. Lett. 39 (2014) 1231–1234. doi:10.1364/OL.39.001231

    2014 doi

  68. [75]

    S. Kim, B. Cense, C. Joo, Single-pixel, single-input-state polarization- sensitive wavefront imaging, Opt. Lett. 45 (2020) 3965–3968. doi:10.1364/ol.396442. 19

    2020 doi

  69. [76]

    K. L. C. Seow, P. T¨ or¨ ok, M. R. Foreman, Single pixel polarimetric imaging through scattering media, Opt. Lett. 45 (2020) 5740–5743. doi:10.1364/ol.399554

    2020 doi

  70. [77]

    Clemente, V

    P. Clemente, V. Dur´ an, E. Tajahuerce, V. Torres-Company, J. Lancis, Single-pixel digital ghost holography, Phys. Rev. A 86 (2012) 041803. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.86.041803

    2012 doi

  71. [78]

    Clemente, V

    P. Clemente, V. Dur´ an, E. Tajahuerce, P. Andr´ es, V. Climent, J. Lan- cis, Compressive holography with a single-pixel detector, Opt. Lett. 38 (2013) 2524–2527. doi:10.1364/OL.38.002524

    2013 doi

  72. [79]

    Mart ´ ınez-Le´ on, P

    L. Mart ´ ınez-Le´ on, P. Clemente, Y. Mori, V. Climent, J. Lancis, E. Ta- jahuerce, Single-pixel digital holography with phase-encoded illumina- tion, Opt. Express 25 (2017) 4975–4984. doi:10.1364/OE.25.004975

    2017 doi

  73. [80]

    Gonz´ alez, L

    H. Gonz´ alez, L. Mart ´ ınez-Le´ on, F. Soldevila, M. Araiza-Esquivel, J. Lancis, E. Tajahuerce, High sampling rate single-pixel digital hologra- phy system employing a dmd and phase-encoded patterns, Opt. Express 26 (2018) 20342–20350. doi:10.1364/OE.26.020342

    2018 doi

  74. [81]

    Y. Endo, G. Nakajima, Compressive phase object classification using single-pixel digital holography, Opt. Express 30 (2022) 28057–28066. doi:10.1364/OE.463395

    2022 doi

  75. [82]

    Y. Endo, T. Tahara, R. Okamoto, Color single-pixel digital holography with a phase-encoded reference wave, Appl. Opt. 58 (2019) G149–G154. doi:10.1364/AO.58.00G149

    2019 doi

  76. [83]

    Yamaguchi, T

    I. Yamaguchi, T. Zhang, Phase-shifting digital holography, Opt. Lett. 22 (1997) 1268–1270. doi:10.1364/OL.22.001268

    1997 doi

  77. [84]

    S. Shin, K. Lee, Y. Baek, Y. Park, Reference-free single- point holographic imaging and realization of an optical bidi- rectional transducer, Phys. Rev. Appl. 9 (2018) 044042. doi:10.1103/PHYSREV APPLIED.9.044042/FIGURES/7/THUMBNAIL

    2018 doi

  78. [85]

    S. Shin, K. Lee, Z. Yaqoob, P. T. C. So, Y. Park, Reference- free polarization-sensitive quantitative phase imaging using single- point optical phase conjugation, Opt. Express 26 (2018) 26858–26865. doi:10.1364/OE.26.026858. 20

    2018 doi

  79. [86]

    Y. Liu, J. Suo, Y. Zhang, Q. Dai, Single-pixel phase and fluorescence microscope, Opt. Express 26 (2018) 32451–32462. doi:10.1364/OE.26.032451

    2018 doi

  80. [87]

    K. Ota, Y. Hayasaki, Complex-amplitude single-pixel imaging, Opt. Lett. 43 (2018) 3682–3685. doi:10.1364/OL.43.003682

    2018 doi

  81. [88]

    S. Zhao, R. Liu, P. Zhang, H. Gao, F. Li, Fourier single-pixel recon- struction of a complex amplitude optical field, Opt. Lett. 44 (2019) 3278–3281. doi:10.1364/OL.44.003278

    2019 doi

  82. [89]

    Yoneda, Y

    N. Yoneda, Y. Saita, T. Nomura, Common-path off-axis single- pixel holographic imaging, Opt. Express 30 (2022) 18134–18144. doi:10.1364/OE.455166

    2022 doi

  83. [90]

    Takeda, H

    M. Takeda, H. Ina, S. Kobayashi, Fourier-transform method of fringe- pattern analysis for computer-based topography and interferometry, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 72 (1982) 156–160. doi:10.1364/JOSA.72.000156

    1982 doi

  84. [92]

    Yoshida, syoshida1983/parallel-phase-shifting-digital- ghost-holography, https://github.com/syoshida1983/ Parallel-phase-shifting-digital-ghost-holography/ (2025)

    S. Yoshida, syoshida1983/parallel-phase-shifting-digital- ghost-holography, https://github.com/syoshida1983/ Parallel-phase-shifting-digital-ghost-holography/ (2025)

    2025

  85. [93]

    Loudon, Classical theory of optical fluctuations and coherence, in: The Quantum Theory of Light, 3rd Edition, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp

    R. Loudon, Classical theory of optical fluctuations and coherence, in: The Quantum Theory of Light, 3rd Edition, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 82–124. doi:10.1093/OSO/9780198501770.001.0001

  86. [94]

    B. E. A. Saleh, M. C. Teich, Polarization optics, in: Fundamentals of Photonics, 2nd Edition, Wiley, 2007, pp. 197–242

    2007

  87. [95]

    W. K. Pratt, H. C. Andrews, J. Kane, Hadamard transform image cod- ing, Proc. IEEE 57 (1969) 58–68. doi:10.1109/PROC.1969.6869. 21

    1969

  88. [2340]

    doi:10.1364/JOSAB.465222. 14

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.