Snapshot spectral compressive imaging reconstruction using convolution and contextual Transformer

Lishun Wang; Zongliang Wu; Yong Zhong; Xin Yuan

doi:10.1364/PRJ.458231

Photonics Research, Volume. 10, Issue 8, 1848(2022)

Snapshot spectral compressive imaging reconstruction using convolution and contextual Transformer

Lishun Wang^1,2, Zongliang Wu³, Yong Zhong^1,2,4、*, and Xin Yuan^3,5、*

Author Affiliations

¹Chengdu Institute of Computer Application, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, China

²University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

³Research Center for Industries of the Future and School of Engineering, Westlake University, Hangzhou 310030, China

⁴e-mail: zhongyong@casit.com.cn

⁵e-mail: xyuan@westlake.edu.cn

show less

Figures & Tables(16)

Fig. 1. Reconstructed real data of Legoman, captured by snapshot SCI systems in Ref. [20]. We show reconstruction results of 12 spectral channels, and compare our proposed method with the latest self-supervised method (PnP-DIP-HSI [23]) and the method based on maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation (DGSMP algorithm [24]). As can be seen from the purple and green areas in the plot, our method reconstructs a clearer image, the PnP-DIP-HSI method produces some artifacts, and the DGSMP method loses some details.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 2. Schematic diagrams of CASSI system.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 3. Architecture of the proposed GAP-CCoT. (a) GAP-net with N stages; G(·) represents the operation of Eq. (6), D(·) represents a denoiser, and v(0)=HTg. (b) CCoT-net, the proposed denoising network plugged into GAP algorithm. (c) Convolution branch and Transformer branch; the output is connected with concatenation. (d) Convolution block with channel attention; c represents the output number of convolution channels. (e) Contextual Transformer block. (f) Pixelshuffle algorithm for fast upsampling.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 4. Reconstruction results of GAP-CCoT and other spectral reconstruction algorithms (λ-net, HSSP, TSA-net, GAP-net, DGSMP, PnP-DIP-HSI) in scene 3 and scene 9. Zoom in for better view.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 5. Architecture of the proposed Stacked CCoT. The input of the network is HTg, and CCoT-net is the same as in Fig. 3(b).

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 6. Effect of stage number on SCI reconstruction quality.

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 7. Reconstruction results of GAP-CCoT and other spectral reconstruction algorithms (λ-net, TSA-net, GAP-net, DGSMP, PnP-DIP-HSI) in two real scenes (scene 1 and scene 2).

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 8. Reconstructed frame of our method and other algorithms (GAP-TV, DeSCI, PnP-FFDNet, U-net, BIRNAT, RevSCI) on six benchmark datasets.

Download full size

View in Article

Table 1. Average PSNR in dB (upper entry in each cell) and SSIM (lower entry in each cell) of Different Algorithms on 10 Synthetic Datasets^a

View table

View in Article

Table 1. Average PSNR in dB (upper entry in each cell) and SSIM (lower entry in each cell) of Different Algorithms on 10 Synthetic Datasets^a

Algorithms	Scene 1	Scene 2	Scene 3	Scene 4	Scene 5	Scene 6	Scene 7	Scene 8	Scene 9	Scene 10	Average
TwIST [6]	24.81	19.99	21.14	30.30	21.68	22.16	17.71	22.39	21.43	22.87	$22.44 \pm 3.32$
TwIST [6]	0.730	0.632	0.764	0.874	0.688	0.660	0.694	0.682	0.729	0.595	$0.704 \pm 0.077$
GAP-TV [7]	25.13	20.67	23.19	35.13	22.31	22.90	17.98	23.00	23.36	23.70	$23.73 \pm 4.45$
GAP-TV [7]	0.724	0.630	0.757	0.870	0.674	0.635	0.670	0.624	0.717	0.551	$0.685 \pm 0.088$
DeSCI [8]	27.15	22.26	26.56	39.00	24.80	23.55	20.03	20.29	23.98	25.94	$25.35 \pm 5.38$
DeSCI [8]	0.794	0.694	0.877	0.965	0.778	0.753	0.772	0.740	0.818	0.666	$0.785 \pm 0.087$
HSSP [19]	31.48	31.09	28.96	34.56	28.53	30.83	28.71	30.09	30.43	28.78	$30.35 \pm 3.79$
HSSP [19]	0.858	0.842	0.832	0.902	0.808	0.877	0.824	0.881	0.868	0.842	$0.852 \pm 0.049$
$λ$ -net [9]	30.82	26.30	29.42	36.27	27.84	30.69	24.20	28.86	29.32	27.66	$29.14 \pm 3.20$
$λ$ -net [9]	0.880	0.846	0.916	0.962	0.866	0.886	0.875	0.880	0.902	0.843	$0.886 \pm 0.035$
TSA-net [71]	31.26	26.88	30.03	39.90	28.89	31.30	25.16	29.69	30.03	28.32	$30.15 \pm 3.92$
TSA-net [71]	0.887	0.855	0.921	0.964	0.878	0.895	0.887	0.887	0.903	0.848	$0.893 \pm 0.033$
PnP-DIP-HSI [23]	32.70	27.27	31.32	40.79	29.81	30.41	28.18	29.45	34.55	28.52	$31.30 \pm 3.98$
PnP-DIP-HSI [23]	0.898	0.832	0.920	0.970	0.903	0.890	0.913	0.885	0.932	0.863	$0.901 \pm 0.038$
GAP-net [20]	33.03	29.52	33.04	41.59	30.95	32.88	27.60	30.17	32.74	29.73	$32.13 \pm 3.81$
GAP-net [20]	0.921	0.903	0.940	0.972	0.924	0.927	0.921	0.904	0.927	0.901	$0.924 \pm 0.021$
DGSMP [24]	33.26	32.09	33.06	40.54	28.86	33.08	30.74	31.55	31.66	31.44	$32.63 \pm 3.07$
DGSMP [24]	0.915	0.898	0.925	0.964	0.882	0.937	0.886	0.923	0.911	0.925	$0.917 \pm 0.024$
SSI-ResU-Net (v1) [10]	34.06	30.85	33.14	40.79	31.57	34.99	27.93	33.24	33.58	31.55	$33.17 \pm 3.34$
SSI-ResU-Net (v1) [10]	0.926	0.902	0.924	0.970	0.939	0.955	0.861	0.949	0.931	0.934	$0.929 \pm 0.030$
Ours	35.17	35.90	36.91	42.25	32.61	34.95	33.46	33.13	35.75	32.43	$35.26 \pm 2.89$
Ours	0.938	0.948	0.958	0.977	0.948	0.957	0.923	0.952	0.954	0.941	$0.950 \pm 0.014$

Table 2. Computational Complexity and Average Reconstruction Quality of Several SOTA Algorithms on 10 Synthetic Datasets

View table

View in Article

Table 2. Computational Complexity and Average Reconstruction Quality of Several SOTA Algorithms on 10 Synthetic Datasets

Algorithm	Params ( $10^{6}$ )	FLOPs ( $10^{9}$ )	PSNR (dB)	SSIM
$λ$ -net [9]	66.16	514.33	29.25	0.886
TSA-net [71]	44.25	135.03	30.15	0.893
GAP-net [20]	2.89	54.16	32.13	0.924
DGSMP [24]	3.76	647.28	32.63	0.917
SSI-ResU-Net (v1) [10]	1.25	81.98	33.17	0.929
GAP-CCoT-S3	2.68	31.84	33.89	0.934
GAP-CCoT-S9	8.04	95.52	35.26	0.950

Table 3. Average PSNR and SSIM Results on 10 Synthetic Data with Different Masks

View table

View in Article

Table 3. Average PSNR and SSIM Results on 10 Synthetic Data with Different Masks

Mask	PSNR (dB)	SSIM
Mask used in training	$35.26 \pm 2.89$	$0.950 \pm 0.014$
New mask 1	$35.10 \pm 2.92$	$0.949 \pm 0.015$
New mask 2	$35.06 \pm 2.91$	$0.948 \pm 0.015$
New mask 3	$35.06 \pm 2.91$	$0.949 \pm 0.015$
New mask 4	$35.02 \pm 2.92$	$0.948 \pm 0.014$
New mask 5	$34.99 \pm 2.90$	$0.948 \pm 0.014$

Table 4. Ablation Study: Average PSNR and SSIM Values of Different Algorithms on 10 Synthetic Data
View table
View in Article
Table 4. Ablation Study: Average PSNR and SSIM Values of Different Algorithms on 10 Synthetic Data
Algorithms PSNR (dB) SSIM
Stacked CCoT w/o CoT $32.86 \pm 3.01$ $0.924 \pm 0.021$
GAP-CCoT w/o CoT $34.13 \pm 2.95$ $0.933 \pm 0.019$
Stacked CCoT $34.27 \pm 2.94$ $0.936 \pm 0.018$
GAP-CCoT $35.26 \pm 2.89$ $0.950 \pm 0.014$

Table 5. Computational Complexity and Average Reconstruction Quality of GAP-CCoT on 10 Synthetic Data with Different Stages
View table
View in Article
Table 5. Computational Complexity and Average Reconstruction Quality of GAP-CCoT on 10 Synthetic Data with Different Stages
Stage Number Params ( $10^{6}$ ) FLOPs ( $10^{9}$ ) PSNR (dB) SSIM
3 2.68 31.84 33.89 0.934
5 4.47 53.06 34.30 0.936
7 6.25 74.29 34.86 0.940
9 8.04 95.52 35.26 0.950
12 10.72 127.35 35.43 0.951
15 13.41 159.19 35.54 0.952

Table 6. Average PSNR and SSIM Results on 10 Synthetic Data with Different Loss Functions
View table
View in Article
Table 6. Average PSNR and SSIM Results on 10 Synthetic Data with Different Loss Functions
Loss Function PSNR (dB) SSIM
LAD 35.48 0.952
MSE 35.26 0.950

Table 7. Extending Our Method for Video Compressive Sensing: Average PSNR, SSIM, and Running Time per Measurement of Different Algorithms on Six Benchmark Datasets

View table

View in Article

Table 7. Extending Our Method for Video Compressive Sensing: Average PSNR, SSIM, and Running Time per Measurement of Different Algorithms on Six Benchmark Datasets

Algorithm	PSNR (dB)	SSIM	Running Time (s)
GAP-TV [7]	$26.73 \pm 4.33$	$0.858 \pm 0.082$	4.201 (CPU)
PnP-FFDNet [74]	$29.70 \pm 6.75$	$0.892 \pm 0.071$	3.010 (GPU)
DeSCI [8]	$32.65 \pm 7.07$	$0.935 \pm 0.047$	6180 (CPU)
BIRNAT [75]	$33.31 \pm 5.90$	$0.951 \pm 0.027$	0.165 (GPU)
U-net [76]	$29.45 \pm 4.75$	$0.882 \pm 0.057$	0.031 (GPU)
GAP-net-U-net-S12 [20]	$32.86 \pm 5.92$	$0.947 \pm 0.030$	0.03 (GPU)
MetaSCI [77]	$31.72 \pm 5.72$	$0.926 \pm 0.040$	0.025 (GPU)
RevSCI [78]	$33.92 \pm 6.02$	$0.956 \pm 0.025$	0.190 (GPU)
Ours	$33.53 \pm 5.90$	$0.954 \pm 0.026$	0.064 (GPU)

Table 8. Computational Complexity and Average Reconstruction Quality of Several SOTA Algorithms on Six Grayscale Benchmark Datasets

View table

View in Article

Table 8. Computational Complexity and Average Reconstruction Quality of Several SOTA Algorithms on Six Grayscale Benchmark Datasets

Algorithm	Params ( $10^{6}$ )	FLOPs ( $10^{9}$ )	PSNR (dB)	SSIM
BIRNAT [75]	4.13	390.56	33.31	0.951
U-net [76]	0.82	53.63	29.45	0.882
GAP-net-U-net-S12 [20]	5.62	87.58	32.86	0.947
MetaSCI [77]	2.89	54.16	31.72	0.926
RevSCI [78]	5.66	766.95	33.92	0.956
Ours	10.51	113.75	33.53	0.954

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Lishun Wang, Zongliang Wu, Yong Zhong, Xin Yuan. Snapshot spectral compressive imaging reconstruction using convolution and contextual Transformer[J]. Photonics Research, 2022, 10(8): 1848

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites

Paper Information

Category: Image Processing and Image Analysis

Received: Mar. 14, 2022

Accepted: Jun. 8, 2022

Published Online: Jul. 21, 2022

The Author Email: Yong Zhong (zhongyong@casit.com.cn), Xin Yuan (xyuan@westlake.edu.cn)

DOI:10.1364/PRJ.458231

Topics

laser devices and laser physics

Lasers and Laser Optics

Laser physics

laser manufacturing

Instrumentation, Measurement and Metrology

Table 1. Average PSNR in dB (upper entry in each cell) and SSIM (lower entry in each cell) of Different Algorithms on 10 Synthetic Datasetsa

Table 1. Average PSNR in dB (upper entry in each cell) and SSIM (lower entry in each cell) of Different Algorithms on 10 Synthetic Datasetsa

Table 2. Computational Complexity and Average Reconstruction Quality of Several SOTA Algorithms on 10 Synthetic Datasets

Table 2. Computational Complexity and Average Reconstruction Quality of Several SOTA Algorithms on 10 Synthetic Datasets

Table 3. Average PSNR and SSIM Results on 10 Synthetic Data with Different Masks

Table 3. Average PSNR and SSIM Results on 10 Synthetic Data with Different Masks

Table 4. Ablation Study: Average PSNR and SSIM Values of Different Algorithms on 10 Synthetic Data

Table 4. Ablation Study: Average PSNR and SSIM Values of Different Algorithms on 10 Synthetic Data

Table 5. Computational Complexity and Average Reconstruction Quality of GAP-CCoT on 10 Synthetic Data with Different Stages

Table 5. Computational Complexity and Average Reconstruction Quality of GAP-CCoT on 10 Synthetic Data with Different Stages

Table 6. Average PSNR and SSIM Results on 10 Synthetic Data with Different Loss Functions

Table 6. Average PSNR and SSIM Results on 10 Synthetic Data with Different Loss Functions

Table 7. Extending Our Method for Video Compressive Sensing: Average PSNR, SSIM, and Running Time per Measurement of Different Algorithms on Six Benchmark Datasets

Table 7. Extending Our Method for Video Compressive Sensing: Average PSNR, SSIM, and Running Time per Measurement of Different Algorithms on Six Benchmark Datasets

Table 8. Computational Complexity and Average Reconstruction Quality of Several SOTA Algorithms on Six Grayscale Benchmark Datasets

Table 8. Computational Complexity and Average Reconstruction Quality of Several SOTA Algorithms on Six Grayscale Benchmark Datasets

Table 1. Average PSNR in dB (upper entry in each cell) and SSIM (lower entry in each cell) of Different Algorithms on 10 Synthetic Datasets^a

Table 1. Average PSNR in dB (upper entry in each cell) and SSIM (lower entry in each cell) of Different Algorithms on 10 Synthetic Datasets^a