Skip to main content
Log in

Uniqueness of phase retrieval from three measurements

  • Published:
Advances in Computational Mathematics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we consider the question of finding an as small as possible family of operators \((T_j)_{j\in J}\) on \(L^2({\mathbb {R}})\) that does phase retrieval: every \(\varphi \) is uniquely determined (up to a constant phase factor) by the phaseless data \((|T_j\varphi |)_{j\in J}\). This problem arises in various fields of applied sciences where usually the operators obey further restrictions. Of particular interest here are so-called coded diffraction patterns where the operators are of the form \(T_j\varphi ={\mathcal F}[m_j\varphi ]\), \({\mathcal F}\) the Fourier transform and \(m_j\in L^\infty ({\mathbb {R}})\) are “masks”. Here we explicitly construct three real-valued masks \(m_1,m_2,m_3\in L^\infty ({\mathbb {R}})\) so that the associated coded diffraction patterns do phase retrieval. This implies that the three self-adjoint operators \(T_j\varphi ={\mathcal F}[m_j{\mathcal F}^{-1}\varphi ]\) also do phase retrieval. The proof uses complex analysis. We then show that some natural analogs of these operators in the finite dimensional setting do not always lead to the same uniqueness result due to an under-sampling effect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

No data has been generated or analyzed during this study.

Notes

  1. Note that we normalized the Fourier transform \({\mathcal F}\) so that it is unitary. Its adjoint is thus the inverse Fourier transform \({\mathcal F}^*\varphi (x)={\mathcal F}^{-1}\varphi (x)={\mathcal F}\varphi (-x)\).

References

  1. Akutowicz, E.: On the determination of the phase of a Fourier integral. I. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 83, 179–192 (1956)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Balan, R., Casazza, P., Edidin, D.: On signal reconstruction without phase. Appl. Comp. Harmon. Anal. 20, 345–356 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. T. Bendory, R. Beinert & Y. C. Eldar, Fourier phase retrieval: uniqueness and algorithms. In Compressed sensing and its applications, Appl. Numer. Harmon. Anal., pages 55–91. Birkhäuser/Springer, Cham, 2017

  4. Bodmann, B.G., Hammen, N.: Stable phase retrieval with low-redundancy frames. Adv. Comput. Math. 41, 317–331 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Busch, P., Lahti, P.J.: The determination of the past and the future of a physical system in quantum mechanics. Found. Phys. 19, 633–78 (1989)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Candès, E., Li, X., Soltanolkotabi, M.: Phase retrieval from coded diffraction patterns. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. 39, 277–299 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Candès, E.J., Eldar, Y., Strohmer, T., Voroninski, V.: Phase retrieval via matrix completion. SIAM Review 57, 225–251 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Conca, A., Edidin, D., Hering, M., Vinzant, C.: An algebraic characterization of injectivity in phase retrieval. Appl. Comp. Harmon. Anal. 38, 346–356 (2015)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Corbett, J.V.: The Pauli problem, state reconstruction and quantum-real numbers. Rep. Math. Phys. 57, 53–68 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Corbett, J.V., Hurst, C.A.: Are wave functions uniquely determined by their position and momentum distributions? J. Austral. Math. Soc B 20, 182–201 (1978)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Fickus, M., Mixon, D.G., Nelson, A.A., Wang, Y.: Phase retrieval from very few measurements. Linear Algebra Appl. 449, 475–499 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Goodman, J.: Introduction to Fourier optics. Freeman, McGraw-Hill physical and quantum electronics series. W. H (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Goyeneche, D., Catas, G., Etcheverry, S., Gómez, E.S., Xavier, G.B., Lima, G., Delgado, A.: Five measurement bases determine pure quantum states on any dimension. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 090401 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Grohs, P., Rathmair, M.: Stable Gabor phase retrieval and spectral clustering. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 72, 981–1043 (2019)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Grohs, P., Koppensteiner, S., Rathmair, M.: Phase retrieval: uniqueness and stability. SIAM Review 62, 301–350 (2020)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Gross, D., Krahmer, F., Kueng, R.: Improved recovery guarantees for phase retrieval from coded diffraction patterns. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. 42, 37–64 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Hofstetter, E.: Construction of time-limited functions with specified autocorrelation functions. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 10, 119–126 (1964)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Heinosaari, T., Mazzarella, L., Wolf, M.M.: Quantum tomography under prior information. Commun. Math. Phys. 318, 355–374 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Ismagilov, R.S.: On the Pauli problem. Funksional Anal i Prilozhen 30, 82–84 (1996)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. K. Jaganathan, Y. C. Eldar & B. Hassibi, Phase retrieval: an overview of recent developments. In Optical compressive imaging, Ser. Opt. Optoelectron., pp 263-296. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (2017)

  21. Jaming, Ph.: Phase retrieval techniques for radar ambiguity functions. J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 5, 313–333 (1999)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Jaming, Ph.: Uniqueness results in an extension of Pauli’s phase retrieval problem. Applied and Comp. Harm. Anal. 37, 413–441 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Jaming, Ph., Kellay, K., Perez III, R.: Phase retrieval for wide band signals. J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 26(54) (2020)

  24. Janssen, A.J.E.M.: The Zak transform and some counterexamples in time-frequency analysis. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 38, 168–171 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Klibanov, M.V., Sacks, P.E., Tikhonravov, A.V.: The phase retrieval problem. Inverse Problems 11 (1995)

  26. Mondragon, D., Voroninski, V.: Determination of all pure quantum states from a minimal number of observables. arXiv:1306.1214

  27. Mc Donald, J.: Phase retrieval and magnitude retrieval of entire functions. J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 10, 259–267 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. D. G. Mixon, Phase Transitions in phase retrieval. In: Balan R., Begué M., Benedetto J., Czaja W., Okoudjou K. (eds) Excursions in Harmonic Analysis, Volume 4. Applied and Numerical Harmonic Analysis. Birkhäuser (2015)

  29. Morov, B.Z., Perelomov, A.M.: On a problem posed by Pauli. Theor. Math. Phys. 101, 1200–1204 (1994)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Pauli, W.: Die allgemeinen Prinzipien der Wellenmechanik. In: Geiger, H., Scheel, K. (eds.) Handbuch der Physik, vol. 24, pp. 83-272. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1933) English translation: General Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980

  31. Reichenbach, H.: Philosophic foundations of quantum mechanics. Univesity of California Press, Berkeley (1944)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Vinzant, C.: A small frame and a certificate of its injectivity. Sampling Theory and Applications (SampTA) Conference Proceedings, pp. 197–200. (2015)

  33. Vogt, A.: Position and momentum distributions do not determine the quantum mechanical state. In: Marlow, A.R. (ed.) Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory. Academic Press, New York (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Shechtman, Y., Eldar, Y.C., Cohen, O., Chapman, H., Miao, J., Segev, M.: Phase retrieval with application to optical imaging: a contemporary overview. 32, 87–109 (2015)

  35. Walther, A.: The question of phase retrieval in optics. Optica Acta 10, 41–49 (1963)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The second author was supported by an Erwin-Schrödinger Fellowship (J-4523) of the Austrian Science Fund FWF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The authors wish to thank the anonymous referees for the constructive remarks that lead to an improvement of the presentation of the results.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippe Jaming.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Communicated by: Gitta Kutyniok

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

The purpose of this section is to provide some background on Wright’s conjecture, as formulated in Conjecture 1.1.

We begin with introducing the main objects and notions appearing in quantum mechanics that we need here. The space of all possible states of a quantum mechanical system is represented by \(L^2(\mathbb {R})\). A state \(\psi \in L^2(\mathbb {R})\) is also called a wave function. Two wave functions \(\psi \) and \(\varphi \) are considered equivalent if they agree up to multiplication by a unimodular constant.

Quantities of a system that can be measured are called observables and represented by densely-defined self-adjoint operators on \(L^2(\mathbb {R})\). The expected value of the state \(\psi \in D(A)\) in the observable A is defined as

$$\begin{aligned} E_\psi (A)={\left\langle {\psi ,A\psi }\right\rangle }. \end{aligned}$$

The two following examples are essential in this paper. Let \(u,v\in L^\infty ({\mathbb {R}})\) be real valued. To u and v associate the following two observablesFootnote 1

$$\begin{aligned} M_u\varphi =u\varphi \qquad \text{ and }\quad {\mathcal M}_v \varphi ={\mathcal F}^*\bigl [v{\mathcal F}[\varphi ]\bigr ]. \end{aligned}$$

Then

$$\begin{aligned} E_\psi (M_u)=\int _{\mathbb {R}}u(x)|\psi (x)|^2\,\text{ d }x \end{aligned}$$

and

$$\begin{aligned} E_\psi ({\mathcal M}_v)=\int _{\mathbb {R}}v(\xi )|\widehat{\psi }(\xi )|^2\,\text{ d }\xi . \end{aligned}$$

Here, we keep the convention of notation in mathematics where the position variable is denoted by x and the momentum variable is denoted by \(\xi \) instead of p.

Let \({\mathcal B}\) be the set of Borel subsets of \({\mathbb {R}}\). It is then obvious that \(|\psi (x)|\) is uniquely determined by

$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {E}_Q=\big \{E_\psi (M_{\textbf{1}_B})\big \}_{B\in {\mathcal B}} \end{aligned}$$

which is called the distribution of the state \(\psi \) with respect to position since

$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {E}_Q=\big \{\Vert \textbf{1}_B(Q)\psi \Vert \big \}_{B\in {\mathcal B}} \end{aligned}$$

where \(\textbf{1}_B(Q)\) are the spectral projections associated to the position operator.

On the other hand \(|\widehat{\psi }(\xi )|\) is uniquely determined by distribution of the state \(\psi \) with respect to momentum:

$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {E}_P:=\{E_\psi ({\mathcal M}_v)\,:\ v=\textbf{1}_B,\ B \text{ a } \text{ Borel } \text{ set }\} =\{\Vert \textbf{1}_B(P)\psi \Vert ,\ B \text{ a } \text{ Borel } \text{ set }\}:=\mathcal {S}_P \end{aligned}$$

where \(\textbf{1}_B(P)\) are the spectral projections associated to the momentum operator.

In a footnote to the Handbuch der Physik article on the general principle of wave mechanics [30], W. Pauli asked whether a wave function \(\psi \) is uniquely determined (up to a constant phase factor) by one of the equivalent quantities

  • the Pauli data \((|\psi |,|\widehat{\psi }|)\);

  • \(\big \{\Vert \textbf{1}_B(Q)\psi \Vert \big \}_{B\in {\mathcal B}}\), \(\big \{\Vert \textbf{1}_B(P)\psi \Vert \big \}_{B\in {\mathcal B}}\);

  • \(\big \{E_\psi (M_{\textbf{1}_B})\big \}_{B\in {\mathcal B}}\), \(\big \{E_\psi ({\mathcal M}_{\textbf{1}_B})\big \}_{B\in {\mathcal B}}\).

The question can also be found e.g. in the book by H. Reichenbach [31] and in Busch & Lahti [5].

As mentioned in the introduction, it is known that in general the Pauli data does not uniquely determine the state \(\psi \) (up to a constant phase factor).

It is then natural to ask whether there exists a set of observables \((A_j)_{j\in J}\) (preferably including position and momentum or at least having a physical meaning) such that the associated sets built from spectral projections

$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {E}_j:=\big \{\Vert \textbf{1}_B(A_j)\psi \Vert \big \}_{B\in {\mathcal B}} =\big \{E_\psi \bigl (\textbf{1}_B(A_j)\bigr )\big \}_{B\in {\mathcal B}} \end{aligned}$$

uniquely determine every state \(\psi \).

Using the spectral theorem, to a self-adjoint operator \(A_j\) we can associate a unitary operator \(U_j\) and a multiplication operator \(M_j\) on a space \(L^2(\mu _j)\) such that \(A_j=U_j^*M_jU_j\). Then the data \(\mathcal {E}_j\), \(j\in J\) uniquely determine \(|U_j\psi |\), \(j\in J\). This then directly leads to Wright’s Conjecture 1.1 and to its relaxation 1.2: find a set of measures \(\mu _j\) and unitary operators \(U_j:L^2({\mathbb {R}}^d)\rightarrow L^2(\mu _j)\) such that \(|U_j\psi |=|U_j\varphi |\), \(j\in J\), implies that \(\psi \) and \(\varphi \) are equivalent up to a constant phase factor.

A relaxed version is to find a set \(\{T_j\}_{j\in J}\) of bounded self-adjoint (or even only bounded) operators on \(L^2({\mathbb {R}})\) such that \(|T_j\psi |=|T_j\varphi |\), \(j\in J\), implies that \(\psi \) and \(\varphi \) are equivalent up to a constant phase factor. The data \(|T_j\psi |\) can also be interpreted as an expectation of the state \(\psi \) with respect to a family of observables. To be more precise, to a bounded operator T, we may associate the self-adjoint operator \(A_u=T^*M_uT\) with \(u\in L^\infty ({\mathbb {R}})\) real valued. Then

$$\begin{aligned} {\left\langle {\psi ,A_u\psi }\right\rangle }=\int _{\mathbb {R}}u(x)|T\psi (x)|^2\,\text{ d }x \end{aligned}$$

so that \(|T\psi |\) is uniquely determined by

$$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal E}_T:=\big \{E_\psi (T^*M_{\textbf{1}_B}T)\big \}_{B\in {\mathcal B}}. \end{aligned}$$

However, it does not seem possible to reformulate this family of measurements in terms of spectral projections associated to a single self-adjoint operator.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jaming, P., Rathmair, M. Uniqueness of phase retrieval from three measurements. Adv Comput Math 49, 47 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10444-023-10045-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10444-023-10045-z

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Navigation