arxiv: FOURIER PHASE RETRIEVAL WITH A SINGLE MASK BY THE DOUGLAS-RACHFORD ALGORITHM

Transcription

1 arxiv: FOURIER PHASE RETRIEVAL WITH A SINGLE MASK BY THE DOUGLAS-RACHFORD ALGORITHM PENGWEN CHEN AND ALBERT FANNJIANG Abstract. Douglas-Rachford (DR) algorithm is analyzed for Fourier phase retrieval with a single random phase mask. Local, geometric convergence to a unique fixed point is proved with numerical demonstration of global convergence. Since a single oversampled coded diffraction pattern is not enough to guarantee uniqueness of fixed point, the extra information and data needed takes either of the following two forms: ) the sector condition on the object; ) another oversampled diffraction pattern, coded or uncoded. KEYWORDS. Phase retrieval, diffract-before-destruct, coded diffraction pattern, Douglas-Rachford algorithm. Introduction X-ray crystallography has been the preferred technology for determining the structure of a biological molecule over the past hundred years. The method, however, is limited by crystal quality, radiation damage and phase determination [47]. The first two problems call for large crystals that yield sufficient diffraction intensities while reducing the dose to individual molecules in the crystal. The difficulty of growing large, well-diffracting crystals is thus the major bottleneck of X-ray crystallography - a necessary experimental step that can range from merely challenging to pretty much impossible, particularly for large macromolecular assemblies and membrane proteins. By boosting the brightness of available X-rays by orders of magnitude and producing pulses well below fs duration, X-ray free electron lasers (XFEL) offer the possibility of extending structural studies to single, non-crystalline particles or molecules by using short intense pulses that out-run radiation damage, thus circumventing the first two aforementioned problems [49]. In the so-called diffract-before-destruct approach [,, 55], a stream of particles is flowed across the XFEL beam and randomly hit by a single X-ray pulse, forming a single diffraction pattern before being vaporized as a nano-plasma burst. Each diffraction pattern contains certain information about the planar projection of the scattering potential of the object along the direction of the beam which is to be recovered by phase retrieval techniques []. The modern approach to phase retrieval for non-periodic objects roughly starts with the Gerchberg-Saxton algorithm [33], followed by its variant, Error Reduction (ER), and the more powerful Hybrid-Input-Output (HIO) algorithm [3, 3]. These form the cornerstones of the standard iterative transform algorithms (ITA) [8, 4].

2 n a Gaussian function []. The presence of a mutual optical intensity does not affect the issue of uniqueness of solution but can make the problem more susceptible to noise, especially when J is narrowly concentrated, corresponding to highly incoherent illumination. Coherent illumination Coherent illuminatio Coherent illumination Coherent illumination With the standard oversampling the phase problem amounts to recovering the object from its autocorrelation. However, the autocorrelation function Cf does not uniquely determine the object f. object First Fine-grained theremask are global, obvious ambiguities that yield object the same diffraction pattern: global phase Fine-grained mask (f ( ) eiθ f ( )), spatial shift (f ( ) f ( + n)) and conjugate inversion (twin image: f ( ) object Fine-grained mask object Fine-grained mask f ((N, N ) )) which are called the trivial associates. Then there are hidden, nontrivial ambiguities which involve conjugate inversion of some, but not all, of nontrivial (i.e. non-monomial in z and z ) irreducible factors of the z-transform F (z), the analytic continuation of the Fourier transform defined on the unit torus to all z = (z, z ) C. The twin image is the special case Diffraction pattern (Fourier intensity) Diffraction pattern (Fourier intensity) Diffraction pattern (Fourier intensity) Diffraction pattern (Fourier intensity) where all factors undergo the conjugate inversion. From the works of Bruck, Sodin [9], Bates [, ] and Hayes [64, 65] we know that the nontrivial (a) random illumination (b) wavefront sensing (a) random illumination (b) wavefront sensing ambiguities are rare ( almost all polynomials of two or more variables have no nontrivial factors) Figure. Conceptual layout of coherent lensless imaging with a fine-grained mask Figure. Conceptual layout of coherent lensless imaging with a fine-grained mask but the trivial ones are inevitable. From Fienup s pioneering works [54 58] we also learn that the (a) before (for random illumination) or (b) behind (for wavefront sensing) the object. (a) before (for random illumination) or (b) behind (for wavefront sensing) the object. object can be recovered reasonably well by enforcing positivity and/or a good support (e.g. tight The equivalence of the two imaging geometries provides additional flexibility in The equivalence of the two imaging geometries provides additional flexibility in support) constraint. The numerical problems (stagnation, erroneous reconstruction etc) due to implementation. implementation. lack of a good support constraint are often attributed to the existence of many local minima due to non-convexity of the Fourier intensity constraint. Since a good support constraint may be unavailable, this project seeks an alternative approach. We intend to work exclusively with the object value constraint such as positivity or the sector condition which constrains the phases of {f (n)} to a proper sub-interval5 (called sector) of ( π, π] 5 (see extension in Section 5). For example, in the X-ray spectrum most object transmission functions have positive real and imaginary parts [75] and hence satisfy the π/-sector constraint (the first quadrant of the complex plane). 5 5 To fully utilize the object value constraint we introduce a random mask in the Fourier intensity measurement (see Fig. ). mask object mask object Mask effect is multiplicative and described as Mask effect is multiplicative and described as 5 f (n) = f (n)µ(n) 3 f (n) = f (n)µ(n) {µ(n)} is an array of random variables. The mask can be placed before (Fig. (a)) or behin where {µ(n)} is an array of random variables. The mask can be placed before (Fig. (a)) or where behind (Fig. (b)) the object, giving rise to two equivalent imaging geometries and providing addition (Fig. (b)) the object, giving rise to two equivalent 35 imaging geometries and providing additional flexibility in implementation. By placing a mask at a distance from the object, one can crea flexibility in implementation. By placing a mask at4a distance from the object, one can create illuminating (mask before object) or diffracted (mask behind object) field modulated in bot an illuminating (mask before object) or diffracted (mask behind object) field modulated inanboth amplitude and phase in a way dependent on the distance []. amplitude and phase in a way dependent on the distance []. Forthe clarity of subsequent however, we will focus on the random illumination setu For clarity of subsequent however, we will focus on the measurement random illumination setup Maskdiscussion, effect is multiplicative and a masked produces diffraction patterndiscussion, of a of Fig. (a) unless we specifically discuss wavefront sensing. of Fig. (a) unless we specifically discuss wavefront masked object of the form sensing. In this proposal, we will mainly concern with the effect of random phases {φ(n)} in the mask In this proposal, we will mainly concern with the effect of random phases {φ(n)} in the mask g(n) = f (n)µ(n) Figure. Conceptual layout of coherent lensless imaging with a random mask (left) before (for random illumination) or (right) behind (for wavefront µ(n) = µ (n)e µ(n) = µ (n)e sensing) the object. (middle) The diffraction pattern measured without a mask has a larger dynamic range and thus a higher chance of damaging the sensors. The color bar is on a logarithmic scale. iφ(n) iφ(n) 3 3 However, the standard ITA tend to stagnate and do not perform well without additional prior information, such as tight support and positivity. The reason is that the plain diffraction pattern alone does not guarantee uniqueness of solution (see [53], however, for uniqueness under additional prior information). On the contrary, many phasing solutions exist for a given diffraction pattern, resulting in what is called the phase problem [36]. To this end, a promising approach is to measure the diffraction pattern with a single random mask and use the coded diffraction pattern as the data. As shown in [8], the uniqueness of solution is restored with a high probability given any scattering potential whose value is restricted to a known sector (say, the upper half plane) of the complex plane (see Proposition 4.). Indeed, the sector constraint is a practical, realistic condition to impose on almost all materials as the imaginary part of the scattering potential is proportional to the (positive) extinction coefficient with the upper half plane as the sector constraint []. For X-ray regime, the real part of the scattering potential is typically slightly negative which with a nonnegative imaginary part gives to the second quadrant as the sector constraint [8]. What happens if the sector condition is not met and consequently one coded diffraction pattern is not enough to ensure uniqueness? This question is particularly pertinent to the diffract-before-destruct approach as the particle can not withstand the radiation damage from more than one XFEL pulses.

3 A plausible measurement scheme is to guide the transmitted field (the transmission function []) from a planar illumination through a beam splitter [5], generating two copies of the transmitted field which are then measured separately as a coded diffraction pattern and a plain diffraction pattern. In this set-up, the object function is the transmitted field behind the particle and the phase retrieval problem becomes the wave-front reconstruction problem [, 35]. In practice beam splitters and the masks (or any measurement devices) should be used as sparingly as possible to avoid introducing excessive measurement noises. With two diffraction patterns, the uniqueness of solution (in the above sense) is restored almost surely without the sector constraint (see Proposition 4. and Remark 4.4). With the uniqueness-ensuring sampling schemes (Section.), ad hoc combinations of members of ITA (such as HIO and ER) can be devised to recover the true solution [9, 3]. There is, however, no convergence proof for these algorithms. The main goal of the paper is to prove the local, geometric convergence of the Douglas- Rachford (DR) algorithm to a unique fixed point in the case of one or two oversampled diffraction patterns (Theorems 5., 6.3 and 4.3) and demonstrate global convergence numerically (Section 7). DR has the following general form: Let P and P be the projections onto the two constraint sets, respectively. For phase retrieval, P describes the projection onto the set of diffracted fields (instead of diffraction patterns) and P the data fitting. Let R = P I and R = P I be the respective reflection operators. The Douglas-Rachford (DR) algorithm is defined by the iteration scheme [5, 4] () y (k+) := (I + R R )y (k) = y (k) + P (P I)y (k) P y (k), k =,, 3 Closely related to HIO, DR also belongs to the ITA family (Section 3). ITA are computationally efficient thanks to the fast Fourier transform (FFT) and explicit nature of P, P (see () below)... Oversampled diffraction patterns. Next we describe our sampling schemes before we can properly introduce P, P and the Douglas-Rachford algorithm for phase retrieval (Section 3). Let f(n) be a discrete object function with n = (n, n,, n d ) Z d. Consider the object space consisting of all functions supported in M = { m M, m M,, m d M d }. We assume d. With a coherent illumination under the Fraunhofer approximation, the free-space propagation between the object plane and the sensor plane can be described by the Fourier transform [] (with the proper coordinates and normalization). However, only the intensities of the Fourier transform are measured on the sensor plane and constitute the so called diffraction pattern given by M f(m + n)f(m)e iπn w, w = (w,, w d ) [, ] d, M = (M,, M d ) n= M m M which is the Fourier transform of the autocorrelation R f (n) = m M f(m + n)f(m). 3

4 Here and below the over-line notation means complex conjugacy. Note that R f is defined on the enlarged grid M = {(m,, m d ) Z d : M m M,, M d m d M d } whose cardinality is roughly d times that of M. Hence by sampling the diffraction pattern on the grid { L = (w,, w d ) w j =, M j +, M j +,, M } j M j + we can recover the autocorrelation function by the inverse Fourier transform. This is the standard oversampling with which the diffraction pattern and the autocorrelation function become equivalent via the Fourier transform [44, 45]. A coded diffraction pattern is measured with a mask whose effect is multiplicative and results in a masked object of the form g(n) = f(n)µ(n) where {µ(n)} is an array of random variables representing the mask. In other words, a coded diffraction pattern is just the plain diffraction pattern of a masked object. We will focus on the effect of random phases φ(n) in the mask function µ(n) = µ (n)e iφ(n) where φ(n) are independent, continuous real-valued random variables and µ (n), n M (i.e. the mask is transparent). Without loss of generality, we assume µ(n) =, n which gives rise to a phase mask and an isometric propagation matrix () (-mask ) A = cφ diag{µ}, i.e. AA = I (with a proper choice of the normalizing constant c), where Φ is the oversampled d-dimensional discrete Fourier transform (DFT). Specifically Φ C M, M is the sub-column matrix of the standard DFT on the extended grid M where M is the cardinality of M. Continuous phase modulation can be experimentally realized with various techniques such as spread spectrum phase modulation [59]. When two phase masks µ, µ are deployed, the propagation matrix A is the stacked coded DFTs, i.e. [ ] Φ (-mask case) A diag{µ } (3) = c Φ diag{µ } With proper normalization, A is isometric. In line with the spirit of simplifying measurement complexity discussed above, we remove the second mask (i.e. µ ) and consider the propagation matrix [8 3] [ ] Φ diag{µ} (4) ( -mask case) A = c Φ normalized to be isometric, where µ is independently and continuously distributed over the unit circle. In other words, one oversampled coded pattern and one oversampled plain pattern are used for reconstruction. For convenience, we shall refer to this set-up as the -mask case to distinguish it from the one- and two-mask cases. This and its extension to the multi-mask cases would be the set-up for all our numerical simulations in Section 7. 4

5 .. Related literature. For the optical spectrum, experiments with coded diffraction patterns are not new and can be implemented by computer generated holograms [], random phase plates [] and liquid crystal phase-only panels [7]. Recently, a phase mask with randomly distributed pinholes has been implemented for soft X-ray [4]. Coded-aperture phase retrieval was formulated as a convex trace-norm minimization problem in [3,6,9] whose uniqueness was proved in [5] under the assumption that the number of independently coded diffraction patterns is sufficiently large (polylogarithmic in M ). The convex formulation [3,5,6] certainly has a tremendous appeal as global convergence can be expected for any proper numerical implementations. However, due to the lift to much higher dimensions, the convex program may be computationally expensive (see also [7, 34]). Alternative non-convex minimization formulations were proposed and solved by various gradient methods [4, 46]. In practice, these algorithms are locally convergent with a comparatively large number ( 6) of coded diffraction patterns. An important difference between the measurement schemes in these papers and the present work (as well as [8 3]) is that their coded diffraction patterns are not oversampled. Another distinctive feature of the present setting is that the dimension d is required for the spectral gap (Theorem 6.3) and the uniqueness of fixed point (Theorem 4.3), but not for the structure theorem (Theorem 5.). In this connection, we emphasize that reducing the number of coded diffraction patterns is crucial for the diffract-before-destruct approach and, in our view, oversampling is a small price to pay with current sensor technologies. A bigger price may be that we lose the robust injectivity property prized in these works (also see [5, 6]). In other words, just one or two random masks, the phase retrieval map F defined as F (x) A x with A given by (4) or (3) is injective only after a certain finite set is excluded from C M. On the other hand, for any given f, with probability one the selection of the mask(s) is such that no other object, modulo a phase factor, produces the same data as A f with A given by (4) or (3). In contrast, the injectivity theorems for coded diffraction patterns proved in [4, 5] hold true with probability close to one polynomially in M, instead of probability one. Therefore the relative strength of the two type of uniqueness is not immediately clear on the theoretical ground since both require exclusion of some small sets, ours from the space of objects and theirs from the space of random masks. Our numerical results indicate that our uniqueness theorems suffice for most practical purposes. To our knowledge, local convergence is not known for any ITA for Fourier phase retrieval. The present paper aims to fill this gap. While we can not prove global convergence of DR as for the convex setting, we will present strong numerical evidence for global convergence. In [], we prove the local, geometric convergence of the alternating projection algorithm with the same measurement scheme described in Section.. Local convergence of ER in the case of Gaussian matrix A was recently proved in [48]. There is much more literature on phase retrieval with generic frames and independent random matrices [ 6,6,7,3,6,56,58] which have a somewhat different flavor from that with Fourier phase retrieval as the latter is neither of the former two. Consequently, some of our results (Theorems 6.3 and 4.3) can not extend to these other cases without major revision. There also is a growing body of work on phase retrieval under sparsity assumptions, see [38, 39, 5, 5] and the references therein. 5

6 The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section, we simplify the notation for presenting the main results and the proof of local convergence. In Section 3, we describe the DR algorithm widely used in convex optimization problems and formulate its two versions (Fourier versus object domains) for the non-convex problem of phase retrieval. In Section 4, we prove that the fixed point of DR is unique for one or two oversampled diffraction patterns (Theorem 4.3) and give a complete characterization of the fixed point set in the two-mask case (Corollary 4.5). In Section 5, we prove local convergence of under the spectral gap assumption (Theorem 5.). In Section 6, we prove the spectral gap condition for any number of oversampled diffraction patterns (Theorem 6.3). In Section 7 we give numerical examples and demonstrate global convergence of the DR scheme.. Set-up and notation For the main text below, we shall simplify the notion as follows. The more elaborate notion of Section. will be useful again in the appendix. First, we convert the d-dimensional grid into an ordered set of index. The unknown object will now be denoted by x C n, n = M. In other words, x is the vectorized version of the object function f supported in M Z d, d (Section.). Rank- property: x is rank- (or higher) if the convex hull of supp{f} is two (or higher) dimensional. Let X be a nonempty closed convex set in C n and (5) [x] X = arg min x X x x the projection onto X. Sector constraint: x satisfies the sector constraint if the principal value of arg x (j), j is restricted to a sector [ απ, βπ] ( π, π], n. As mentioned above almost all scattering potentials f have a nonnegative imaginary part and hence satisfy the sector constraint with α =, β =. The sector constraint serves as transition between the standard positivity constraint (α = β = ) and the null constraint (α = β = ). The sector projection is explicitly given as follows: For j n x(j) if x(j) [ απ, βπ] R[x(j)e [x] X (j) = iβπ ]e iβπ if x(j) [βπ, (β + /)π] (6) R[x(j)e iαπ ]e iαπ if x(j) [ (α + /)π, απ] else and [x] X (j) =, j > n +. Phase retrieval problem. For a given unknown object x of rank, let A = [a j] C N n be the propagation matrix given by (), (3) or (4) where A is normalized to be isometric and b = A x R N be the data vector. Phase retrieval is to find a solution x to the equation (7) b = A x, x X. 6

7 We focus on two cases. ) One-pattern case: A is given by (), [x] X is given by (6). ) Two-pattern case: A is given by (3) or (4), X = C n. Phasing solution is unique only up to a constant of modulus one no matter how many coded diffraction patterns are measured. Thus the proper error metric for an estimate ˆx of the true solution x is given by (8) min θ R e iθ x ˆx = min eiθˆx x. θ R Throughout the paper, we assume the canonical embedding C n Cñ C N, n ñ N. For example, if x C n, then the embedded vector in Cñ or C N, still denoted by x, has zero components x(j) = for j n+. This is referred to as zero padding and ñ/n is the padding ratio. Conversely, if x Cñ or C N, then [x] n C n denotes the projected vector onto C n. Clearly, [x] C n = [x] n. The vector space C N = R N R ir N is isomorphic to R N via the map (9) G(v) := and endowed with the real inner product [ R(v) I(v) ], v C N u, v := R(u v) = G(u) G(v), u, v C N. We say u and v are orthogonal to each other (denoted by u v) iff u, v =. With a slight abuse of notation, we will use G(u) to denote the conversion of a complexvalued vector u in C n, Cñ or C N to its real-valued version. Phase vector: Let y y and y/y be the component-wise multiplication and division between two vectors y, y, respectively. For any y C N define the phase vector ω C N with ω(j) = y(j)/ y(j) where y(j). When y(j) = the phase can be assigned arbitrarily and we set ω(j) = unless otherwise specified. Indeed, for the one-mask () and two-mask (3) cases, the mask function by assumption is an array of continuous random variables and so is y = A x. Therefore y vanishes nowhere almost surely. On the other hand, for the -mask case (4), it is possible that some components of y vanish. 3. Douglas-Rachford algorithm Phase retrieval can be formulated as the following feasibility problem in the Fourier domain () Find ŷ A X Y, Y := {y C N : y = b}. Let P be the projection onto A X and P the projection onto Y: () P y = A [Ay] X, P y = b y y 7

8 Then DR () becomes y (k+) = S f (y (k) ) with ( S f (y) = y + A [A b y )] () y y X b y y which we call the Fourier-domain DR () to contrast with the following object domain version. Let à = [A, A ] CN,ñ be a complex isometric extension of A, implying that A A = I, AA = A A =. Then the phase retrieval problem can be more generally formulated as à x = b, x X. Consider the feasibility problem Find ˆx X X } (3), X := {x Cñ : à x = b. Let P be the projection onto X, i.e. P x = [x] X, and P the projection onto X. When ñ = N (hence à is unitary), ( ) (4) and () is equivalent to (5) S(x) = x + In this case, we have (6) [ à P x = à ( à x b à x à x b à x ) x ] X à à Sà = S f, for ñ = N. ( à x b à x In the -pattern case with the standard oversampling N = ñ 4n, à = A is unitary and (5) is also known as the Hybrid-Input-Output (HIO) algorithm (with the HIO parameter set to one) [8, 3]. For ñ < N (as with two oversampled patterns N 8n with the standard padding ñ 4n), the precise form of P is not known explicitly. For the purpose of contrasting with () and for lack of a better term we shall call (5) (with ñ N) the generalized Object-domain Douglas-Rachford algorithm ( for short). The family is an interpolation between the HIO and. While depends explicitly on ñ, is independent of ñ in the sense that (7) S f (y) = y + à [à ( b y y y since [Ãy] X = [Ay] X C n and à [Ãy] X = A [Ay] X. )] X b y y ). 4. Uniqueness of fixed point Let y be a fixed point of (), i.e. S f (y ) = y, x = Ay. Let ω = y / y be the phase factor of the fixed point. Let (8) ˆx = [A (b ω y )] X = [A(b ω ) x ] X, 8

9 where X represents the sector condition in the -pattern case and X = C n in the -pattern case. We have from () (9) which implies the following results. Proposition 4.. () () A ˆx = b ω A ˆx = A x A ˆx = y. The significance of Proposition 4. is this: Eq. () is related to phase retrieval and eq. () magnitude retrieval problem. Now we recall the uniqueness of phase retrieval. Proposition 4.. [8] (Uniqueness of Fourier phase retrieval) Let x be a rank object and x a solution of of the phase retrieval problem (7). ) One-mask case l =. Suppose, in addition, that x (j) [ απ, βπ], j. Then x = e iθ x for some constant θ R with a high probability which has a simple, lower bound S/ n β + α () if µ is uniformly distributed on the unit circle, where S is the sparsity of the image and S/ the greatest integer less than or equal to S/. ) Two-mask case l =. Suppose, in addition, that both masks are independently and continuously distributed on the unit circle and independent from each other. Then x = e iθ x for some constant θ R with probability one. The proof of Proposition 4. is given in [8] where more general uniqueness theorems can be found, including the -mask case. Theorem 4.3. (Uniqueness of fixed point) In the set-up of Proposition 4., the following statements hold for the phase retrieval problem (7). (i) One-mask case. With probability at least given in (), ˆx = e iθ x for some θ R. (ii) Two-mask case. Almost surely ˆx = x = e iθ x for some constant θ R. Remark 4.4. With a slightly stronger assumption ( [8], Theorem 6), the two-mask case in Proposition 4. and hence Theorem 4.3 hold for the -mask case (4). Proof. By Proposition 4. () implies that ˆx = e iθ x for some constant θ R, with the only difference between case (i) and case (ii) being the probability with which this statement holds. To complete the proof, we only need to consider case ) and show ˆx = x. By (8) ˆx X and by Proposition 4. () implies that with probability no less than () ˆx = e iθ x for some constant θ R. Hence, by (), we have (3) e iθ ω = ω. 9

10 Substituting (3) into (8) we obtain e iθ x = ˆx + x = e iθ x + x and hence e iθ x = x. In other words, x = ˆx = e iθ x. On the other hand, for case (i), ˆx = e iθ x and () imply e iθ ω = ω and hence e iθ y = e iθ b ω = b ω. This and (8) only lead to ˆx = [e iθ x x ] X = [ˆx x ] X. Corollary 4.5. Let F denote the fixed point set of the DR map. Any y F shares the same phase as y up to a global constant, i.e. y = θ + y for some constant θ R. In addition, in the two-mask case (Theorem 4.3 (ii)), y can be expressed as (4) y = e iθ ( y + η) ω, such that y + η has all nonnegative components and (5) A [ω η] =. η R N In other words, Ay = e iθ x, i.e the whole fixed point set is mapped to {e iθ x : θ [, π]} under A. Remark 4.6. In the two-mask case, the fixed point set can be expressed as F = θ F θ { F θ = e iθ ( y + η) y } (6) y : y + η { e iθ ( y + η) y } : Bη =, η RN. y Since the first set on the right hand side of (6) is convex and the second set is real-affine, F θ is convex for each θ. Proof. By () and Theorem 4.3, (7) and hence (8) y = θ + A x = θ + y y = e iθ p y where p R N has all nonnegative components. By (8) and Theorem 4.3 (ii) and hence by (8) (9) A (b ω y ) = e iθ Ay e iθ y = b ω = y + e iθ (y + y )

11 where Ay =. Solving for y from (9) and (8) we obtain y = ( p) y. Let η = (p ) y R N and write y = η y / y. Since Ay =, we have (5). 5. Local convergence For simplicity, we shall analyze () without the sector condition: ( (3) S f (y) := y + A A b y ) y y b y y whereas (5) becomes (3) S(x) = x + [ à ( à x b à x ) x ] n à ( à x b à x However, we make no assumption about the number of diffraction patterns which can well be one. The main result is local, geometric convergence of the projected algorithm. Theorem 5.. Let x C n and A any isometric N n matrix. Suppose N n and { } A λ = max u I(B x (3) u) <, B := A diag. u C n A x iu x Let y (k) = (A AS f ) k A x () and x (k) := Ay (k), k =,, 3. For any given < ɛ < λ, if x () is sufficient close to x, then (33) α (k) x (k) x (λ + ɛ) k x () x, k =, 3, and (34) α (k) := arg min{ αx (k) x : α =, α C}. α Remark 5.. In view of (6) and Theorem 5., the same error bound (33) holds for the iterates x (k) = [Ãy(k) ] n with ñ = N. For ñ < N, however, we are unable to prove local convergence for. Remark 5.3. Theorem 5. is about the algebraic structure of and does not assume oversampled diffraction patterns. For example, one oversampled diffraction pattern (N 4n) or two unoversampled diffraction patterns (N = n) are sufficient. However, as shown in Theorem 6.3, the spectral gap condition (3) requires one (and only one) oversampled coded diffraction pattern. To this end, we derive and analyze the local approximation of as follows. 5.. Local analysis. First note that (35) A(α (k) y (k) y ), x = α (k) y (k) y, y = v (k), y with v (k) = Ω (α (k) y (k) y ), Ω = diag(ω ), ω = y y. This motivates the following analysis of the Jacobian operator J f. ).

12 Proposition 5.4. Let y C N, ω = y/ y and Ω = diag(ω). Then (36) S f (y + ɛη) S f (y) = ɛωj f v + o(ɛ) where (37) J f v = (I B B)v + i(b B I) diag with (38) In particular, if y = b, then (37) becomes B = A Ω, v = Ω η. (39) J f v = (I B B)R(v) + ib BI(v) [ ] b I(v), y Proof. Let Reorganizing (3), we have ω ɛ = y + ɛη y + ɛη, Ω ɛ = diag(ω ɛ ). (4) S f (y) = y A Ay + (A A I)Ωb. and hence (4) S f (y + ɛη) S f (y) = ɛ(i A A)η + (A A I)(Ω ɛ Ω)b = ɛ(i ΩB BΩ )η + (ΩB BΩ I)(Ω ɛ Ω)b We next give a first order approximation to (Ω ɛ Ω)b in terms of η. Using the first order Taylor expansion we have [ ] [ ω ɛ ω = iωi Ω (ω ɛ ω) + o(ɛ) = iɛωi Ω η ] + o(ɛ), y and hence (4) Finally, substituting (4) into (4) we obtain [ ] b (Ω ɛ Ω)b = iɛω diag I(Ω η) + o(ɛ). y S f (y + ɛη) S f (y) = ɛ(i ΩB BΩ )η + iɛ(ωb B Ω) diag(b/ y )I(Ω η) + o(ɛ). Multiplying Ω on both sides and using the definition of v we complete the proof. Note that J f is a real, but not complex, linear map since J f (cv) cj f v, c C in general. Define the real form of the matrix B: [ ] R[B] (43) B := R I[B] n,n. Note that [ R[B ] ] I[B ] I[B ] R[B ] is real isometric because B is complex isometric.

13 From (9) we have (44) G(B u) = [ ] B G(u) B, u C G( iu) n. For the rest of the paper, B denotes the matrix (38) with Ω = Ω, i.e. B = AΩ, Ω = diag[ω ], ω = y (45) y unless otherwise specified. 5.. Eigen structure. Let λ λ λ n λ n+ = = λ N = be the singular values of B with the corresponding right singular vectors {η k R N } N k= and left singular vectors {ξ k R n } n k=. By definition, for k =,, n, (46) Bη k = λ k G (ξ k ), (47) R[B G (ξ k )] = λ k η k. Proposition 5.5. We have ξ = G(x ), ξ n = G( ix ), λ =, λ n = as well as η = y. Proof. Since we have by (44) (48) and hence the results. Corollary 5.6. (49) B x = Ω A x = y R[B x ] = B ξ = y, I[B x ] = B ξ n = λ = max{ I(B u) : u C n, u ix, u = } = max{ B u : u R n, u ξ, u = } Proof. By (44), I[B u] = B G( iu). The orthogonality condition iu x is equivalent to G(x ) G( iu). Hence, by Proposition 5.5 ξ is the maximizer of the right hand side of (49), yielding the desired value λ. Proposition 5.7. For k =,, n, (5) (5) (5) λ k + λ n+ k = ξ n+ k = G( ig (ξ k )) ξ k = G(iG (ξ n+ k )). Proof. Since B is an isometry, we have w = B w, w C n. On the other hand, we have B w = G(B w) = B G(w) + B G( iw) 3

14 and hence (53) G(w) = B G(w) + B G( iw). Now we prove (5), (5) and (5) by induction. Recall the variational characterization of the singular values/vectors (54) λ j = max B u, ξ j = arg max B u, s.t. u ξ,, ξ j, u = (55) λ n+ j = min B u, ξ n+ j = arg min B u, s.t. u ξ n,, ξ n+ j, u =. By Proposition 5.5, (5), (5) and (5) hold for k =. Suppose (5), (5) and (5) hold for k =,, j and we now show that they also hold for k = j. Hence by (53) λ j = max B u = min B v, s.t. u ξ,, ξ j, v = G( ig (u)). u = v = The condition u ξ,, ξ j implies v ξ n,, ξ n+ j and vice versa. By (55), we have λ j = λ n+ j and G( ig (ξ j )) is the minimizer, i.e. ξ n+ j = G( ig (ξ j )). Proposition 5.8. For each k =,, n, (56) (57) Proof. By definition, Bη k = λ k ξ k. Hence where (58) (59) B Bη k = λ k (λ k η k + iλ n+ k η n+ k ), B Bη n+ k = λ n+ k (λ n+ k η n+ k iλ k η k ). Bη k = (R[B] + ii[b])η k = λ k (ξ R k + iξ I k) ξ k = On the other hand, B ξ k = λ k η k and hence Now we compute B Bη k as follows. by (58). Notice that B Bη k = λ k B (ξ R k + iξ I k) [ ] ξ R k ξ I, ξk R, ξk I R n. k R[B ]ξ R k + I[B ]ξ I k = λ k η k. = λ k (R[B ] ii[b ])(ξ R k + iξ I k) = λ k (R[B ]ξ R k + I[B ]ξ I k) + iλ k (R[B ]ξ I k I[B ]ξ R k ) = λ kη k + iλ k (R[B ]ξ I k I[B ]ξ R k ) [ ] R( ig R(B )ξk I I(B )ξk R = B (ξ k )) I( ig (ξ k )) = B G( ig (ξ k )) = B ξ n+ k (6) by Proposition 5.7. = λ n+ k η n+ k Putting (59) and (6) together, we have (56). (57) follows from the similar calculation. 4

15 Corollary 5.9. For k =,,, n, J f leaves invariant the subspace span R {η k, iη n+ k } and has the matrix representation [ ] cos θk sin θ (6) J f = λ k n+ k, λ sin θ k cos θ n+ k := cos θ k, λ k := sin θ k k in the basis of {η k, iη n+ k }. In particular, (6) (63) where η = y. J f η =, J f iη = iη J f η n = η n, J f iη n =. Proof. By Proposition 5.8, the span of η k and iη n+ k is invariant under B B and hence under J f for k =,, n. Moreover, (56) and (57) imply [ ] B λ B = k λ k λ n+ k λ k λ n+ k λ n+ k in the basis of η k, iη n+ k. Hence by the definition (39) and Proposition 5.7, [ ] [ ] λn+ k λ J f = λ k cos θk sin θ n+ k = λ k λ k λ n+ k, θ n+ k sin θ k cos θ k R. k Hence λ n+ k (λ n+ k ± iλ k ) are eigenvalues of J f. The next two results completely characterize the eigenstructure of J f. Proposition 5.. If v η k =, k =,,, n, then (64) Bv =, J f v = R(v). Proof. The condition v η k = is equivalent to ηk R(v) = η k I(v) =. So we have [ ] [ ] R(BR(v)) R(B)R(v) G(BR(v)) = = = BR(v) = I(BR(v)) I(B)R(v) implying BR(v) =. Likewise, BI(v) =. Hence Bv =. By the definition of J f and Bv =, J f v = (I B B)R(v) + ib BI(v) = R(v). Corollary 5.. The fixed point set of J f contains the subspace and the null space of J f contains the subspace Moreover, if λ <, then where E = null R (B) R N E = ie. E = E R E E = span R {η k, iη k : k =,, n }. 5

16 Proof. Note that η n and iη n are excluded from E because η n E, iη n E. On the other hand the null vector η does not belong in E and the fixed point iη does not belong in E for an obvious reason. For any v C N, we can write v = R(v) + ii(v). By Proposition 5., if R(v), I(v) E, then BR(v) =, J f (R(v)) = R(v) BI(v) =, J f (I(v)) =. In other words, R(v) E and I(v) E. On the other hand, if λ <, then λ n > and E has no nontrivial intersection with either E or E. Hence, E = E R E Proof of Theorem 5.. Let (65) v (k) = Ω (α (k) y (k) y ) and hence Bv (k) = α (k) x (k) x. With the optimal phase adjustment we have and hence (66) I(y α (k) y (k) ) = v (k), iη = v (k), i y = α (k) y (k) y, iy = α (k) y (k), iy = R((α (k) y (k) ) iy ) =. With the change of variables (65) and the linear approximation (36) we have that for any ɛ < λ there exists δ > independent of k such that for all v (k) < δ (67) implying (68) v (k+) B BJ f v (k) < ɛ v (k) v (k+) < B BJ f v (k) + ɛ v (k). By the eigenstructure theorem Corollary 5., we write where v (k) j v (k) = v (k) + v (k) + v (k) are the orthogonal components in E j, j =,, and hence satisfy J f v (k) = Bv (k) =. The last equation follows from Bv (k) =. Therefore BJ f v (k) = BJ f v (k). By Corollary 5. and (66), v (k) span R {η j, iη k : j =,,, n ; k =,, n } and hence by Corollary 5.9 (69) B BJ f v (k) = B BJ f v (k) λ v (k). 6

17 Combining (69) and (68), we obtain v (k+) < (λ + ɛ) v (k) and the desired estimate upon iterating the last inequality. 6. Spectral gap In this section, we prove the spectral gap condition (3) with at least one oversampled coded diffraction pattern. This is the immediate consequence of the following two results. Proposition 6.. Let A be isometric and B = AΩ. Then I(B x) = holds for some unit vector x if and only if (7) R(a jx)r(a jx ) + I(a jx)i(a jx ) =, j =, N, where a j are the columns of A, or equivalently A x (7) A x = σ ω where the components of σ are either or -, i.e. Proof. We have (7) and hence I(B x) σ(j) {, }, j =, N. ( ) I(B A x x) = I A x A x = N R(a jx )I(a jx) I(a jx )R(a jx) j= N R (a jx) + I (a jx) = j= (R (a j x ) + I (a j x )) / N a jx = A x = x by the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality and isometry. In view of (7), the inequality becomes an equality if and only if (7) or (7) holds. Proposition 6.. (Uniqueness of Fourier magnitude retrieval) Let x be a given rank object and µ be continuously and independently distributed on the unit circle. Let where A is the given by (). If (73) j= B := A diag {ω }, ω := A x A x A ˆx = ± A x (after proper adjustment of the angles wherever the coded diffraction patterns vanish) where the ± sign may be pixel-dependent, then almost surely ˆx = cx for some constant c R. The proof of Proposition 6. is given in Appendix A. Now we can prove the spectral gap theorem needed for geometric convergence of. 7

18 Figure. The original phantom without phase randomization (left), the truncated cameraman (middle) and the truncated Barbara (right). Theorem 6.3. Let Φ be the oversampled discrete Fourier transform. Let x be a rank object and at least one of µ j, j =,, l, be independently and continuously distributed on the unit circle. Let A = c Φ diag{µ } (74) Φ diag{µ l } be isometric. Let (75) Then with probability one and hence (76) B := A diag {ω }, ω := A x A x. I(B u) =, u = iff u = ±ix / x λ = max{ I(B u) : u C n, u ix, u = } <. Proof. Note that the proof of Proposition 6. depends only on the fact that A is isometric and hence holds for at least one coded diffraction pattern, oversampled or not. Also, the uniqueness theorem, Proposition 6., clearly holds as long as there is at least one oversampled coded diffraction pattern. Now Proposition 6. says that (75) holds if (73) has a unique solution up to a real constant and Proposition 6. says that (73) indeed has a unique solution up to a real constant. The proof is complete. We have the following corollary from Theorems 5. and 6.3. Corollary 6.4. Let the assumptions of Theorem 6.3 be satisfied. Then the local, geometric convergence (33)-(34) holds for phase retrieval with (74) as the propagation matrix. 7. Numerical simulations 7.. Test images. For test images x we consider the Randomly Phased Phantom (RPP) Fig. (left) and the deterministic image, hereby called the Truncated Cameraman-Barbara 8

19 λ λ (a) TCB (b) RPP Figure 3. Error (on the log-scale) versus iteration for TCB (left) and RPP (right). (TCB), whose real part is the truncated cameraman, Fig. (middle) and whose imaginary part is the truncated Barbara, Fig. (right). The purpose of truncation is to create an unknown, loose support (dark margins) which makes the image more difficult to recover. RPP has a loose support without additional truncation. Likewise, we randomize the original phantom in order to make its reconstruction more challenging. In general, a random object such as RPP is more difficult to recover than a deterministic object such as TCB (see, e.g. Fig. 5 and 7). The size n of both images is 56 56, including the margins. The propagation matrix is primarily based on either () or (4) unless specified otherwise. 7.. Local convergence rate. First we simulate the local convergence rate of the -mask case and compare them with λ. The initial condition x () is chosen sufficiently close to the true object x, which is a unit vector. Fig. 3 shows the error α (k) [x (k) ] n x on the log scale versus the iteration counter in the case of two oversampled diffraction patterns. The oscillation in the blue curve () is due to the complex eigenvalues of J f. The magenta line shows the geometric sequence {λ k } k=. The λ value is computed via the power method, λ =.955 for TCB and λ =.9533 for RPP. Note that the curve (red) decays slightly faster than the λ -curve (magenta), which decays still faster than the black curve ( with ñ 4n) Initialization. For global convergence behaviors, we test two different initializations: the Random Initialization (RI), where each pixel value is selected randomly and independently, and the Constant Initialization (CI), where each pixel value is set to unity. The relative error of the estimate ˆx with the optimal phase adjustment is given by (77) e iˆθˆx x, ˆθ = arg min x eiθˆx x. θ R 7.4. One-pattern case. Fig. 5 (a)-(d) shows the results of the -pattern case for which the sector condition is imposed ( is equivalent to as N = ñ). To test the effect of the sector constraint, the phase of RPP is uniformly distributed in two different intervals: [, π/] and [, π]. While / global convergence regardless 9

20 (a) RPP + RI (b) RPP + CI (c) TCB + RI (d) TCB + CI (e) RPP + RI (f) RPP + CI (g) TCB + RI (h) TCB + CI Figure 4. Relative error versus iteration in the -pattern case with two different sector constraints: [, π/] for (a)-(d) and [, π] for (e)-(h) (a) RPP + RI (b) RPP + CI (c) TCB + RI (d) TCB + CI Figure 5. Relative error versus iteration in the -mask case. the initialization is evident, the rate of convergence decreases as the sector enlarges. When the sector constraint is absent, the iteration ceases to converge in general mask case. For two- or multi-pattern case, we let the phase of RPP be uniformly distributed in [, π] (i.e. no sector constraint). Fig. 5 (e)-(h) shows the results of the - mask case for which is implemented with ñ 4n < N 8n and hence not equivalent to. We see that the performances of and are drastically different: While converges to the true images regardless the initialization within iterations, does so only for the deterministic image TCB. Fig. 6 shows the relative error versus noise-to-signal ratio (NSR) when noise ɛ is present in the data where NSR = ɛ A x.

21 .8 RPP iters RPP iters.4. TCB iters TCB iters (a) RPP (b) TCB Figure 6. Relative error versus NSR in the -mask case (both oversampled) with the maximum number of iteration set to or (a) RPP + RI (b) RPP + CI (c) TCB + RI (d) TCB + CI (e) RPP + RI (f) RPP + CI (g) TCB + RI (h) TCB + CI Figure 7. Relative error versus iteration with 3 patterns (a)-(d) and 4 patterns (e)-(h) (without oversampling in each pattern). We note that for NSR [, %] there is essentially no difference between the results with the maximum number of iterations set to and and this segment of error-noise curves is approximately the same straight line (slope.). For a higher NSR, increasing the maximum number of iterations reduces the error so with even greater number of iterations the straight line segment can be extended to NSR greater than % Multi-mask case. To test how DR performs in the setting of multiple patterns without oversampling [5,6] we simulate the 3-pattern and 4-pattern cases with the propagation matrices

22 .4. 3 iters iters iters.4. 3 iters iters iters Figure 8. Relative error for RPP (left) and TCB (right) with various ratios ñ/n. (78) Φ diag{µ } A = c Φ diag{µ l }, l = 3, 4, Φ where Φ is the standard (unoversampled) discrete Fourier transform. Figure 7 shows the result with three patterns (a)-(d) and four patterns (e)-(h), both without oversampling, i.e. N = 3 M and N = 4 M, respectively. Note that the number of data with four patterns is half of that with oversampled patterns and yet the performance of the former is almost as good as that of the latter. Going from three patterns (Fig. 7 (a)-(b)) to four patterns (Fig. 7 (e)-(f)) reduces the number of iterations by almost an order of magnitude when RPP is the unknown image. The case with TCB has less room for improvement Padding ratio. Finally we test the effect of the padding ratio ñ/n on the performance of. For each ñ/n [4, 8], we conduct 5 trials with independent, random initializations and average the relative errors. Recall that ñ/n = 4 is the standard padding rate and at ñ/n = 8 is equivalent to. Fig. 8 shows the averaged relative error versus the ratio ñ/n, demonstrating an effect of phase transition which depends on the number of iterations. As the number of iterations increases, the threshold ratio decreases. The phase transition accounts for the sharp transition from stagnation at the standard ratio ñ/n = 4 to the rapid convergence at ñ/n = 8 (i.e. ) seen in Fig. 5 (a)-(b) and Fig. 7 (a)-(b), (e)-(f). Appendix A. Proof of Proposition 6. In order to prove the uniqueness theorem for Fourier magnitude retrieval, we need to take up the more elaborate notation in Section.. Let F (z) = f(n)z n n

23 be the z-transform of f. According to the fundamental theorem of algebra, F (z) can be written uniquely as p F (z) = αz n (79) F k (z), where n is a vector of nonnegative integers, α is a complex coefficient, and F k (z) are nontrivial irreducible polynomials in z. Define the shift f m+ ( ) = f(m + ), f m ( ) = f(m ). Definition (Conjugate Symmetry). A polynomial X(z) in z is said to be conjugate symmetric if, for some vector k of positive integers and some θ [, π), k= X(z) = e iθ z k X( z ). In other words, the ratio between X(z) and its conjugate inversion is a monomial in z times a complex number of unit modulus. A conjugate symmetric polynomial may be reducible, irreducible, trivial, or nontrivial. Any monomial z k is conjugate symmetric. Proposition A.. Let f be a finite array whose z-transform has no conjugate symmetric factors. If the z-transform G of another array g satisfies F (e πiw ) G(e πiw ) {, π}, w L then g = cf for some constant c R. The real-valued version of the above proposition is given in [37]. For the reader s convenience, we provide the proof for the complex setting (see also [9], Appendix B, Proposition 5). Proof. Consider the array h defined by whose z-transform is h = f g( ) H(z) = F (z)g( z ). Note that h is defined on M, instead of M, so H(z) is completely determined by sampling H on L. Since H(e πiw ) = F (e πiw ) G(e πiw ) it follows H(e πiw ) is real-valued. By analytic continuation, we have and H(z) = H( z ) (8) F (z)g( z ) = F ( z )G(z). Multiplying both sides of (8) by z M results in the following polynomial equation in z : (8) F (z)g( z )z M = z M F ( z )G(z). 3

24 We observe n = in view of (79) and the assumption that F (z) has no conjugate symmetric factor. We also have (8) z M F ( z ) = αz n F k (z), where F k (z) are the nontrivial irreducible non-conjugate symmetric polynomials in z of the form F k (z) = z M+p k Fk ( z ) for some vector p k of positive integers. Writing (83) G(z) = βz m G l (z), where G l (z) are nontrivial irreducible polynomials in z, we have (84) z M G( z ) = βz m G l (z), where G l (z) are the nontrivial irreducible polynomials in z of the form G l (z) = z M+q l Gl ( z ) for some vector q l of positive integers. Plugging (79),(8), (83) and (84) in (8) yields (85) α βz m F k (z) G l (z) = αβz n m F k (z) G l (z). l k l k Each nontrivial irreducible factor F k (z) must be equal to some F k (z) or some G l (z). However, if F k (z) = F k (z), then F k (z) is a conjugate symmetric factor. If, on the other hand, F k (z) = F k (z) for some k k, then F k (z)f k (z) = F k (z) F k (z) is a conjugate symmetric factor. Both cases, however, are excluded by the assumption that the z-transform of f does not have conjugate symmetric factors. Hence each F k (rest. Fk ) must be equal to some G l (rest. Gl ) and we can write (86) G(z) = Q(z)F (z) where Q(z) is a polynomial in z, i.e. Q(z) = n c n z n. By the assumption that F (e πiw ) G(e πiw ) {, π} we have Q(e πiw ) R, w L, and hence c n = c n = except for n = in which case c R. Therefore, Q = c R and this is what we start out to prove. Proposition A.. [8] Let x have rank. Let {µ(n)} be independent and continuous random variables on the unit circle of the complex plane. Then, the z-transform F (z) of f(n) := µ(n)x (n) is irreducible up to a power of z with probability one. For the proof of Proposition A. see Theorem of [8]. We next show that the z-transform of {µ(n)x (n)} is almost surely irreducible up to a power z and not conjugate symmetric. Proposition A.3. Let {µ(n)} be independent and continuous random variables on the unit circle of the complex plane. Let f(n) := µ(n)x (n). Then the z-transforms of both f t+ and f t are almost surely not conjugate symmetric t. 4 l k l

25 Proof. The z-transform (87) F t+ (z) = n f(t + n)z n. is conjugate symmetric if (88) F t+ (z) = e iθ z k F t+ ( z ) for some vector k of positive integers and some θ [, π). Plugging (87) in (88) yields f(t + n)z n = e iθ z k f(t + n )z n, n which implies n (89) f(t + n) = e iθ f(t + k n), n. However, x is deterministic, and {µ(n)} are independent and continuous random variables on S, so (89) fails with probability one for any k. There are finitely many choices of k, so the z-transform of f t+ is almost surely not conjugate symmetric. Similarly, the z-transform of f t is also almost surely not conjugate symmetric. Acknowledgements. Research is supported in part by US NSF grant DMS and Simons Foundation grant References [] P. F. Almoro and S. G. Hanson, Random phase plate for wavefront sensing via phase retrieval and a volume speckle field, Appl. Opt. 47, (8). [] R. Balan, Stability of phase retrievable frames, arxiv preprint, arxiv: , 3. [3] R. Balan, B. G. Bodmann, P. G. Casazza and D. Edidin, Painless reconstruction from magnitudes of frame coefficients, J Fourier Anal Appl 5, (9). [4] R. Balan, P. Casazza and D. Edidin, On signal reconstruction without phase, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., (6). [5] R. Balan, Y. Wang, Invertibility and robustness of phaseless reconstruction, arxiv preprint, arxiv:38.478, 3. [6] A. S. Bandeira, J. Cahill, D. G. Mixon, A. A. Nelson, Saving phase: Injectivity and stability for phase retrieval, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. 37, 6-5 (4). [7] A. S. Bandeira, Y. Chen and D. Mixon, Phase retrieval from power spectra of masked signals, Inform. Infer. (4) -. [8] H.H. Bauschke, P.L. Combettes and D. R. Luke, Phase retrieval, error reduction algorithm, and Fienup variants: a view from convex optimization, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 9, (). [9] H. H. Bauschke, P. L. Combettes, and D. R. Luke, Finding best approximation pairs relative to two closed convex sets in Hilbert spaces, J. Approx. Th. 7, 78-9 (4). [] H. H. Bauschkea,?, J.Y. B. Cruzb, T. T.A. Nghiaa, H. M. Phan, X. Wang, The rate of linear convergence of the Douglas?Rachford algorithm for subspaces is the cosine of the Friedrichs angle, J. Approx. Theory 85 (4) [] M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, 7-th edition, Cambridge University Press, 999. [] R. Bräuer, U. Wojak, F. Wyrowski, O. Bryngdahl, Digital diffusers for optical holography, Opt. Lett. 6, (99). [3] E.J. Candès, Y.C. Eldar, T. Strohmer, and V. Voroninski, Phase retrieval via matrix completion, SIAM J. Imaging Sci. 6, 99-5 (3). [4] E. J. Candes, X. Li and M. Soltanolkotabi, Phase retrieval via Wirtinger flow: theory and algorithms, IEEE Trans Inform. Th. 6(4), (5). 5