| Literature DB >> 30388853 |
Nan Xia1, Yunbao Huang2, Haiyan Li3, Pu Li4,5, Kefeng Wang6, Feng Wang7.
Abstract
In the experiment of inertial confinement fusion, soft X-ray spectrum unfolding can provide important information to optimize the design of the laser and target. As the laser beams increase, there are limited locations for installing detection channels to obtain measurements, and the soft X-ray spectrum can be difficult to recover. In this paper, a novel recovery method of soft X-ray spectrum unfolding based on compressive sensing is proposed, in which (1) the spectrum recovery is formulated as a problem of accurate signal recovery from very few measurements (i.e., compressive sensing), and (2) the proper basis atoms are selected adaptively over a Legendre orthogonal basis dictionary with a large size and Lasso regression in the sense of ℓ1 norm, which enables the spectrum to be accurately recovered with little measured data from the limited detection channels. Finally, the presented approach is validated with experimental data. The results show that it can still achieve comparable accuracy from only 8 spectrometer detection channels as it has previously done from 14 detection channels. This means that the presented approach is capable of recovering spectrum from the data of limited detection channels, and it can be used to save more space for other detectors.Entities:
Keywords: compressive sensing; lasso regression; soft X-ray spectrometer; sparse representation; spectral measurement; spectrum unfolding
Year: 2018 PMID: 30388853 PMCID: PMC6263406 DOI: 10.3390/s18113725
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The ICF experimental facility.
Figure 2Soft X-ray spectrometer layout.
Figure 3Fourteen channel responses of the soft X-ray spectrometer.
Figure 4The process of spectrum unfolding based on compressive sensing.
Figure 5Plank spectrum recovery performance with three different spectrum unfolding methods as the measurements decrease. (a) The number of detection channels is 14. (b) The number of detection channels is 12. (c) The number of detection channels is 10. (d) The number of detection channels is 8.
The recovery error of the Plank spectrum with three spectrum-unfolding methods.
| M | RMSE | MAE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Piece-Wise B-Spline | Gaussian Bump | Compressive Sensing | Piece-Wise B-Spline | Gaussian Bump | Compressive Sensing | |
| 14 | 0.002647 | 0.007489 |
| 0.001740 | 0.006479 |
|
| 12 | 0.041785 | 0.009726 |
| 0.010048 | 0.007416 |
|
| 10 | 0.093317 | 0.152139 |
| 0.025542 | 0.128225 |
|
| 8 | 0.094138 | 0.532886 |
| 0.026802 | 0.432161 |
|
Figure 6The Plank spectrum recovery error with three different spectrum unfolding methods as the measurements decrease. (a) Root mean squared error (RMSE). (b) Mean absolute error (MAE).
Figure 7The Triple-peak spectrum recovery performance with three different spectrum unfolding methods as the measurements decrease. (a) The number of detection channels is 14. (b) The number of detection channels is 12. (c) The number of detection channels is 10. (d) The number of detection channels is 8.
The recovery error of the Triple-peak Spectrum with three spectrum-unfolding methods.
| M | RMSE | MAE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Piece-Wise B-Spline | Gaussian Bump | Compressive Sensing | Piece-Wise B-Spline | Gaussian Bump | Compressive Sensing | |
| 14 | 0.002298 | 0.016160 |
| 0.001734 | 0.012620 |
|
| 12 | 0.036192 | 0.070879 |
| 0.013579 | 0.056895 |
|
| 10 | 0.173786 | 0.140535 |
| 0.152061 | 0.112756 |
|
| 8 | 0.341228 | 0.222501 |
| 0.257305 | 0.184214 |
|
Figure 8The Triple-peak spectrum recovery error with three different spectrum unfolding methods as the measurements decrease. (a) RMSE; (b) MAE.