Optics and Lasers in Engineering 151 (2022) 106941

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Optics and Lasers in Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/optlaseng

High-accuracy simultaneous phase extraction and unwrapping method for

single interferogram based on convolutional neural network
Yue Sun a, Yinxu Bian a, Hua Shen a,b,∗, Rihong Zhu a,b
a
School of Electronic and Optical Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, 210094, China
b
MIIT Key Laboratory of Advanced Solid Laser, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, 210094, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: The high-precision dynamic measurement of optical surfaces in unstable environments is a critical problem in
Interferometry the process of fabrication and application. In order to solve this problem, a high-precision ultra-fast phase de-
Convolutional neural network modulation method based on convolutional neural network is proposed in this paper. The wrapped phase and
Phase demodulation
corresponding wrap count map can be obtained from one interferogram at the same time, so the phase extraction
and unwrapping are performed simultaneously. It only takes 0.02 seconds to demodulate single-frame interfer-
ogram. Simulation and experimental results show that the root-mean-square error between this algorithm and
phase-shifting algorithm is better than 0.01𝜆 (𝜆=632.8nm). It indicates that the proposed method has excellent
performance in measurement accuracy and efficiency.

1. Introduction consuming, so it is not suitable for real-time measurement. The RPSI

Optical interferometry has the characteristics of non-contact, fast,
nanometer-scale measurement accuracy, which is recognized as one of
the most effective methods to measure the optical surface. In the inter-
ferometer, the measured surface is encoded in the interferogram [1].
Therefore, demodulation of the interferogram is critical in interferom-
etry, as its demodulation accuracy and speed directly affect the perfor-
mance of the interferometer.
Temporal phase-shifting interferometry [2,3], as the most commonly
used method of high-precision phase extraction, requires that the mea-
surement environment is stable during the measurement process. There-
fore, it is not suitable for the measurement in the presence of vibration,
turbulence and other unstable conditions, such as in-situ measurement
in fabrication, or measurement of large-aperture elements under long
interference cavity [4,5]. Nowadays, the main solutions of this prob-
lem can be divided into three categories: single-frame interferogram
demodulation (SFID) technique [6–10], random phase-shifting interfer-
ometry(RPSI) [11–16], and spatial phase-shifting interferometry (SPSI)
[17–21]. The SFID techniques include fast Fourier transform (FFT) [6,7],
polar coordinate transformation (PCT) [8], regularized phase tracker
(RPT) [9,10]. Compared with the phase-shifting methods, the SFID
methods have lower accuracy and have inherent limitations in appli-
cations. For example, the FFT is only suitable for open straight fringes,
while the PCT is effective only for circular fringes. The RPT method
needs to set parameters manually and its calculation process is time-
mainly includes principle component analysis (PCA) method [11] and
iterative algorithms [12–16]. The accuracy of PCA method is affected by
the number of fringes, and the tilt phase-shifting error caused by vibra-
tion cannot be eliminated. The iterative method is time consuming, its
accuracy depends on the accuracy of iterative initial values as well as the
uniformity of background intensity and modulation. The SPSI generally
uses prisms [17], diffractive elements [18,19] or micro-polarization ele-
ments [20,21] to split light for spatial polarization phase shift, so that 4
phase-shifting interferograms can be acquired simultaneously. The SPSI
increases the complexity of the system and introduces systematic errors.
Meanwhile, it has the disadvantages of reduced interferogram resolu-
tion, inaccurate phase shift, and difficulty in interferogram registration
[22,23]. Moreover, no matter what method above is adopted, only a dis-
continuous wrapped phase can be obtained directly. To achieve the true
surface of the measured part, phase unwrapping is necessary [24,25],
which reduces the efficiency of measurement.
As a data-driven machine learning technology, convolutional neu-
ral network (CNN) has been developed rapidly in recent years and is
widely used in various fields. In optics, CNN has been applied to im-
age preprocessing [26,27], phase recovery [28,29], phase unwrapping
[30,31], super-resolution imaging [32], lensless imaging [33,34], multi-
spectral imaging [35] and system calibration [36]. However, there are
few studies on CNN applied to high-precision surface measurement. In
2019, Feng et al. applied CNN to high-precision phase demodulation
from a single fringe pattern for the first time, with RMS accuracy of
0.016𝜆 [37]. This method is only suitable for periodic straight fringes.

∗
Corresponding Author.
E-mail address: edward_bayun@163.com (H. Shen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlaseng.2021.106941
Received 24 September 2021; Received in revised form 25 November 2021; Accepted 26 December 2021
Available online 3 January 2022
0143-8166/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Sun, Y. Bian, H. Shen et al.
Fig. 1. Flow chart of the proposed method.
Fig. 2. Network architecture. (a) The RU-Net architecture. Every blue box represents a feature map with the size of M × M × N, where M is the number on the left
(downsampling path) or right (upsampling path) of the box, N is the number on the top of box; (b) Structure of resblock; (c) Structure of convblock.
Kando et al. recovered the phase from a closed fringe pattern with
CNN, but the relative root mean square accuracy is only 0.027 [38].
Liu et al. proposed a demodulation method by extracting the Zernike
coefficients of the measured element from a single interferogram [39].
However, this method loses the high-frequency information of the mea-
sured part, and is not suitable for complex surfaces that cannot be fitted
with high precision by Zernike polynomials. In this work, we propose a
high-precision and ultrafast phase demodulation method based on CNN.
While extracting the wrapped phase from single-frame interferogram,
the corresponding wrap count distribution will be obtained simultane-
ously, which means that the phase extraction and unwrapping steps are
combined, thus avoiding the influence of traditional phase unwrapping
algorithms on phase recovery efficiency and accuracy. It has been veri-
fied that the demodulation of single-frame interferogram takes only 0.02
seconds. Simulation and experimental results demonstrate that the ac-
curacy of proposed algorithm is comparable to that of the phase-shifting
algorithm.
2. Principle
2.1. The principle of CNN to restore surface from an interferogram
The flow chart of the proposed method for demodulating the in-
terferogram is shown in Fig. 1. An interferogram is used as the input
of CNN, and CNN outputs the corresponding wrapped phase and wrap
count together. Then, add the two outputs directly to obtain the un-
2
Optics and Lasers in Engineering 151 (2022) 106941
wrapped phase. Finally, eliminate the piston, tilt and defocus from the
unwrapped phase to get the measured surface.
2.2. Network architecture
The network architecture is illustrated in Fig. 2. We improve the con-
ventional U-Net [40] by using resblocks instead of the original convo-
lutional layers, deepening the network depth while enhancing the gra-
dient propagation ability of the network. For convenience, the revised
network is named RU-Net. The input of RU-Net is an interferogram of
size 256 × 256 × 1 (height × width × channel). The output has a size of
256 × 256 × 2 (the first channel is the wrapped phase while the second
channel is the corresponding wrap count). The basic units of RU-Net
include convolutional layer, rectified linear unit (ReLU), batch normal-
ization (BN), max pooling layer, and upsampling layer. The convblock
consists of a BN, a ReLU and a convolutional layer. Two convblocks and
a shortcut form the resblock.
Like U-Net, the RU-Net has a downsampling path (left part) and an
upsampling path (right part). Each path includes four steps with differ-
ent resolution. In downsampling path, each step consists of a convblock,
followed by two resblocks and a max pooling layer with a stride of 2.
After each downsampling step, double the number of features. In up-
sampling path, every step consists of an upsampling layer followed by
a convolution that halves the number of feature channels, a concate-
nation with the corresponding features from the downsampling path, a
convblock and two resblocks. Finally, a convolution layer was used to
Y. Sun, Y. Bian, H. Shen et al. Optics and Lasers in Engineering 151 (2022) 106941

Fig. 3. Method for simulating the noise of actual interferometer.

Table 1
Range of Zernike coefficients

Zernike coefficient a1 a2, a3 a4 a5∼ a9 a10∼ a36

Value range/𝜆 0 [0,5] [-5,5] [-0.3,0.3] [-0.03,0.03]

map the features to the desired output. Considering the numerical stabil-
ity, the tanh function was used in last layer to limit the output to [- 1,1].
Moreover, the range of [-1,1] corresponds linearly to that of wrapped
phase ([-𝜋, 𝜋]).

2.3. Dataset

In this task, a simulation model is used to generate the dataset for

CNN training. The dataset includes three parts: wrapped phase, wrap
count distribution and interferogram. An interferogram can be expressed
as
𝐼 (𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝐴(𝑥, 𝑦) + 𝐵 (𝑥, 𝑦)cos𝜑(𝑥, 𝑦)
Where 𝐼(𝑥, 𝑦) is the intensity of the interferogram, 𝐴(𝑥, 𝑦) is the back-
ground intensity, 𝐵(𝑥, 𝑦) is the modulation amplitude, and 𝜑(𝑥, 𝑦) is the
phase to be recovered. First of all, we use Zernike polynomials to gen-
erate random phase distribution as follows:
𝑛
∑
𝜑(𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝜋 𝑎𝑖 𝑍𝑖
𝑖=1
where 𝑎𝑖 is the coefficient of the i-th Zernike basis function 𝑍𝑖 , i = 1, 2,
3, …, n. The first 36 Zernike polynomials are used in the simulation. The
Zernike coefficients are generated by a random function, and the range
of each coefficient is shown in Table. 1. The first term represent piston,
which would not affect the phase shape, so 𝑎1 is set to 0. The second and
third terms represent the tilt, and the fourth term is defocus. The three
are misalignment terms, which dominate the interferogram. The 5th -9th
terms are primary aberrations, which are usually the main aberrations of
the measured part. The rest terms are high-order aberrations, which are
generally tiny. It is worth noting that 𝜑(𝑥, 𝑦) and −𝜑(𝑥, 𝑦) have the same
interferograms, which will make the network training fail to converge.
Considering that the tilt terms can determine the phase sign, we set a2
and a3 to non-negative values to avoiding this problem.
After generating the phase, the corresponding wrapped phase and
the wrap count can be obtained by Eq. (3).
𝜑(𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝜑0 (𝑥, 𝑦) + 2𝑘𝜋 = 𝜋Φ(𝑥, 𝑦) + 2𝜋⟨𝑀𝑚(𝑥, 𝑦)⟩
Fig. 4. Loss function curves.
(1) where 𝜑(𝑥, 𝑦) is the unwrapped phase, 𝜑0 (𝑥, 𝑦) is the wrapped phase and
𝜑0 (𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝜋Φ(𝑥, 𝑦), Φ(𝑥, 𝑦) is the normalized wrapped phase. In Eq.(3),
k is the wrap count and 𝑘 = ⟨𝑀𝑚(𝑥, 𝑦)⟩, ⟨ ⟩ is the rounding operator,
𝑚(𝑥, 𝑦) is the normalized wrap count. It is worth noting that the wrap
count at the center of the interferogram is always 0. M is the maximum
wrap count of the phase, a positive integer constant. Considering the
(2) number of possible interference fringes in actual measurement and the
numerical stability, M is set to 8. That is, the maximum number of fringes
in the interferogram is less than 16.
Next, the background intensity and modulation amplitude need to
be generated. It may be assumed that the intensity distribution of the
reference light and the test light are same, only the intensity amplitude
is different, i.e.
𝐼𝑡 (𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑤𝐼𝑟 (𝑥, 𝑦) (4)
Where, 𝐼𝑡 (𝑥, 𝑦) is the test light intensity, 𝐼𝑟 (𝑥, 𝑦) is the reference light
intensity, and w is the ratio of intensity of the two light. Empirically, the
contrast of the interferogram is clearly distinguishable when w is in the
interval [0.2,1]. Therefore, w is set to a random value in the range of
[0.2,1]. Then, the background intensity and modulation amplitude are
expressed as
𝐴(𝑥, 𝑦) = (𝑤 + 1)𝐼𝑟 (𝑥, 𝑦) (5)
√
(3) 𝐵 (𝑥, 𝑦) = 2 𝑤𝐼𝑟 (𝑥, 𝑦) (6)

3
Y. Sun, Y. Bian, H. Shen et al.
Fig. 5. Detailed prediction results of RU-Net for two simulated interferograms. (a1)-(a2) Simulated interferogram; (b1)-(b2) Predicted wrapped phase by RU-Net;
(c1)-(c2) Predicted wrap count by RU-Net; (d1) Unwrapped phase obtained from (b1) and (c1); (d2) Unwrapped phase obtained from (b2) and (c2); (e1)-(e2) Surface
after removing piston, tilt and defocus from (d1) and (d2); (f1)-(f2) Real wrapped phase; (g1)-(g2) Real wrap count; (h1)-(h2) Real unwrapped phase; (i1)-(i2) Real
surface without piston, tilt and defocus; (j1) Residual between (e1) and (i1); (j2) Residual between (e2) and (i2).
The laser light source is usually used in the interferometer, intensity
of which is Gaussian distributed. As a result, the reference light intensity
can be expressed as
( ( )2 ( )2 )
𝑥 − 𝑥0 + 𝑦 − 𝑦0
𝐼𝑟 (𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝐴0 exp − (7)
2𝜎 2
where 𝐴0 denotes the intensity amplitude. 𝑥0 and 𝑦0 denote the offset of
the spot in the x and y directions, both of them are generated randomly
in the range of [-0.2,0.2]. 𝜎 denotes the beam width, and is randomly
generated in the range of [0.9,1,1]. Combining Eq. (1) and Eq. (4) –
Eq. (7), the normalized intensity of any point in the simulated interfer-
ogram should satisfy
( plemented in Tensorflow framework version 2.0 and Keras framework
√ )
𝐼 (𝑥, 𝑦) < 1 + 𝑤 + 2 𝑤 𝐴0 (8)
In order to make the interferogram has good contrast and avoid over-
exposure, the range of 𝐴0 satisfies the following condition.
0.5 0.95
( √ ) ≤ 𝐴0 < ( √ ) (9)
1+𝑤+2 𝑤 1+𝑤+2 𝑤
Furthermore, we follow the method shown in Fig. 3 to simulate the
background noise of the actual interferometer as much as possible. First,
the reference light intensity of the Zygo interferometer is collected and
a Gaussian fit is made to it. Then, subtract the fitting term from the
reference light intensity. The residual is the background noise of the
Zygo interferometer. The noise acquired from the interferometer con-
tains more pixels than the simulated interferogram, so we randomly se-
lect a 256 × 256 pixels area from it every time and add to the simulation
reference intensity. Finally, a Gaussian noise with a signal-to-noise ra-
tio of 30 dB is added to the simulation reference light to enhance the
diversity of data.
A total of 6144 groups of interferograms and the corresponding
wrapped phase and wrap count were generated as the dataset, of which
4096 pairs of data were used as the training set. The validation set has
1024 pairs of data to evaluate learning effect during training and avoid
overfitting the network. The remaining 1024 pairs of data are used as
the test set to verify the performance of the network after training.
4
Optics and Lasers in Engineering 151 (2022) 106941
2.4. Training
In this task, we use the mean squared error (MSE) as the loss function,
defined as follows
𝐶
1 ∑( )2
𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠 = 𝑥 − 𝑦𝑖 (10)
𝐶 𝑖=1 𝑖
where C is the number of samples, 𝑥𝑖 and 𝑦𝑖 are the output and truth
data respectively. We use adaptive moment estimation (Adam) to op-
timize the weights during training. The learning rate (lr) is a variable
value defied as Eq. (11). RU-Net is trained for a total of 120 epochs,
with batchsize set to 8 and 512 steps per epoch. The network was im-
version 2.3. This algorithm is implemented on a desktop computer with
a Core i7-7700 K CPU @ 4.2 GHz (Intel) and 64 GB of RAM. The net-
work training and testing were performed using a GeForce GTX 1080Ti
GPU (NVIDA). The training process needs about 28 hours. Fig. 4 shows
the curves of loss function. After about 100 epochs of training, the loss
function values of training set and validation set converge.
{
2 × 10−4 , 𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑐ℎ ≤ 60
𝑙𝑟 = (11)
2 × 10−5 , 𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑐ℎ > 60
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Simulation
After network training, the network is used to predict the test set gen-
erated in section 2.1, and the average prediction time of each interfero-
gram is 0.02 seconds. Fig. 5 illustrates the detailed prediction results for
two of the simulated interferograms. The first column in Fig. 5 shows the
input interferograms. The second to sixth columns in Fig. 5 respectively
represent the corresponding wrapped phases, wrap counts, unwrapped
phases, and final surfaces after eliminating tilt and defocus (the first
and third rows are predicted results, while the second and fourth rows
are truth data). Fig. 5(j1) and Fig. 5(j2) are the residual errors between
predicted surfaces (Fig. 5(e1), Fig. 5(e2)) and real surfaces (Fig. 5(i1),
Fig. 5(i2)). The PV value of the residual error of first interferogram is
Y. Sun, Y. Bian, H. Shen et al. Optics and Lasers in Engineering 151 (2022) 106941

Fig. 6. Prediction residuals of RU-Net for whole simulated test set. (a) PV of residuals. (b) RMS of residuals.

Fig. 7. Comparison results between RU-Net and phase-shifting algorithm. (a) Interferograms; (b)-(c) Output wrapped phase and wrap count of RU-Net; (d) Surfaces
recovered by RU-Net; (e) Surfaces recovered by phase-shifting algorithm; (f) Residuals between RU-Net and phase-shifting algorithm.

0.0543𝜆 and the RMS value is 0.0070𝜆. The PV and RMS values of the
residual error of second interferogram are 0.0695𝜆 and 0.0096𝜆. All
residuals of RU-Net’s prediction results for test set are shown in Fig. 6.
The average PV and RMS values of residuals are 0.0767𝜆 and 0.0071𝜆.
3.2. Experiments
algorithm are shown in Fig. 7(e). The residual errors between RU-Net
and phase-shifting algorithm are shown in Fig. 7(f). The PV and RMS
values of first residual wavefront are 0.0672𝜆 and 0.0100𝜆. The PV and
RMS value of second residual wavefront are 0.0719𝜆 and 0.0106𝜆. The
results demonstrate that RU-Net is feasible for high-precision real-time
measurement of optical surfaces.

To verify the performance of RU-Net in actual measurement, we mea- 4. Conclusion

sured two spherical surfaces with a Zygo interferometer and captured
several interferograms. The shape and density of fringes are controlled
by adjusting the tilt and defocus. The phase-shifting algorithm inte-
grated in the Zygo interferometer and RU-Net are respectively used to re-
cover surfaces from the captured interferograms. The phase-shifting al-
gorithm needs several phase-shifting interferograms while RU-Net only
needs one of them. The interferogram is scaled to 256 × 256 pixels as
the input of RU-Net. Two sets of comparison results between RU-Net
and phase-shifting algorithm are shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 7(a) shows the
interferograms. Fig. 7(b) and 7(c) are the wrapped phases and wrap
count maps output from RU-Net, respectively. After eliminating piston,
tilt and defocus from unwrapped phases, the final surfaces are shown
as Fig. 7(d). For comparison, the measurement results of phase-shifting
In this paper, a deep learning method to demodulate the quantita-
tive phase data is proposed, which would benefit highly for the high-
precision real-time measurement of optical elements. In contrast to the
reported methods, the advantages are obvious. In the aspect of data col-
lection, only one interferogram is totally enough to restore the surface
of the measured part with high precision, which provides a very fast
measurement speed. Besides, on account of the corresponding wrapped
phase and wrap count distribution are obtained at the same time, the
trained CNN kernel make the phase demodulation process free from
iterative-based or path-tracking-based phase unwrapping algorithms,
where it only takes 0.02s to recover the measured surface for a mea-
surement. The principle, algorithms and simulations are presented, re-

5
Y. Sun, Y. Bian, H. Shen et al.
spectively. Finally, the experiments and data analysis also proved our
idea robust and perfect. Simulation and experimental results demon-
strate that the accuracy of proposed algorithm is comparable to that of
the phase-shifting algorithm, and the RMS value of the residual between
them is only 0.01𝜆. It is believable that our CNN-based phase demod-
ulation method would highly contribute to the further development of
optical measurement efficiency while maintaining accuracy.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yue Sun: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Investigation,
Writing – original draft. Yinxu Bian: Validation, Writing – review &
editing, Visualization. Hua Shen: Writing – review & editing. Rihong
Zhu: Resources, Supervision.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grant No. 62005120), Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu
Province (Grant No. BK20201305), Basic research program of Jiangsu
Province (Grant No. BK20190456), and Chinese Academy of Sciences
(Grant No. KLOMT190101).
References
[1] D. Malacara, M. Servín, and Z. Malacara, Interferogram Analysis for Optical Testing,
2nd ed., 2005.
[2] Carré P. Installation et utilisation du comparateur photoélectrique et interférentiel
du Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. Metrologia 1966;2:13.
[3] Wyant JC. Use of an ac heterodyne lateral shear interferometer with real–time wave-
front correction systems. Appl. Opt. 1975;14:2622.
[4] de Groot PJ. Vibration in phase-shifting interferometry. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A
1995;12:354–65.
[5] Li J, Zhu R, Chen L, He Y. Phase-tilting interferometry for optical testing. Opt. Lett.
2013;38:2838–41.
[6] Servin M, Cuevas FJ. A novel technique for spatial phase-shifting interferometry. J.
Modern Opt. 1995;42:1853–62.
[7] Servin M, Estrada JC, Medina O. Fourier transform demodulation of pixelated phase–
masked interferograms. Opt. Express 2010;18:16090.
[8] Li J, Song L, Chen L, H Z, Gu C. Quadratic polar coordinate transform technique for
the demodulation of circular carrier interferogram. Opt. Commun 2015;336:166–72.
[9] Servin M, Marroquin JL, Quiroga JA. Regularized quadrature and phase tracking
from a single closed-fringe interferogram. J. Opt. Soc. Amer. A 2004;21:411–19.
[10] Li K, Qian K. Improved generalized regularized phase tracker for demodulation of a
single fringe pattern. Opt. Express 2013;21:24385–97.
[11] Vargas J, Quiroga JA, Belenguer T. Phase-shifting interferometry based on principal
component analysis. Opt. Lett. 2011;36:1326–8.
[12] Wang Z, Han B. Advanced iterative algorithm for phase extraction of randomly
phase-shifted interferograms. Opt. Lett. 2004;29:1671–3.
Optics and Lasers in Engineering 151 (2022) 106941
[13] Liu Q, Yuan D, He H. Enhancement of vibration desensitising capability of iterative
algorithms for phase-shifting interferometers. Opt. Lasers. Eng. 2017;98:31–6.
[14] Liu F, Wu Y, Wu F. Phase shifting interferometry from two normalized interfero-
grams with random tilt phase-shift. Opt. Express 2015;23:19932–46.
[15] Tian C, Liu S. Demodulation of two-shot fringe patterns with random phase
shifts by use of orthogonal polynomials and global optimization. Opt. Express
2016;24:3202–15.
[16] Sun Y, Shen H, Li X, Li J, Gao J, Zhu R. Wavelength-tuning point diffraction inter-
ferometer resisting inconsistent light intensity and environmental vibration: appli-
cation to high-precision measurement of a large-aperture spherical surface. Appl.
Opt. 2019;58:1253–60.
[17] Kihm H, Kim SW. Fiber-diffraction interferometer for vibration desensitization. Opt.
Lett. 2005;30:2059–61.
[18] Hettwerm A, kran J, Schwider J. Three channel phase-shifting interferometer using
polarization-optics and a diffraction grating. Opt. Eng. 2000;39:960–6.
[19] Kwon OY. Multichannel phase-shifted interferometer. Opt. Lett. 1984;9:59–61.
[20] Zhang Z, Dong F, Qian K, Zhang Q, Chu W. Real-time phase measurement of optical
vortices based on pixelated micropolarizer array. Opt. Express 2015;23:20521–8.
[21] Wang D, Liang R. Simultaneous polarization Mirau interferometer based on pixelated
polarization camera. Opt. Lett. 2016;41:41.
[22] Zheng D, Chen L, Li J, Zhu W, Li J, Han Z. Position registration for interfero-
grams and phase-shifting error calibration in dynamic interferometer. Acta Opt. Sin.
2016;36:0226002.
[23] Miao X, Ma J, Yu Y, Li J, Wei C, Zhu R, Chen L, Yuan C, Wang Q, Zheng D. Mod-
elling and correction for polarization errors of a 600 mm aperture dynamic Fizeau
interferometer. Opt. Express 2020;28:33355.
[24] Juan MC, Konstantinos F, Tomasz K. Fast and accurate phase-unwrapping algorithm
based on the transport of intensity equation. Appl. Opt. 2017;56:7079–88.
[25] Guo Y, Chen X, Zhang T. Robust phase unwrapping algorithm based on least squares.
Opt. Lasers Eng. 2014;63:25–9.
[26] Reyes-Figueroa A, Flores VH, Rivera M. Deep neural network for fringe pattern fil-
tering and normalization. Appl. Opt. 2021;60:2022–36.
[27] Yan K, Yu Y, Huang C, Sui L, Qian K, Asundi A. Fringe pattern denoising based on
deep learning. Opt. Commun. 2019;437:148–52.
[28] Rivenson Y, Zhang Y, Gunaydin H, Da T, Ozcan A. Phase recovery and holo-
graphic image reconstruction using deep learning in neural networks. Light Sci.
Appl. 2018;7:17141.
[29] Ayan S, Justin L, Li S, George B. Lensless computational imaging through deep learn-
ing. Optica 2017;4:1117.
[30] Zhang J, Tian X, Shao J, Luo H, Liang R. Phase unwrapping in optical metrology via
denoised and convolutional segmentation networks. Opt. Express 2019;27:14903.
[31] Zhao Z, Li B, Kang X, Lu J, Liu T. Phase unwrapping method for point diffraction
interferometer based on residual auto encoder neural network. Opt. Lasers Eng.
2021;138:106405.
[32] Liu T, Haan KD, Rivenson Y, Wei Z, Zeng X, Zhang Y, Ozcan A. Deep learning-based
super-resolution in coherent imaging systems. Scientific Reports 2019;9.
[33] Meng L, Wang H, Li G, Zheng S, Situ G. Learning-based lensless imaging through
optically thick scattering media. Adv. Photonics 2019;1:036002.
[34] Shen H, Gao J. Deep learning virtual colorful lens-free on-chip microscopy. Chin.
Opt. Lett. 2020;18:121705.
[35] He T, Zhang Q, Zhou M, Shen J. CVNet: confidence voting convolutional neural
network for camera spectral sensitivity estimation. Opt. Express 2021;29:19655–74.
[36] Zhang L, Zhou S, Li J, Yu B. Deep neural network based calibration for freeform
surface misalignments in general interferometer. Opt. Express 2019;27:33709–29.
[37] Feng S, Chen Q, Gu G, Tao T, Zhang L, Hu Y, Yin W, Zuo C. Fringe pattern analysis
using deep learning. Adv. Photonics 2019;1:025001.
[38] Kando D, Tomioka S, Miyamoto N, Ueda R. Phase extraction from single interfero-
gram including closed-fringe using deep learning. Appl. Sci. 2019;9:3529.
[39] Liu X, Yang Z, Dou J, Liu Z. Fast demodulation of single-shot interferogram via
convolutional neural network. Opt. Commun. 2021;487:126813.
[40] Ronneberger O, Fischer P, Brox T. U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical
Image Segmentation. arXiv: 2015 1505.04597.