abstract: ArDM is a new-generation WIMP detector which will measure simultaneously light and charge from scintillation and ionization of liquid argon. Our goal is to construct, characterize and operate a 1 ton liquid argon underground detector. The project relies on the possibility to extract the electrons produced by ionization from the liquid into the gas phase of the detector, to amplify and read out with Large Electron Multipliers detectors. Argon VUV scintillation light has to be converted with wavelength shifters such as TetraPhenyl Butadiene in order to be detected by photomultipliers with bialkali photocathodes. We describe the status of the LEM based charge readout and light readout system R&D and the first light readout tests with warm and cold argon gas in the full size detector.
author: V. Boccone[^1], on behalf of the ArDM collaboration.
date: June 15$^{th}$ 2008
title: Recent updates on the ArDM project: A Liquid Argon TPC for Dark Matter Detection

# Introduction

Noble liquids such as argon or xenon are today two of the best options for large-size Dark Matter (DM) experiment such as WIMPs (Weak Interacting Massive Particles) searches because they serve as target and detecting media at the same time. WIMPs in fact, with particular regard to the lightest neutralino, are the most popular DM candidates within the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). Most of the DM models predicts that WIMPs interact almost only gravitationally and maybe weakly with matter thus forming cold relic halos around massive astronomical objects. For this reason DM is very difficult to detect directly nevertheless its evidence has been observed using astronomical observation .

Many groups in the world are focusing their attention on the direct detection. The detectors should have big target masses and excellent noise rejection capabilities because of the small cross section between DM and ordinary matter. Liquid noble gases (Ar, Xe, Kr, Ne) have a relatively low ionization energy and a good cross section for nuclear recoil processes, moreover they can act as active target because they not only have good scintillation properties but also a long electron lifetime. Argon, because of its availability and low cost, is the best one among those candidates and is very competitive for large detectors.

## Interaction with liquid argon

The expected DM signal from a WIMP-argon head on collision is a single 10-100keV recoiling nucleus. The passage of ionizing particles in argon produces not only ionization but excitation of atoms as well. Ionized and excited atoms form the excited molecular states Ar$^{+}_{2}$ and Ar$^{*}_{2}$ respectively. Ar$^{+}_{2}$ eventually recombines with an electron, producing Ar$^{*}_{2}$ in the molecular excited state which decays radiatively (see fig.).

The lowest allowed radiative decays from the molecular excited states are the transitions from the singlet and the triplet states ($^{1}\Sigma^{+}_{u}$ and $^{3}\Sigma_{u}^{+}$) to the dissociative ground state ($^{1}\Sigma^{+}_{g}$) which consist of two independent atoms; the emission spectrum for those transitions has a narrow peak at $(128\pm10)$nm in the Vacuum Ultra Violet (VUV) band . Reabsorption cannot occur because the energy of the single atomic excited state is too high. Only impurities such as water, N$_{2}$ and CO$_{2}$ can eventually reabsorb VUV light and capture the electrons.

Those two transition have two different decay times, respectively $\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_{2}$, which do not depend on the type or on the energy of the incident particle; $^{1}\Sigma^{+}_{u}\rightarrow$$^{1}\Sigma_{g}^{+}$ is strongly allowed and has a short decay time while $^{3}\Sigma^{+}_{u}\rightarrow$$^{1}\Sigma_{g}^{+}$ is allowed only because of spin-orbit coupling and has a much longer life. In liquid argon (LAr) $\tau_{1}=5$ ns and $\tau_{2}=1.6$ $\mu$s.

The ratio between the populations of the two states $r_{ex}= \delta( ^{1}\Sigma^{+}_{u}) / \delta( ^{3}\Sigma_{u}^{+})$ depends strongly on the ionization density of the track (see fig.); for light projectiles such as electrons and $\gamma$s $r_{ex} \approx 1/2$ while for $\alpha$s and fission fragments is $r_{ex} \approx 4\div5$. The electron lifetime and the decay time of triplet state strongly depend on the on the purity of the liquid.

# The ArDM experiment

## Detector description

The conceptual layout of the ArDM experiment is illustrated in fig.. An ionizing particle traveling through an active mass of $850$ kg generate scintillation and ion pairs; a 500 kV Cockcroft Walton generator chain provides the electric field necessary to drift the electrons towards the gas phase on the top of the detector. The electrons are then extracted from the liquid to the gas phase ($E_{extr}\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}3 kV/cm) and accelerated towards the double stage Large Electron Multiplier (LEM) detectors which provides multiplication (gain $\approx 10^4$) and position reconstruction.

Detection of light is performed by an array of 14 cryogenic photomultipliers (PMTs) located below the cathode. Most of the VUV scintillation light hits the side of the detector, therefore we decided to install wavelength shifter (WLS) coated diffusive reflectors which shift the light from 128 nm to 420 nm ($\lambda_{peak}$ for bialkali photocathode) and diffuse the blue light in the detector. A WLS coating of the PMT surface is also foreseen to detect the direct light which is $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}10% of the total light. We plan to achieve an average light collection efficiency of 2%. With a combined light/charge analysis we should reach an energy threshold of approximately .

In order to reach this goal it is necessary to have a very high LAr purity and an excellent background rejection level. A good purity is obtained by recirculating the LAr through an active copper filter (purification circuit) with a specially developed cryogenic pump. Argon quality is monitored using two independent purity monitoring systems, which measure the electron drift length and the decay time of slow component ($\tau_{2}$). The main vessel and the purification circuit are surrounded by an insulation vacuum; a LAr circuit embedded in the walls of the inner vessel allows to pre-cool the detector.

## Background sources

Common background sources for this type of detectors are neutrons, electrons and $\gamma$s. U and Th chains contaminating the detector components produce neutron and $\gamma$ background, P isotopes (present in steel) have $\beta$ activities. Muons induce neutrons and, if interacting with argon, produce the unstable long living $^{39}$Ar isotope. LAr obtained from the liquefaction of air contains this isotope in a non negligible fraction; the WARP collaboration has reported an activity of which then makes $^{39}$Ar one of the most problematic source of background for ArDM.

The rejection of this background is a complicated issue and involves more detailed studies which were the subject of simulations.

Since we measure the charge with its position, time distribution and the scintillation light with its time structure down to *ns* scale we are able to distinguish between electrons, $\gamma$s and recoiling nuclei. An example of rejection studies can be seen in fig.: it is possible to identify electron and $\gamma$ events by looking at the "Charge/Light ratio" as a function of the total reconstructed energy (fig.a) or if we want to use only the light information (for instance to reduce the trigger rate) we can measure the fraction of light coming from the fast component as a function of the total light (fig.b). This kind of analysis is fundamental to reject $\beta$ radioactivity from $^{39}$Ar.

WIMPs and neutrons lead to similar event topologies since they produce a recoiling argon nucleus; however the energy spectra and the scattering multiplicities are different. We can partly reject neutrons because more than 50% of them scatter more than once; moreover only 10% of them produce a single recoil event in the energy range between and .

We estimate with a MonteCarlo the total number of neutrons per year coming from the detector components; from simulation we expect $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}1000 neutrons/year which will generate a WIMP-like recoil rate of $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}50 fake WIMPs/year.

## Charge readout system

The LEM is a scaled-up version of the Gaseous Electron Multiplier (GEM) (, and ). We are developing a double stage LEM system composed of two LEM planes and a segmented anode plane; each LEM plane consists of a dual layer thick printed circuit board (PCB) with diameter holes with a pitch of , made by precise machining (standard PCB technology). Holes in the last plane are grouped by strips similarly to the anode plane in order to provide a 2D segmented readout of ions and electrons. The third dimension along the cylinder is obtained by time projection imaging. A granularity of few millimeter will grant a sufficient vertex resolution for rejection of multiple scattered neutrons.

We have already achieved operation of a dual stage LEM system in dual phase argon, extracting electron from the liquid to gaseous phase with a small prototype in a dedicated setup (fig.).

## Light readout system

The light read out system must be able to detect and identify signals in a range from the single to few thousand photons. It is composed mainly of two parts, the reflectors and the detectors, which have been subject of dedicated R&D projects ( and ).

The internal surface of the active volume is covered by WLS reflector panels. We selected TetraPhenyl Butadiene[^2] (TPB) as the best WLS for VUV to blue light conversion because of its light conversion efficiency and its diffusive reflection properties. We optimized the WLS surface density on different reflector materials in a small 1lt liquid argon setup in gas and liquid. A surface density of was evaporated on thin Tetratex[^3] membrane. Each reflector was later mounted on 3M ESR[^4] foils which provide mechanical support and shielding from the light coming from the nonactive volume. We prepared and installed in the detector 15 WLS reflector panels.

The photon detector is composed of 14 special cryogenic PMTs with platinum underlay below the bialkali photocathode, which allows charge restoration at cryogenic temperatures. A low activity glass is desired to reduce the amount of self background. Each PMT is mounted on a 3 mm thick cryogenic PCB base which provides voltage supply, signal extraction and mechanical support. A detail of the prototype of the PCB base mounted on the photomultiplier can be seen in fig. (left).

Polyethylene collars positioned on the steel support frame keep the PMTs in the horizontal position at the right distance from the others. The PMTs are shielded from the of the cathode with a grid placed at the same potential of the PMT photocathodes. The mechanical structure can be seen in fig. (right).

# Test of light readout in argon gas

For the test in gas and liquid argon we installed the 15 light shifter reflector panels (full coverage) and 8 of the 14 cryogenic PMT modules. We have seven Hamamatsu R5912 PMTs (five with 14 dynodes and two with 10 dynodes) and one ETL 9357 KFLB; both types were studied at cryogenic temperatures . The PMT modules were tested in LAr (88K) with a blue LED light before coating and assembly in the experiment. A brief list of the PMT properties is listed in table .

| Producer  | Model       | Quantity | Dynodes |    Max. Gain (1500V)     |
|:----------|:------------|:--------:|:-------:|:------------------------:|
| Hamamatsu | R5912/02mod |    x5    |   14    | $\approx 1 \cdot 10^{9}$ |
| Hamamatsu | R5912/01mod |    x2    |   10    | $\approx 1 \cdot 10^{7}$ |
| ETL       | ETL9357     |    x1    |   12    | $\approx 1 \cdot 10^{7}$ |

Types of photomultiplier used in the tests.

The E-Field protection grid (which will protect the PMT surfaces from the $-500$ kV potential of the cathode) and the electric field generator chain were installed, but not used for these tests. Ten PT-1000 temperature sensors, placed at different depth in the detector, allowed precise measurements of the inner temperature of the detector. An $^{241}$Am $\alpha$-source (40kbq) and two blue LEDs were installed on a movable magnetic actuator placed on the center of the main flange, since the LEM was not present. The $\alpha$ source has a very thin metallic window which led to a reduction of the $\alpha$ energy from to . The test setup is schematized in fig. (left) while the picture of the assembled setup illuminated by UV light from inside is shown in fig. (right).

The PMTs were tested in gaseous argon at room and cryogenic temperatures. The setup was first closed and evacuated down to . We then filled the dewar with gaseous argon[^5] up to a pressure of 1.1 bar. Several measurement of gain, dark count rate and light yield as a function if the source position have been performed and repeated fig. (left); two PMTs were not working in gas because of sparking in the high voltage power supply circuit. Then the setup was evacuated down to $10^{-6}{\rm mbar}$ and liquid argon was circulated in the cooling circuit for more than two days. We filled then the detector with gaseous argon up to a pressure of 0.4 bar, turned on the PMTs and let the temperature sensors inside the dewar stabilize over-night to 88K. Meanwhile a set of data was acquired each hour to study possible effects of gain drift and quantum efficiency (QE) change on the PMTs. The temperature variation as a function of time inside the detector is shown in fig..

At the beginning of day 4 temperature was stable at the photocathode level; we repeated the measurement of gain, dark count rate and light yield as a function of source position in cold argon gas at fig. (right). We measured a light yield increase of $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}50% when passing from room temperature to argon gas at . This effect has not been yet fully understood, but is mainly related to the emission spectrum of the gaseous argon at those thermodynamic conditions. A detailed analysis will be performed with LAr for which we will be able to compare directly the light yield with the one we obtained in the small LAr cell.

# Conclusion

In conclusion I report about the progresses done recently by the ArDM collaboration. Many R&D efforts have been invested in the last 3 years to develop a suitable charge and light readout which fulfills our requirements. ArDM is now in the commissioning phase; the light readout has been installed in its prototype version, the choice of the final PMTs will be done after the liquid argon test. The full size prototype of the LEM is in its design phase.

[^1]: Physik-Institut der Universität Zürich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland. E-Mail:email@example.com

[^2]: 1,1,4,4-TetraPhenyl-1,3-Butadiene.

[^3]: High performance ePTFE membrane.

[^4]: 3M VikuitiEnhances Specular Reflection.

[^5]: Ar60, from Carbagas, impurities $\sim$ 1 ppb.


abstract: A general information-theoretic framework for deriving physical laws is presented and a principle of informational physics is enunciated within its context. Existing approaches intended to derive physical laws from information-theoretic first principles are unified as special cases of this framework with the introduction of constraints dependent on the physical process of observation. Some practical, theoretical and epistemological implications of the validity of this approach are examined.
author: Nisheeth Srivastava
title: The Relativity of Theory

# Introduction

The consideration of information (subjectively, awareness) as a fundamental ontological entity is a view with an extremely illustrious pedigree in several Idealistic traditions of philosophy[^1]. In the past half century, this philosophical position has been adopted by some scientific/computational programs and specified to various degrees of rigor in various representational structures, e.g. . While many of these observers have designed different perspectives on the subject, the theme of a fundamental informational nature of reality runs through all their narratives. These are, in general terms, the philosophical approaches to informational physics. They begin with an ontological assumption regarding the nature of reality and attempt to find representational theories of sufficient expressiveness and precision to be able to make testable statements in the physical world.

In a different epistemological context, beginning with Frieden , there have been several sporadic efforts (see, e.g., ) made to re-derive the foundational principles of quantum mechanics with a probabilistic and/or information-theoretic basis, making no physical assumptions. This effort is philosophically appealing because of the nebulous understanding of the role of the observer and the observer's effect on the wave function in the standard Copenhagen interpretation. Furthermore, since most theories of physics, including the Standard Model, are generally expressed as quantum field theories, an information-theoretic interpretation of QFT, if justifiable, directly affects the entire epistemological basis of physics. As a matter of fact, a controversial information-theoretic unification model has already been proposed by Frieden as an extension to his original approach . These constitute what we call the mathematical approaches to informational physics. They begin from an agnostic epistemic viewpoint, operating entirely within existing representational frameworks of probability and information and attempt to characterize the ontological assumptions necessary for their mathematical findings to be consistent with existing theories of reality in the same mathematical representation.

In this brief note, we examine prospects of unifying the philosophical and mathematical currents of informational physics. We do so by formulating the problem of information optimization in a general mathematical setting. We then discuss how the simple selection of an information measure (frequentist probability) and its physical interpretation allows us to recover statistical mechanics from our general framework, an insight first gleaned by Jaynes . We remark on the prospect of employing a similar approach to deriving quantum mechanics for large systems, viz., quantum field theories, an observation independently made by Lisi . We further note how a different choice of information measure (Fisher Information) recovers Frieden's derivation of Schrodinger's equation as well as (within some interpretative latitude) his broader Extreme Physical Information framework of informational physics. Finally, using heuristic arguments, we suggest that this apparent unity offers us insight into both the nature of physical laws as well as the surprising comprehensibility of physics using mathematics .

# Information optimization

Let $\mathcal{S}$ represent the set of possible outcomes in an isolated system under observation, where every outcome $s\in\mathcal{S}$ is a set of variables that sufficiently represent the system behavior for each outcome. For example, for a classical point particle (position $x$, momentum $p$) moving in a straight line, $\{x,p\}$ is a sufficient representation. In order to study changes in outcomes, we consider each outcome $s$ to be a continuous function of a set of parameters $t$.

If we were to consider the problem of obtaining knowledge in the broadest epistemic sense, an observer would be ignorant of the membership of $\mathcal{S}$. To be able to make meaningful statements about information optimization, we require that an observer possess information about the existence of at least some $s\in\mathcal{S}$[^2]. The goal of the observer is two-fold. In the first place, he wishes to explain the relative frequency of occurrence of different outcomes of the system with a *theory*. We consider a good theory to be one which explains the relative frequencies of the occurrence of outcomes with a set of statements of a much lower Kolmogorov complexity than the set of statements required to describe the occurrence of outcomes. In the second, he would like to be able to make predictions regarding the behavior of unobserved outcomes of the system based on his observation of past outcomes. Note that these two aspects of *episteme* need not be related, e.g., the true theory regarding a fair coin,'This is a random process', implies that prediction becomes impossible, whereas predicting a coin will show up heads (or tails) because it has shown up heads thrice before is a process fraught with peril[^3].

For either (or both) of these purposes, the observer associates a level of certainty or uncertainty with each possible outcome of the system. Let us denote this with an information measure $f(s)$, the choice of which will determine the form of the solution to the information optimization problem. Furthermore, since multiple outcomes are feasible, the observer must construct an aggregate measure of certainty (or uncertainty). In general, we can denote this by $F:\mathcal{S}'\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, where $\mathcal{S}'\subseteq\mathcal{S}$ and depends on the observer's knowledge of the membership of the system.

Now that the observer has quantified the extent of his knowledge/ignorance of the system, he must adjust these quantities to account for observations of system outcomes that he makes. The method of adjustment employed, which is essentially *inference* may be arbitrary, but a principled approach would be to employ *Bayesian* inference. While this might appear to constrain the generality of our informational framework, it must be noted that the Bayesian formalism has been shown to be quite generally applicable and along with the axioms of probability, appears to be quite fundamental to the way in which humans naturally think . Therefore, to assume that the system of updates that the observer employs will be Bayesian in nature does not appear to be overly restrictive.

Note further that Bayesian inference has been shown to be equivalent to the principle of maximum relative entropy , an extension of Jaynes' famous original MaxEnt principle applicable to uniform prior distributions to arbitrary priors. MaxEnt, therefore, is a special case of Bayesian inference, where one begins with an agnostic belief regarding one's current state of knowledge. This, naturally, exposes the argument to the same opposition that proponents of MaxEnt face in general. It should therefore be emphasized that the MaxEnt assumption is not a crucial aspect of this framework and is used here to simplify our analysis in the examples that we consider. The general Bayesian argument (or its maximum relative entropy equivalent) constitute our general system of updates.

Having defined our terms of reference, we can now state our informational physics hypothesis somewhat more formally as a principle assumed in all our subsequent derivations. The principle of informational physics states that *an observer's task of developing a theory concerning the evolution of the system characterized by a space of outcomes $\mathcal{S}$ is equivalent to extremizing a measure of his information/ignorance $F$ constrained by what he *believes-he-knows*[^4] about the system. Known physical laws emerge as mathematically optimal solutions to this information extremization procedure.*

# Physical laws

## Realistic information measures

While a plethora of information/uncertainty measures (see e.g. ) can be used within the information framework defined in Section , the one that is most commonly used in learning theory is Shannon entropy with an underlying frequentist definition of probability, i.e., assuming $p[s]$ measures the frequency of occurrence of outcome $s$ in the space of known outcomes $s\in\mathcal{S}'$, the observer's uncertainty $f(s)$ with respect to the outcome $s$ is given by $- p[s]\log p[s]$ and the aggregate uncertainty across all known paths $F(\mathcal{S}')$ as $$F(\mathcal{S}') = -\sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}'}{p[s]\log p[s]} = -\int_{s\in\mathcal{S}'}{p[s]\log p[s]~ds}.
\label{eqn:entropy}$$

The $F$ obtained here is precisely the Shannon entropy of the system and is a measure of the uncertainty of the observer regarding the behavior of the system. Concomitantly, it is possible to define $F(s)$ as the information divergence of the observer's hypothesis concerning the system to the best[^5] theory. Representing both the observer's hypothesis and the target theory as distributions over the space of outcomes, we can use the standard definition of information divergence (alternatively Kullback-Leibler divergence) to obtain an aggregate information measure for the system, viz., $$F_{b}(\mathcal{S}') = \int_{s\in\mathcal{S}'}{a[s]\log\frac{a[s]}{b[s]}~ds},
\label{eqn:dive}$$ where $b[s]$ is the observer's hypothesis and $a[s]$ is the target theory.

Note that in this case, minimizing the information measure would result in the observer finding a theory close to the optimal. Parenthetically, this recovers the MDI principle of model selection first proposed by Kullback and subsequently extended via the AIC criterion to statistical model selection .

The third important information information measure we consider here is a variant of Fisher Information first proposed in \]. Frieden demonstrates that assuming $n$ independent measurements of outcomes as well as shift invariance in the system, it is possible to construct an information measure of the form $$F(s) = 4\int_{s\in\mathcal{S}'}{\sum_{n}{\frac{\partial q}{\partial s}\cdot\frac{\partial q}{\partial s}}~ds},
\label{eqn:fisher}$$ where $p[s] = q^2[s]$.

As we mention above, these are by no means the only information measures available. A wide variety of distance (e.g. Levenshtein, Hellinger, Dudley) and divergence measures (e.g., the Bregman family of divergences) can be used to replace () . Much work has been done to generalize entropy measures e.g., Tsallis entropies, and multiple definitions of probability abound. Thus, there are several information measures that may be used in place of the ones we have considered[^6]. The optimization problem and its interpretation must necessarily remain the same. There is thus, much flexibility in this framework to allow for physical theories to be constructed using different representations of information.

## Statistical and quantum mechanics

From the arguments presented in Section , it is evident that the task of constructing a physical theory for observations made on a physical system is equivalent to solving an inference problem given constraints on the observation process. Working with the entropic formulation of $F$ as defined in (), we now define minimal constraints on the inference problem as observed in the process of physical measurements.

For physical systems, it appears appropriate to conjecture that the probabilities $p[s]$ of all known outcomes should sum to one, .i.e., the observer should believe that he knows $\mathcal{S}$ (when, in fact, he only knows $\mathcal{S}'$). Thus, the observer *believes-he-knows* $$\sum_{s\in\mathcal{S}'}p[s(t)] = \int_{s\in\mathcal{S}'}{p[s]~ds} = 1.
\label{eqn:exist}$$ Furthermore, in order to develop his theory, the observer, given multiple observations, *believes-he-knows* how the system has been behaving. Mathematically, this means that he *believes-he-knows* the expected value $\langle A\rangle$ of the *history* $A[s]$ of the physical system given multiple observations, where the *history* may be defined in any mathematical manner that takes the past behavior of the system corresponding to outcome $s$ into account. That is, $$\bar{A} = \langle A\rangle = \int_{s\in\mathcal{S}'}{A[s]p[s]~ds}.
\label{eqn:measure}$$

It is instructive to note here that the choice of information measure is independent of the physical constraints imposed, and that the physical constraints imposed are consequent to the process of observation, not the physical system being measured.

Recovering the optimal theory for the system using () as an information measure and (), () as informational constraints is now equivalent to extremizing, $$\begin{aligned}
F' &= - \int_{s\in\mathcal{S}'}{p[s]\log p[s]~ds} + \lambda\left(1 - \int_{s\in\mathcal{S}'}{p[s]~ds}\right) + \nu\left(\bar{A} - \int_{s\in\mathcal{S}'}{p[s]A[s]~ds}\right),\\
&= \lambda + \nu\bar{A} - \int_{s\in\mathcal{S}'}{(p[s]\log p[s] + \lambda p[s] + \nu p[s]A[s])~ds}.
\end{aligned}$$

Differentiating with respect to $p[s]$ and setting the derivate to zero gives us$$\int_{s\in\mathcal{S}'}{(\log p[s] + 1 + \lambda + \nu \bar{A}[s])~ds} = 0,$$ which gives us an expression for $p[s]$ of the form $$p[s] = \frac{1}{Z}~e^{-\nu \bar{A}[s]}.
\label{eqn:solve}$$ Differentiating with respect to $\lambda$, $Z = 1/e^{-1 - \lambda}$ which gives us, $$Z = \int_{s\in\mathcal{S}'}{e^{-\nu \bar{A}[s]}~ds}.
\label{eqn:partition}$$ Similarly, we can determine $\nu$ by solving the equation $$-\frac{\partial}{\partial\nu}~\log Z = \bar{A}.
\label{eqn:constt}$$

Now, note that Z, as defined in () has the structure of a partition function, while $\nu$ plays the role of an intensive variable (does not depend on the cardinality of $\mathcal{S}'$). The physical interpretation of this partition function may be inferred from the context of the domain of the physical system. In the case of classical statistical ensembles, we specify the *history* of the system in a configuration $s$ to simply be the energy in that particular state and take the intensive variable to be the familiar $k_B T$. By doing so, we recover Jaynes' information-theoretic formulation of thermodynamics in the form of the well-known statistical canonical ensemble $$Z = \sum_{states}{e^{-\frac{1}{k_B T}E[state]}}.$$

As Lisi points out, the formal similarity of the quantum partition function to the statistical canonical ensemble implies that it can be derived along similar lines. Following Lisi , we interpret the notion of *history*, in the case of a quantum ensemble, as the action $S$ corresponding to a particular *path* as understood in Feynman's path integral formulation. The intensive variable is taken as $\imath\hbar$. By doing so, we recover the quantum partition function[^7], $$Z = \sum_{paths}{e^{-\frac{1}{\imath\hbar}S[path]}}.$$ Thus, we see that using an entropic formulation of uncertainty about the possible outcomes of a physical system allows us to derive partition functions that, afforded reasonable physical interpretations, allow us to recover existing physical laws and explain the similarity in their formal structure with a deeper informational hypothesis.

## Extreme Physical Information

In Section , we have seen that using Shannon entropy as a measure of uncertainty allows us to recover existing physical laws for macroscopic ensembles. Beginning from the observation that a large number of physical laws are phrased in the form of second order differential equations, Frieden has suggested the possibility of deriving these laws through a general framework called Extreme Physical Information (EPI) which operates on a principle of Fisher Information extremization. In this Section, we examine the use of a Fisher Information based measure in our general informational framework and find that our approach replicates the basic mathematical structure of EPI without having to make any of its potentially questionable metaphysical assumptions[^8].

Recall that the standard definition of Fisher Information is of the form $$I = \int{\left(\frac{\partial\log p(y|\boldsymbol{\theta})}{\partial\boldsymbol{\theta}}\right)^2 p(y|\boldsymbol{\theta})~dy},$$ where $p(y|\boldsymbol{\theta})$ is some interpretation (we assume frequentist) of the probability of $y$ conditioned on $\boldsymbol{\theta}$. Fisher Information measures the amount of information that the random variable $y$ carries about the unknown parameter $\boldsymbol{\theta}$. In the context of physical systems, we take $y$ to represent the value of physical measurements and $\theta$ to be the *true*[^9] value of the physical quantity being measured. Geometrically speaking, the informativeness in this context is measured as a function of the steepness of the probability density function near the maximum likelihood estimate of the unknown parameter. Thus, unlike Shannon entropy, using Fisher Information as an uncertainty measure allows us to take local structure in the definition of the support of the space of outcomes $\mathcal{S}$ into account. Finally, note that since Fisher Information, like Kullback-Leibler divergence, measures informativeness in comparison to an ideal theory, finding a good physical theory in this estimation framework is equivalent to minimizing Fisher Information over the relevant domain. Without having to resort to an observer-Nature information game (observer maximizes information, Nature maximizes error), as posited in, e.g., , we recover the basic mathematical principle of EPI.

In general, the unknown parameter $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ as well as the measurement $\mathbf{y}$ may be a $V$-dimensional vector, e.g., the position of a point particle in $\mathbb{R}^V$. In that case we obtain a $V\times V$ Fisher Information matrix. In physical measurements, the dimensions of the unknown parameter will often be orthogonal in the sense that the MLEs will be independent. Thus, the off-diagonal elements of the Fisher Information matrix will be zero, and the trace will be a comprehensive measure of the informativeness of the estimation. It may also be necessary to account for the effect of multiple observations $\mathbf{y}^{(n)}: n = 1\cdots N$ on the informativeness of the estimation procedure for the unknown parameter $\boldsymbol{\theta}_v^{(n)}$ at the $n^{th}$ instance. Following Frieden, the sum of the traces of the $V\times V$ matrix corresponding to each observation can be shown to be an upper bound on the Stam information of the system and is thus a bound on the capacity of the estimation procedure to convey information about the measured quantity. Also, from the assumption of independence, the joint probability $p(\mathbf{y}|\boldsymbol{\theta})$ decomposes into a product of marginals $\prod_{n=1}^{N}{p_n(\mathbf{y}^{(n)}|\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)})}$, resulting in the following simplification, $$\begin{aligned}
F &= \sum_{n=1}^{N}\int{p(y|\theta)\sum_{v=1}^{V}\left(\frac{\partial\log p(\mathbf{y}|\boldsymbol{\theta})}{\partial\boldsymbol{\theta}_{v}^{(n)}}\right)^2~d\mathbf{y}^{(n)}},\\
&= \sum_{n=1}^{N}\int{\frac{1}{p_n}\sum_{v=1}^{V}\left(\frac{\partial p_n}{\partial\boldsymbol{\theta}_v^{(n)}}\right)^2~d\mathbf{y}^{(n)}.}
\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we assume shift invariance for the measurement process, i.e., the error in measurement $\mathbf{x}^{(n)} = \mathbf{y}^{(n)} - \theta^{(n)}$ is independent of the value of $\boldsymbol{\theta}$. Then, $p_n(\mathbf{y}^{(n)}|\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)}) = p_n(\mathbf{x}_n)$. To recapitulate, we have shown that it is possible to define a scalar information measure based on Fisher information that depends entirely on the fluctuations in the measurement process. By replacing the probability density $p_n$ with the 'real' probability amplitude $q_n$ such that $p_n = q_n^2$ and suppressing the index $v$ in the notation (assuming measurements are made with no preferred dimension), we get $$F = 4\int{\sum_{n}\nabla q_n\cdot\nabla q_n~d\mathbf{x}_n},
\label{eqn:frieden}$$ which is equivalent to () with some additional physical interpretation of the outcome space $\mathcal{S}$ attached. Specifically, whereas () measures informativeness in a general space of outcomes $s\in\mathcal{S}$, () measures informativeness corresponding to a physical measurement process where the form and the physical interpretation of the outcome $\mathbf{x}= \mathbf{y}- \boldsymbol{\theta}$ is well-specified. Since physical laws dealing with idealized measurements are largely concerned with this specific class of outcomes, we use () in the remainder of this Section.

Using the principle of informational physics, deriving a physical law using () is equivalent to minimizing the information measure $F$ under constraints on the process of measurement. We formulate these constraints following our treatment of the Shannon entropy case in Section . Since the information measure $F$ has no outcome-specific probabilistic interpretation, we will not have a density function normalization constraint analogous to (). Analogous to (), however, we assume here that the observer, given multiple observations, *believes-he-knows* how the system has been behaving. In this context, this translates into the assumption that the observer's empirical estimate of the expected *history* of all possible outcomes of the system is accurate, i.e., $$\bar{A} = \langle A\rangle = \int{A(\mathbf{x}) p(\mathbf{x}) d\mathbf{x}}.$$

Thus, the informational quantity to be minimized takes the form, $$F' = 4\int{\sum_{n}\nabla q_n\cdot\nabla q_n~d\mathbf{x}_n} + \lambda\left(\bar{A} - \int{A(\mathbf{x}) p(\mathbf{x}) d\mathbf{x}}\right),
\label{eqn:epi}$$ which is structurally equivalent to the $K = I - J$ Lagrangian of EPI . Comparing this derivation of the EPI Lagrangian with that described in in the specific context of the derivation of the time-independent Schrodinger's equation and subsequently explicated in to encompass a general framework that results in information-theoretic derivations of the Dirac, Klein-Gordon and Maxwell's equations, we see that our informational framework not only subsumes the mathematical structure of EPI, but also motivates it in a far more convincing manner by eliminating the need for defining a bound information functional as well as the requirement of taking a Fourier transform of the original information measure to do so. Thus, we find that we have removed a significant number of the *ad hoc* procedural assumptions of EPI while recovering its mathematical structure as a special representational implementation of a more general informational physics framework.

As an example of the application of the EPI method to deriving physical laws, we can briefly interpret Frieden's derivation of Schrodinger's equation (in one-dimension) starting from (). The history $\bar{A}$ is assigned a physical interpretation of kinetic energy of the particle (potential energy would appear as a uniform background energy to an observer concerned solely with measuring the position of the particle). Recall that Schrodinger's equation measures probability using complex probability amplitudes. These may be constructed from real probability amplitudes $q_n(x)$ $$\psi_{n} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}(q_{2n-1} + \imath q_{2n}), n = 1\cdots N/2,$$ with no loss of generality. Since the kinetic energy over N measurements is being considered, we work with the quantity $N\langle E_{kin}\rangle$. Following , the quantity $\langle E_{kin}\rangle$ can be expressed as an expectation in terms of the probability distribution $p(x) = \sum_n \psi_n^*\psi_n$. Substituting in () and working with the single-dimension case for simplicity of analysis, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
F' &= 4N\int{\sum_n\left|\frac{d\psi_n(x)}{dx}\right|^2~dx} + \lambda\left(\bar{E}_{kin} - C\int{E_{kin}\sum_n |\psi_n(x)|^2~dx}\right),\\
&= 4N\int{\sum_n\left|\frac{d\psi_n(x)}{dx}\right|^2~dx} - \lambda C\int{[W - V(x)]\sum_n |\psi_n(x)|^2~dx} + \lambda\bar{E}_{kin}.
\end{aligned}$$ Applying the Euler-Lagrange equation $$\frac{d}{dx}~\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial\psi'} = \frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial\psi},$$ with $\mathcal{L} = F'$, we get the solution, $$\psi_n^{''}(x) + \frac{\lambda C}{4}[W - V(x)]\psi_n(x) = 0, \quad n = 1,\cdots N/2.
\label{eqn:schrodinger}$$ Setting $\lambda C = \frac{8m}{\hbar^2}$ recovers a physically meaningful Schrodinger's equation without time dependence.

The general EPI approach has been used in several physical, biological and economics applications over the past decade with varying degrees of success. However, it has not acquired mainstream acceptance as a consequence of the arbitrary formulaic manner in which it has been presented and the *ad hoc* metaphysical assumptions required to phrase it. It is hoped that the derivation of the formal structure of EPI with our sparse set of assumptions might occasion a re-evaluation of its utility.

# Discussion

Here, we summarize and discuss all the assumptions that we make in the process of deriving physical laws from the assumption of the ontological primacy of information (subjectively, awareness).

-   **Complete system description:** In the first instance, deriving physical laws appears to require that $s\in\mathcal{S}\Rightarrow s\in S'$, since the probability assignments $p[s]$ to outcomes $s$ and all subsequent calculations are likely to be flawed irretrievably otherwise. This distinguishes physical laws from general statistical inference where $\mathcal{S}'\subset\mathcal{S}$. It must be clarified here that the use of the term *complete* to refer to the specification of set $\mathcal{S}$ is a slight misnomer, since we appear to be attaching ontological reality to $\mathcal{S}$ independent of the observer. This is partially true. While we could redress this concern by allowing a superset of $\mathcal{S}$ to replace $\mathcal{S}$ (with $\mathcal{S}$ becoming yet another $\mathcal{S}'$ in the process) whenever new information about the space of outcomes arises, such an approach allows for an unintuitive infinite regress. It is felt that it is simpler to allow $\mathcal{S}$ to have some ontological reality by considering it to be the space of outcomes observable to a universal observer with (or holding the potential for)*complete* knowledge. The ontological realism of this observer itself is a separate (and philosophically important) question, but one that need not be addressed for the mathematical consistency of our framework.

-   **Bayesian inference:** We have assumed that observers update their beliefs about the possibility of various outcomes occurring by observing the system's behavior over multiple instances. While any other system of inference would be equally acceptable, for our demonstration of the emergence of physical laws, we have selected Bayesian inference as the specific model. It would be very surprising, in the author's opinion, were another consistent system of inference to result in results radically different from the Bayesian approach. Thus, we feel that it is sufficiently general to require no additional justification.

-   **Agnosticism about outcomes:** Since we have worked throughout our exposition with either the MaxEnt specialization of Bayesian inference or an equivalent Fisher Information minimization, we have assumed that observers do not assume any knowledge unjustified by observations.

-   **Existence assumption:** In the case where individual probabilities can be assigned to system outcomes in a physically interpretable manner (Section ) we have assumed that observers constructing physical laws believe they know of all possible outcomes that constitute the domain of the system.

-   **Measurements are accurate on average:** In all cases, we have assumed that observers believe they have estimated the behavior of the system accurately through a series of measurements upon various outcomes of the system.

-   **Physical constants:** Where appropriate, we have substituted physically meaningful quantities for scaling parameters and variables (e.g. Boltzmann's constant, Planck's constant). We do not claim any *a priori* reason for these substitutions, but suggest that their introduction in non-informational physics derivations tend to be no less arbitrary. Unfortunately, the informational physics framework does not appear to be any closer than standard formulations in solving the *fine-tuning*[^10] problem.

Subjectively speaking, this set of assumptions appears to be quite reasonable, sparse enough to allow the informational physics principle to be enunciated, yet not so sparse as to require suspension of disbelief in order to accept the principle's implications. In plain language, the informational physics principle, in view of these assumptions, is suggesting the following: take a set of observers with complete knowledge of the range of behavior of a phenomenon under observation and give them sufficient observations to estimate some quantity that summarizes the past behavior of all outcomes of the system. While trying to infer a concise statement that would allow them to (a) summarize their findings and (b) make predictions about the system's behavior, they will all find the same mathematical structures as statements of physical laws, a circumstance that emerges from the nature of the process of observation and no ontological reality apart from the observer's perception.

## Future prospects

Much of the circumspection that arises with respect to informational physics derives from the insubstantial and intangible nature of its constituent categories. That is, it is far simpler to think in terms of electrons than bits, since one can measure the former's effects in the physical realm. Almost definitionally, the material (dualistic) definition of physics is far more amenable to reductionist manipulation than the informational (non-dualistic) definition. It is almost certain that this will remain a critical bottleneck to the emergence of informational physics as a mainstream discipline. However, we contend that demonstrating the consistency and duality of informational physics with respect to traditional physics is still not an enterprise without value. We examine and motivate future efforts along this line of inquiry in the following three contexts:

-   **Practical implications:** From the practical point of view, the informational view of physics argues for a reappraisal of developments in approximation techniques in the light of the existence and continual development of statistical learning algorithms for different domain representations in the machine learning community. At the very least, the inference method can guide selection of the appropriate class of analytical methods appropriate for a particular problem domain. The first component of using the informational framework in physically realistic setting is *domain specification*, which is equivalent to specifying an interesting and non-trivial domain of outcomes $\mathcal{S}$ of corresponding to physical measurements (for either single particle or ensemble settings). The critical element in performing inference, once the domain $\mathcal{S}$ has been specified, is the imposition of an appropriate measure to generate meaningful $p[s]$ corresponding to $s\in\mathcal{S}$, which should be a problem of some interest to measure theoreticians. The rest of the analysis can proceed using well known methods in both the statistics and computational learning literature.

-   **Theoretical implications:** Much has been made of the necessity of reaching a deeper understanding of the seemingly counter-intuitive foundations of quantum mechanics. Furthermore, in recent years, there has been a backlash in some segments of the theoretical physics community against the predominance of mathematical manipulation detached from reality. Informational physics carries the potential of remedying both these problems, as well as scope for a unification framework potentially more aesthetically satisfying than any action string theory might hope to derive. In the case of quantum mechanics, the irreconcilability of local realism with quantum predictions is trivially resolved by allowing quantum histories to emerge subjectively (an interpretation which is compatible with relational quantum mechanics ). Furthermore, observer-dependent wave function collapse can now be interpreted as an update of outcome probabilities based on information acquisition. The mathematics of the informational framework of physics proceeds from well-understood and motivated assumptions regarding the nature of reality, which places it favorably in contrast to some more mathematically sophisticated but less simply interpretable systems.

-   **Epistemological implications:** As our final point, we ask the following related questions: what are the implications of an informational basis of reality as well as knowledge about reality (the laws of physics being a subset consisting of statements regarding ideal scenarios) on (a) the prospect of unification, (b) the prospect of understanding the nature of physical laws and (c) the prospect of understanding the nature of the comprehensibility and predictability of reality?

    Considering these questions one by one, it is not evident that the informational framework offers much greater hope for unification in the traditional sense of the term. While the informational framework is extremely general, the interpretability of its conclusions in the physical domain cannot occur arbitrarily. Should advances in *domain specification* be feasible, the mathematical power of the informational framework will exceed that of the standard system. Until then, unification will continue to be equally inaccessible to either paradigm, though somewhat less philosophically necessary for the former than the latter.

    Regarding the prospect of understanding the nature of physical laws, the informational framework claims a nearly complete resolution of this problem by showing that they emerge as special cases of a general inference procedure. The substitution of variables with specific values however, leaves it open to the fine-tuning criticism, as addressed earlier. The substitution of variables with quantities that appear to have specific physical interpretations leaves the framework open to the criticism of non-falsifiability. Simply put, the informational argument can retrieve existing laws and potentially find epistemologically-motivated approximations for them, but it cannot find completely new laws, since the variables that emerge would have no defined physical interpretation. Since it becomes impossible to construct a scenario where the informational framework constructs a law that is 'false', the problem of non-falsifiability arises. This is a strong argument, and one that we are not in a position to refute at the moment. It should, therefore, be borne in mind while considering the plausibility of the informational physics hypothesis.

    To answer our final question, we consider the promise that informational physics holds in answering Wigner's question . An assumption that reality is foundationally based in information (subjectively, awareness) dovetails quite well with the evidence we have presented in favor of the hypothesis that knowledge-acquisition about system outcomes is the foundation of physical laws. Since the informational physics principle declaims against the ontological reality of observer-independent systems, it explains Wigner's observation regarding the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics as a descriptor of physical reality in the following way: observers construct laws of physics based on their information extremization apparatus (calculus of variations etc.). All observers who make the assumptions described in Section will discover the same mathematical (and cognitive) statements as physical laws. This will make the relevant mathematics appear to be unreasonably effective in describing what all the observers *believe-they-know*[^11].

Thus, notwithstanding the occasional ambiguity that must necessarily ensue in treating with slippery concepts like information and awareness while attempting to describe reality, there appear to be strong physical, mathematical and epistemological reasons for further investigating the informational physics hypothesis. Establishing the validity of this hypothesis is a necessary step in facilitating a meaningful discussion of the broader consideration of awareness being the primal ontological entity.

[^1]: In the Western traditions, see e.g., Neoplatonism, Kant's Transcendental Idealism and Berkeley's Immaterialism. *Advaita* and *Zen* are good examples from the East. Sufism and Gnosticism are good representatives from the Semitic traditions.

[^2]: This is equivalent to saying that no meaningful discussion of a coin-tossing experiment can commence unless the subject knows it has two outcomes. He need not know that the two outcomes occur with equal probability.

[^3]: As a quick visit to the nearest roulette table at one's friendly neighborhood casino would readily demonstrate!

[^4]: The problem of distinguishing between *believe-he-knows* and *knows* is one that we will not address in this paper.

[^5]: This notion can be formalized in terms of compactness, predictability, some combination thereof or in some other way.

[^6]: We feel, however, that such specific efforts may not be very useful in practice. A more general view of information, on the other hand, would lack the mathematical rigor of our construction.

[^7]: Since it is possible to subsume all possible quantum actions in the informational framework we have discussed in Section , it is tempting to declare victory for informational physics here. However, since we do not have a characterization of the class of actions that have physical interpretations, we are far from being in a position to do so.

[^8]: In particular, we remove the necessity of an observer-Nature information game, the concept of 'bound' information and the necessity of Fourier transforms as a descriptor of symmetry

[^9]: In the informational context, 'true' is equivalent to the value predicted by the best theory.

[^10]: Why do the universal physical constants have the values they do?

[^11]: Drawing a parallel to Plato's Theory of Forms is irresistible!


abstract: In the last several years deep learning based approaches have come to dominate many areas of computer vision, and image denoising is no exception. Neural networks can learn by example to map noisy images to clean images. However, access to noisy/clean or even noisy/noisy image pairs isn't always readily available in the desired domain. Recent approaches have allowed for the denoising of single noisy images without access to any training data aside from that very image. But since they require both training and inference to be carried out on each individual input image, these methods require significant computation time. As such, they are difficult to integrate into automated microscopy pipelines where denoising large datasets is essential but needs to be carried out in a timely manner. Here we present Noise2Fast, a fast single image blind denoiser. Our method is tailored for speed by training on a four-image dataset produced using a unique form of downsampling we refer to as "checkerboard downsampling". Noise2Fast is faster than all tested approaches and is more accurate than all except Self2Self, which takes well over 100 times longer to denoise an image. This allows for a combination of speed and flexibility that was not previously attainable using any other method.
author: Jason Lequyer$^{1,2}$
email@example.com; Reuben Philip$^{1,2}$
email@example.com; Amit Sharma$^{1}$
firstname.lastname@example.com; Laurence Pelletier$^{1,2}$\*
firstname.lastname@example.com; 1. Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute
600 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding author
; 2. Department of Molecular Genetics
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
title: Noise2Fast: Fast Self-Supervised Single Image Blind Denoising

# Main

Image noise is the random fluctuation of color or intensity values that is inherent to image acquisition. It usually presents as a hazy shroud that obscures an otherwise clear visual signal. Image denoising methods try to fix this by removing noise after the fact, usually by exploiting the innate structure and pattern of the underlying signal and leveraging it against the apparent stochasticity of the noise. Denoising is particularly important in live cell imaging applications, where a balance between the conflicting considerations of resolution, phototoxicity and throughput can force experimenters to accept a considerable amount of noise as necessary to achieving their goals.

Many techniques are focused on explicitly modelling noise, based on an understanding of its origin; for example it is known that confocal microscopy is mainly subject to a combination of Gaussian and Poisson distributed noise . However, with the advent of deep learning, such explicit models are avoidable by instead training a neural network to learn how to map noisy images to their clean counterparts, such as in DnCNN , or even just by training it to map noisy pairs of images to one another, such as in Noise2Noise . But, trained methods like these cannot be expected to perform well on image types that were not well represented in the training set. In cases where we do not have access to such training data, alternatives must be considered.

One such alternative is Noise2Void . Noise2Void denoises images by using a masking procedure wherein the neural network learns to fill in pixel gaps in the noisy image. The network's failure to learn the noise causes it to denoise the underlying image. Although it was trained on entire datasets of images with similar noise levels in their paper, Noise2Void can be adapted to denoise single noisy images based purely on the information contained within that image, appealing to no outside information or pretrained weights. This basic process was improved and generalized in Noise2Self and further refined in Self2Self to achieve single image denoising results that are competitive with traditional fully trained methods. Recently, an approach based on corrupting the input image into pairs of new noisy realizations called Recorrupted2Recorrupted (R2R) has emerged and achieved better results than Self2Self on real world noise. However, all viable single image denoisers to date require a considerable amount of time to run, making them impractical for use on high resolution microscopy images in time sensitive situations.

To alleviate this, we propose Noise2Fast. Noise2Fast is similar to the masking based methods in that the network is blind to many of the input pixels during training. Our method is inspired by a recently published approach called Neighbor2Neighbor where the neural network learns a mapping between adjacent pixels. We tune our method to speed by using a discrete four image training set obtained by an unusual form of downsampling we refer to as "checkerboard downsampling" and train a fairly small neural network on this discrete training set, validating using the original full-sized image to determine convergence. Noise2Fast is faster than all compared methods, and is more accurate than all tested methods except for Self2Self, which takes well over 100 times as long to denoise a single image.

### Theoretical Background

Consider a 2D image $\bf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{mxn}$ composed of both signal and noise $\bf{s},\bf{n}\in \mathbb{R}^{mxn}$. That is to say $$\begin{aligned}
 \mathbf{x} = \mathbf{s} + \mathbf{n}.
\end{aligned}$$ Denoising is concerned with the inverse problem of inferring $\mathbf{s}$ from $\bf{x}$ (or equivalently inferring $\mathbf{n}$ and then solving for $\bf{s}$). A neural network attempts to solve this problem by finding a function $f_\theta:\mathbb{R}^{mxn} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{mxn}$ (parameterized by the network weights $\theta$) such that $$\begin{aligned}
 f_\theta(\mathbf{x}) \approx \mathbf{s}.
\end{aligned}$$

The most intuitive way to train such a network is by using pairs of noisy/clean images and having the network learn a mapping from one to the other. Noise2Noise takes an alternate approach by training the network to learn a mapping from different noisy shots of the same image, allowing for training in the absence of clean ground truth data. Specifically, given two noisy realizations of the same underlying signal $\mathbf{s} + \mathbf{n}_1$ and $\mathbf{s} + \mathbf{n}_2$ Noise2Noise attempts to learn the mapping $$\begin{aligned}
 \label{eqn:N2N} f_\theta(\mathbf{\mathbf{s}+\mathbf{n}_1}) \rightarrow \mathbf{s}+\mathbf{n}_2.
\end{aligned}$$ However if we assume mean-zero noise and choose a sensible loss function , the network may fail to actually learn the noise $\mathbf{n}_2$, and we will be left with $$\begin{aligned}
 \label{eqn:N2N2} f_\theta(\mathbf{\mathbf{s}+\mathbf{n}_1}) \approx \mathbf{s},
\end{aligned}$$ denoising the image as a result. Although elegant, this method still requires pairs of noisy images to train on.

Recently, interest has grown in methods that can denoise single noisy images, without this added requirement. To fully understand these methods, we need to adopt a different perspective of how neural networks denoise images.

Here, we take the view of Krull et al. , based on the concept of receptive fields. The receptive field of a fully convolutional neural network (FCN) is the set of input pixels that were taken into consideration for a given output pixel prediction. For example, in our above scenario suppose $(i,j) \in \mathbb{N}_{\leq m} \times \mathbb{N}_{\leq n}$ are the co-ordinates of some pixel in the output image $f_\theta(\bf{x})$. Then the receptive field of that pixel is the set of indices $RF(i,j) \subseteq \mathbb{N}_{\leq m} \times \mathbb{N}_{\leq n}$ such that $f_\theta(\bf{x})_{(i,j)}$ depends only upon the value of $\left.\bf{x}\right|_{RF(i,j)}$ (typically this will be a small square patch of the image $\bf{x}$). We can then view the neural network as a mapping from the input image along some receptive field to its corresponding output pixel, with the goal of finding $\theta$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
 f_\theta \big(\left.\mathbf{x}\right|_{RF(i,j)} \big) \approx \mathbf{s} \big(i,j\big),
\end{aligned}$$ for every $(i,j) \in \mathbb{N}_{\leq m} \times \mathbb{N}_{\leq n}$. The question though, is how to train these networks without any actual training data other than the noisy image itself. Blind-spot methods approach this by excluding the center pixel from the receptive field (either by removing/replacing it or ignoring it altogether using partial convolutions ), and training the network to recover this center pixel from its surroundings. More specifically, they train the network to learn the mapping $$\begin{aligned}
 \label{eqn:RF} f_\theta \big(\left.\mathbf{x}\right|_{RF(i,j) \setminus (i,j)}  \big) \rightarrow \ \mathbf{x} \big(i,j\big).
\end{aligned}$$ However, just as in Noise2Noise, the network fails to learn the noise, leaving us with $$\begin{aligned}
 \label{eqn:RFR} f_\theta \big(\left.\mathbf{x}\right|_{RF(i,j) \setminus (i,j)}  \big) \approx \ \mathbf{s} \big(i,j\big).
\end{aligned}$$

Excluding the center pixel is crucial and ensures that the network does not just learn the identity. However a side effect of this is that the neural network does not give proper weight to the pixel itself when computing the output, which is unfortunate, since the pixel itself is always going to be the best individual predictor of its denoised value.

Our method takes a related, but slightly different approach. Instead of masking the input image, we explicitly divide the input image in two, by using a simple downsampling method that we refer to here as "checkerboard downsampling". This process is easier to visualize than explain (see Figure 1), however we take our input image $\mathbf{x}$ and split it into two smaller images composed of the even pixels (where $i+j$ is even) and odd pixels (where $i+j$ is odd) respectively, and compress them into the two following $m \times \frac{1}{2}n$ images $$\begin{aligned}
 \mathbf{x}_\text{even}(i,j) &= \mathbf{x}(i,2j+(i \;\mathrm{mod}\; 2)), \\
\mathbf{x}_\text{odd}(i,j) &= \mathbf{x}(i,2j+(i \;\mathrm{mod}\; 2)+1).
\end{aligned}$$ We can call these the "up" checkerboard downsamples, since they involve shifting everything up one pixel to close the image. This type of downsampling is highly susceptible to aliasing, however the goal here isn't visual clarity, it's to preserve the original noise model of our image as much as possible.

Now suppose we train our neural network to learn the mapping $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:N2F0} f_\theta(\mathbf{x}_\text{even}) \rightarrow \mathbf{x}_\text{odd}.
\end{aligned}$$ We can rewrite this as $$\begin{aligned}
 \label{eqn:N2F} f_\theta(\mathbf{s}_\text{even} + \mathbf{n}_\text{even}) \rightarrow \mathbf{s}_\text{even} + \mathbf{n}_\text{odd} + (\mathbf{s}_\text{odd} - \mathbf{s}_\text{even}).
\end{aligned}$$ Notice that this is analogous to Noise2Noise , except for the addition of the $(\mathbf{s}_\text{odd} - \mathbf{s}_\text{even})$ term. However for every $(i,j) \in \mathbb{N}_{\leq m} \times \mathbb{N}_{\leq n}$, we have that $\mathbf{s}_\text{odd}(i,j)$ and $\mathbf{s}_\text{even}(i,j)$ are adjacent pixels in the original image signal, it is therefore reasonable to think this term would be very small in all but the most highly dynamic regions. Indeed, in our testing, we found that even if we cheat and subtract out the term using known ground truth values, there was no measurable gain in denoising performance. We therefore claim that for most natural images, $$\begin{aligned}
 \label{eqn:ODD} \mathbf{s}_\text{even} + \mathbf{n}_\text{odd} + (\mathbf{s}_\text{odd} - \mathbf{s}_\text{even}) \approx \mathbf{s}_\text{even} + \mathbf{n}_\text{odd}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, analogous with Noise2Noise ($\ref{eqn:N2N}, \ref{eqn:N2N2}$), training our network as outlined in $\ref{eqn:N2F0}$ should, in effect, find weights $\theta$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
 f_\theta(\mathbf{x}_\text{even}) \approx \mathbf{s}_\text{even}.
\end{aligned}$$ However, in our experiments we have witnessed a much stronger result than this. In particular, we observe that a network trained as in $\ref{eqn:N2F0}$ will not just learn to denoise the downsampled image, but the entire image as a whole. That is $$\begin{aligned}
 f_\theta(\mathbf{x}) \approx \mathbf{s}.
\end{aligned}$$ To explain this phenomenon, we return to the receptive field based perspective of $\ref{eqn:RF}$. In this case, our network is trained to learn the mapping

$$\begin{aligned}
 \label{eqn:RF5} f_\theta \big(\left.\mathbf{x}_\text{even}\right|_{RF(i,j)}  \big) \rightarrow \ \mathbf{x}_\text{odd} \big(i,j\big).
\end{aligned}$$

It is known, and is often exploited by denoising algorithms, that single images contain significant internal redundancy in the form of recurrent patches . It is also known, and is crucial to some super-resolution methods, that single images have a certain degree of self-similarity, and hence these patches also recur across scales . This across-scale patch recurrence implies a level of commonality between the two sets $$\begin{aligned}
 \{ \left.\mathbf{x}_\text{even}\right|_{RF(i,j)} : (i,j) \in \mathbb{N}_{\leq m} \times \mathbb{N}_{\leq n}\}, \\
\{ \left.\mathbf{x}\right|_{RF(i,j)} : (i,j) \in \mathbb{N}_{\leq m} \times \mathbb{N}_{\leq n}\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, a neural network trained to learn $\ref{eqn:N2F0}$ may be applicable to the overarching denoising task.

Our method uses this basic principle to generate a small training set of four image pairs (each one produced by a form of checkerboard downsampling). This compact training set allows for rapid network convergence and hence quick single image denoising results that were previously unattainable with such a high degree of accuracy.

### Contribution and Significance

We present a training scheme and accompanying neural network for blind single-shot denoising. Our method uses only information contained within the single noisy input image to train its weights. Our two main contributions are as follows:

-   **A novel denoising method which combines an unusual downsampling method with Neighbor2Neighbor.** Our method uses checkerboard downsampling to generate a small fixed dataset for rapid convergence. We then apply our network trained on this smaller dataset to denoise the larger input image. We also use the larger input image to validate our network and determine when it has reached maximum accuracy, which is necessary because Noise2Noise based methods can start to overfit at a certain point and performance drops. To our knowledge, this procedure as a whole is novel; in particular, we are unaware of another denoising method that makes use of this unusual form of downsampling, nor are we aware of any other single image blind denoisers that attempt to build a small fixed training set of images. We are also unaware of any other method that successfully employs a one-size-fits all validation strategy to avoid overfitting, among methods that are susceptible to this.

-   **High accuracy and significant speed gains over existing methods.** Our method is tailored specifically for speed; using a small four image dataset ensures rapid convergence, while the theoretical underpinnings of our method ensure its accuracy. In terms of PSNR and SSIM, the only tested method more accurate than the one we propose here is Self2Self which is 300-700 times slower, for example it requires an average of over 3 hours to denoise a 512x512 image that our method can denoise in under 45 seconds on an RTX 5000 mobile GPU. This large time investment makes it impractical for on-demand usage in larger image screens wherein denoising is but one step in a much bigger process.

Single-shot blind denoisers are a valuable tool for their convenience and their broad applicability. However, thus far, the only such tool that achieves accuracy comparable to trained methods is Self2Self and possibly R2R , which both require a massive amount of time to run on modern technology. Here, we present a much faster alternative, with only a small drop in accuracy.

In particular, the speed of our tool makes it usable in smart microscopy pipelines (e.g. ) where the microscope captures an image and then responds to information contained within that captured image (e.g. zoom in on any cells undergoing mitosis in a given field of view), for which denoising is typically the first step to ensure better classification by the downstream neural networks and/or manual analysis. In such pipelines, time is of the essence since there is only a small window to do analysis, and gathering training data for traditional training based denoising methods can be expensive both in terms of cost and the delays it imposes on research. Additionally, our tool allows for the processing of very large datasets, such as 3D time lapse videos of cells, with a compute overhead 100s of time smaller.

### Related Work

**Methods that require a training set:** The first attempt to apply Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) to the task of denoising was in . This was heavily refined in both the works of Mao et al. and Zhang et al. (DnCNN) to achieve performance that is still competitive today. Zhang et al. later released FFDNet , a denoising CNN designed with speed in mind which, similar to our method, also uses downsampling, although in a different manner and to an entirely different end (see ).

The main benefit of using trained methods, outside of their outstanding performance, is that they don't require either implicit or explicit modeling of the type and structure of the noise, they can simply be trained on noisy/clean pairs of images from the desired domain. However, their reliance on noisy/clean image pairs, either real or synthetically generated, can be considered a limitation in situations where we do not have access to ground truth images to train on.

To overcome this limitation, Noise2Noise was developed . Noise2Noise can be trained exclusively on pairs of noisy images without any access to ground truth data. For this reason, it is especially useful in biological imaging where it is often the case that trade-offs dictate that ground truth data can't ever be obtained.

However, paired noisy images aren't always easy to obtain, so there was interest in developing methods that could denoise on unpaired training sets of noisy images from some desired domain. The first method capable of this without having sensitive hyperparameters was Noise2Void . Noise2Void works by training the network to learn a mapping from the noisy image back to itself, masking the center of each receptive field so as to avoid learning the identity.

This basic model of masking the input is known as a blind-spot network, and was heavily refined and expanded upon in and much more recently applied in BP-AIDE in a manner that is specifically tailored to gaussian-poisson noise. In they demonstrate a retooled version of BP-AIDE with much faster inference time.

A recently developed alternative to blind-spot networks is Neighbor2Neighbor which underlies the method we present in this paper. Neighbor2Neighbor learns to map adjacent pixels in the image to one-another, with the idea being that, except in the most highly dynamic regions of the image, adjacent pixels tend to have a similar underlying signal.

Ultimately, all methods listed in this section require a representative training set of noisy images to train on before being applied. Although we can fairly easily extend some of them to apply to single noisy images without any additional outside information (which we do in our comparisons), in the next section we describe methods that were specifically developed with this task in mind.

**Single-image methods:** The first method that directly applied itself to the task of single image denoising is Noise2Self . Noise2Self is a very similar method to Noise2Void that achieves slighlty better performance, and includes a very thorough mathematical justification for the principles underlying the success of masking based denoising techniques.

Self2Self was the first single-image method whose performance approaches fully trained methods. Self2Self is a blind-spot method, however instead of replacing masked pixels, it ignores them altogether by using partial convolutions . Self2Self also introduces the innovative step of adding dropout and averaging across multiple runs of the same image. However, this comes at a high computational cost, at least under modern hardware constraints.

A very recently published single-image denoiser is R2R , which achieves even better single-image denoising results than Self2Self on real world images. R2R is quite different than the blindspot network approaches in that it attempts to corrupt single noisy images into noisy image pairs, and then apply a Noise2Noise-like network.

All of the above methods make few assumptions and run out-of-the-box on most single noisy images (with the possible excpetion of R2R , which we have not tested as it is quite recent and there is no publicly available code yet). In the next section, we present single image methods that are not quite as generically applicable.

**Single image methods with sensitive hyperparameters:** NL-means is one of the easiest and most intuitive non-learning based ways to denoise single images. It denoises by taking the weighted average of all pixels in an image based on how similar we would expect that pixel to be to the target (determined by comparing small square patches centered at those pixels). NL-means is however highly sensitive to a filtering parameter that must be specified by the user for optimal performance.

A similar method is BM3D . Since its introduction, BM3D has been one of the gold standards for pure Gaussian noise. It works by unfolding the image into interleaved square patches, clustering those patches based on similarity, and then filtering them before reconstructing the image. BM3D however is not blind and takes, as a parameter, an estimate of the standard deviation of the underlying noise. Moreover, BM3D does not perform well (and was not designed to perform well) on poisson noise.

A much more recent learning based method is Deep Image Prior (DIP) . DIP works by taking a neural network with randomly initialized weights, and training to reconstruct the noisy image. Similar to Noise2Noise, it will fail to learn the underlying noise (at least at first) and instead learn to denoise the signal. DIP is highly sensitive to the number of iterations, and will quickly overfit if trained too long, for this reason it isn't completely practical as a blind denoiser. For our experiments, we force it to be blind by using a fixed iteration number, however the results it attains are far below what a non-blind version of this algorithm can reach.

### Results

We demonstrate the speed and accuracy of our method on both simulated Gaussian noise and on real world microscopy data that is subject to Gaussian-Poisson noise. We also benchmark our method on the BSD68 dataset with synthetic Gaussian noise added. See Methods for details on datasets and compared algorithms.

The benchmarking of reference datasets was carried out using a single laptop GPU (RTX 5000 mobile GPU) to better approximate the modest (although still powerful) computational capabilities of the average end user. However, because of the massive amount of time required to test Self2Self on 68 images under these constraints, we rely on their previously published accuracy for comparison and estimate time per image using a random sample of 5 images for this dataset only. On all other datasets (Set12 and Confocal), we run Self2Self on the entire set to obtain accuracy.

On synthetic Gaussian noise our method outperforms everything except Self2Self, which beats us by an average of about 0.7 PSNR across Set12 and BSD68 (see Figure 3a). We did not test our method on the very recent R2R because there is no publicly available code for this yet, however we note that in the paper the authors assert that their method takes about 30 minutes to run on a $512 \times 512 \times 3$ image using unstated hardware. Therefore, we feel comfortable saying that Noise2Fast is faster than all competing methods, by a significant margin in every case except for DIP3000 (which is far less accurate than ours).

We also tested our method on Confocal microscopy images, where again our method is considerably faster (300 times) although slightly less accurate than Self2Self. Visual comparison of the results (see Figure 3c) indicate that Noise2Fast appears to smooth the image less than the other methods, creating a more textured look. All methods performed very similarly for the Confocal microscopy dataset, except for DIP3000, which likely needed more iterations to converge, and Neighbor2Neighbor, which seems to not really be suited to single image denoising (nor was it ever intended to be, we adapted it for single image denoising and included it in our benchmarks simply because it is the method most comparable to our own).

Because 'speed' is just a reflection of the maximum number of iterations we allow each method to run (a parameter we borrow from their published code where possible), we also compared the accuracy of each method if we set the maximum number of iterations so that each program only runs for as long as Noise2Fast takes to fully denoise the image (see Figure 3d). In this case, it is easy to see that no competitor even approaches the accuracy Noise2Fast can achieve in such a short amount of time.

Next we determined the performance of Noise2Fast on larger image datasets of both fixed and live cells acquired on our imaging systems. For this, MDA-MB 231 cells were fixed and either stained for Actin and DNA or endogenously tagged with H33B-mScarlet and mNeon-ACTB. The performance was compared using two different imaging modalities: epifluorescence for the fixed cells and resonance scanning confocal microscopy for the live cells. Based on the linearity of the intensity measurements of our imaging system, our results indicate that we can achieve relatively clear images while exposing our images to  400 times less light (see Figure 4). Although S2S achieves similar, if not slightly better results, processing time was significantly longer, specifically S2S required 596 core days vs 0.7 for our method to process the video in Fig 4b) on a Tesla V100.

### Conclusion

We proposed Noise2Fast a blind single-image denoiser that rapidly converges to accurate results using only the input image to train on. Our key innovation is building a small discrete training set based on checkerboard downsampling that enables our network to quickly converge. We can monitor the progress training using original noisy image as validation. The accuracy of our method surpasses all but one tested blind single image denoising method, namely Self2Self, however Self2Self takes well over 100 times longer to run and is therefore impractical in situations where fast results are desired, such as in high-throughput and automated-microscopy based pipelines. To this end, we hope our very fast and accurate method will integrate well with other AI-based smart microscopy pipelines, such as genome-wide single-cell phenotypic screens , where denoising will be the initial step in improving the ease and speed of downstream analysis. We also hope that the speed and generality of our method will make it attractive to anyone as a quick, near real-time denoising solution applicable to large live-cell volumetric datasets. Additionally, we believe the observed superiority of checkerboard downsampling over traditional $2 \times 2$ downsampling is noteworthy, and the implications this has for full dataset based denoising methods such as Neighbor2Neighbor might be a worthwhile subject of future research.

# Methods

### Noise2Fast Implementation Details

Here, we outline the specifics of our neural network and training scheme, giving the implementation details of the process outlined earlier.

For our neural network, we use a simple feed forward architecture which we explain briefly here, and illustrate in Figure 2a. We start by performing two 32 channel 3x3 convolutions with ReLU activation. We repeat this step three more times, each time doubling the number of channels. In the final step, we do 1x1 convolution followed by sigmoid activation.

In our initial testing we found that this much simpler architecture outperformed the classical U-net architecture used in the original Noise2Noise paper . Although the results aren't that sensitive to the number of hidden layers, we do find a noticeable, albeit small, drop in performance as we add more to our current model. A possible reason for this is that it causes our network to overfit the data much too quickly. This architecture is similar in its simplicity to DnCNN, one major difference being our lack of batch normalization

The main novelty of our method is how we train it. Consider a 2D image $\bf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{mxn}$. Recall from the theoretical background that we can divide our image in two by using checkerboard downsampling. By taking the even or odd pixels and squeezing them up to fill in the spaces, as depicted in Figure 1, we can generate two downsampled $m \times \frac{1}{2}n$ images $$\begin{aligned}
 \mathbf{x}_\text{even}(i,j) &= \mathbf{x}(i,2j+(i \;\mathrm{mod}\; 2)), \\
\mathbf{x}_\text{odd}(i,j) &= \mathbf{x}(i,2j+(i \;\mathrm{mod}\; 2)+1).
\end{aligned}$$ We can call these the "up" checkerboard downsamples. Notice that we can also squeeze the pixels left to generate two $\frac{1}{2}m \times n$ images $$\begin{aligned}
 \mathbf{x}_\text{even}'(i,j) &= \mathbf{x}(2i+(j \;\mathrm{mod}\; 2),j), \\
\mathbf{x}_\text{odd}'(i,j) &= \mathbf{x}(2i+(j \;\mathrm{mod}\; 2)+1,j).
\end{aligned}$$ Giving us the "left" checkerboard downsamples. Using these we construct the following four image-pair training set (see Figure 2b for an overview of our training scheme):

| Input                     |          Target           |
|:--------------------------|:-------------------------:|
| $\mathbf{x}_\text{even}$  |  $\mathbf{x}_\text{odd}$  |
| $\mathbf{x}_\text{odd}$   | $\mathbf{x}_\text{even}$  |
| $\mathbf{x}_\text{even}'$ | $\mathbf{x}_\text{odd}'$  |
| $\mathbf{x}_\text{odd}'$  | $\mathbf{x}_\text{even}'$ |

We feed this training data one-by-one into our neural network (batch size = 1). At each iteration we compute the binary cross-entropy (BCE) loss between the target and the output of our neural network, and adjust our weights using the Adam optimizer with learning rate set to $0.001$. For validation, after each epoch we run the original full sized noisy image through our network and compute the mean squared error (MSE) between the noisy input image and the "denoised" output of our network.

We validate this way because our initial testing on images with known ground truths showed that the MSE between the denoised image and the ground truth image plateaued at roughly the same time as the MSE between the denoised image and the original noisy image. After this point, results start to get worse, much like the way DIP starts to overfit at a certain point, however in our case we can use this validation protocol to prevent that without introducing a sensitive case-dependant parameter. If one hundred epochs have passed without any improvement to the best validation score, we terminate the program, and output the average of the last one hundred validation tests as the denoised image. One unusual feature of our training scheme is our usage of a BCE loss function usually reserved for classification based tasks. Our main motivation for using this loss function is to deal with class imbalance. When an image contains only a small object on a black background, it will sometimes just learn to map everything to black. We found that using BCE loss fixed this in all cases we could find, without affecting overall performance as compared to MSE loss. We also tried binary focal loss , but the results were not as good.

### Compared Datasets

For blind Gaussian denoising we use use the grayscale BSD68 dataset, as was used in and a multitude of other denoising papers. BSD68 consists of 68 clear 481x321 photographs to which we add synthetic gaussian noise. However, to show the effect of spatial resolution on speed and performance, we additionally tested the methods on Set12 which contains a mixture of 256x256 and 512x512 images.

For performance on real world confocal microscopy, we used a subset of the confocal microscopy images in Fluorescent Microscopy Dataset (FMD) that we refer to as "Confocal". This dataset contains, among other things, images of biological materials such as cells, zebrafish, and mouse brain tissues acquired using commercial confocal microscopes. As described in their paper, ground truth values are estimated by averaging together all 60000 noisy images in a given set.

### Compared Methods

We compare denoising and speed performance against five other blind single image denoisers: Noise2Self (N2S), Noise2Void (N2V), Self2Self (S2S), Neighbor2Neighbor (Ne2Ne) and Deep-Image Prior (DIP). Not all of these methods were originally designed for single image denoising. We will describe how we configured each of these methods in turn, we adhere to published code as much as possible.

**Self2Self:** For S2S we use the default published settings of 150000 iterations and a learning rate of 1e-4. We standardize our images differently than S2S and some of these other methods. For example, we do not clip our input noisy data \[0,255\] at any point. To account for this difference, we have rewritten the dataloaders for Self2Self and other methods to ensure consistency of comparison.

**Noise2Self:** For N2S the only change we make from their published single shot denoising notebook is to increase the number of iterations from 500 to 20000, as we found that 500 iterations wasn't nearly enough to achieve good results on these datasets.

**Noise2Void:** For N2V we found that their ImageJ plugin worked much better than their GitHub code for single image denoising. We therefore used the imageJ version for benchmarking purposes, which is why our results on this method deviate so much from previous publications. We used a patch size of 64 with 100 epochs and 100 steps per epoch, a batch size of 16 per step, and a neighborhood radius of 5.

**DIP:** If we fix the maximum number of iterations, DIP becomes a blind denoiser. However, as noted in , it performs better as a non-blind denoiser. For comparison purposes however, we will set the maximum number of iterations at 3000, as the authors of DIP have done in their example code on GitHub, and call this DIP3000. This turns it into a blind single shot denoiser, fully comparable in scope to our method.

**Neighbor2Neighbor:** For Neighbor2Neighbor we used the adaptation of the code found here: https://github.com/neeraj3029/Ne2Ne-Image-Denoising. We adapted the script to single image denoising and attempted in good-faith to optimize for the task as best we could, however we found that the results were inconsistent. We believe that this method is probably best suited to datasets as the authors intended, and not single images. We include these results only to illustrate the need to change Neighbor2Neighbor in order to achieve fast and accurate single image denoising results, as we have done in this paper. We do not believe our results are a fair illustration of the power of Neighbor2Neighbor when applied to the tasks it was designed for and we have therefore excluded it from our visual illustrations. We used a learning rate of 0.0003 and trained for 100 epochs, as suggested in their paper for synthetic datasets.

### Fluorescence Microscopy Images

For fixed immunofluorescence microscopy, RPE-1 cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde at room temperature for 10 min. The cells were then blocked with a blocking buffer (5% BSA and 0.5% Triton X-100 in PBS) for 30 min. Cells were washed with PBS and subsequently incubated with phalloidin-Alexa488 (Molecular Probes) and DAPI in blocking solution for 1 hour. After a final wash with PBS, the coverslips were mounted on glass slides by inverting them onto mounting solution (ProLong Gold antifade; Molecular Probes). For the fixed imaging in Figure 4A, single Z slices of cells were imaged using Nikon Ti2E/CREST X-Light V2 LFOV25 spinning disk confocal microscope in widefield mode using a 60×/1.4 NA oil-immersion Plan-Apochromat lambda objective. The microscope was outfitted with a Photometrics Prime95B 25mm FOV ultra-high sensitivity sCMOS camera and images were captured with no binning using the full 25mm diagonal FOV area at 1608px by 1608px with a bit depth of 16bit. After capture, 500px by 500px areas were cropped and used as our input dataset. For live imaging in Figure 4B, endogenously tagged MDA-MB 231 cells were seeded in Nunc Lab-Tek Chamber Slides and imaged on the Nikon Ti2E/AIR-HD25 scanning confocal microscope with temperature and CO2 control, using a 40×/1.15 NA water-immersion objective Apochromat lambda S objective. High-speed image acquisition was carried out with the resonance scan head with 2x averaging at 1024px by 1024px. Full volumes of cells were captured (Z total = $20$ $\mu m$, Z interval = $0.5$ $\mu m$) every 5 minutes for 24 hours. Images were denoised as individual Z-slices and max projected. All are displayed with auto scaled LUTs.

### Ablation Study

For our ablation study, we compare three different refinements of the model. First, we replace our unusual checkerboard downsampling with a more conventional downsample where we divide our image into $2 \times 2$ blocks used in Neighbor2Neighbor, and create four images consisting of all the top-left, top-right, bottom-left and bottom-right pixels, respectively. This has the advantage of preserving the proportions of our original image as well the structure of distances between pixels, however despite this advantage it does not perform as well (Table 1 - Quad). Second, we replace our feed forward neural network with a U-net architecture, which is the standard network used in Self2Self and Noise2Void. Again, our performance drops (Table 1 - Unet). Finally, using known ground truth values, we manually subtract out the $\mathbf{s}_\text{odd} - \mathbf{s}_\text{even}$ term in $\ref{eqn:ODD}$ and show that this has virtually no impact on our denoising results, hence this term is not having a significant impact on our algorithm (Table 1 - Exact).

| Dataset              | Normal | Quad  | Unet  | Exact |
|:---------------------|:------:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|
| BSD68, $\sigma = 25$ | 28.12  | 27.56 | 27.76 | 28.12 |
| BSD68, $\sigma = 50$ | 25.23  | 24.97 | 25.01 | 25.24 |

PSNR on BSD68 dataset for variants of Noise2Fast.

### Code Availabilty

Our code is publicly available at the following URL: https://github.com/pelletierlab/Noise2Fast


address: Physics Division
  Los Alamos National Laboratory
  Los Alamos, NM 87545
author: C. M. Hoffman
date: 2024-09-30
title: Comment on "Correlation between Compact Radio Quasars and Ultrahigh Energy Cosmic Rays"

In the paper "Correlation between Compact Radio Quasars and Ultrahigh Energy Cosmic Rays," Farrar and Biermann argue that there is a strong correlation between the direction of the five highest-energy cosmic-ray events and compact, radio-loud quasars. Because this result, if true, would have profound implications, it has been widely reported in the popular scientific press . This Comment shows that the analysis in Ref. contains several inconsistencies and errors so that the significance of any such correlation is certainly greatly overestimated and perhaps nonexistent.

A proton, nucleus or photon above 10$^{20}$ eV is exceedingly unlikely to travel further than 50 Mpc due to interactions with the cosmic microwave background: this is the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit . The compact, radio-loud quasars (CQSOs) in question have red shifts ranging from $0.29 < z < 2.18$. Thus new physics is required if the observed high-energy cosmic rays did originate in CQSOs. The authors suggest two possibilities:

1.  The existence of a new neutral long-lived hadron with a mass of a few GeV, such as a light gluino , and

2.  Neutrinos with a mass of a few eV interacting resonantly with dark-matter neutrinos clustered in the halo of either our galaxy or the local cluster of galaxies producing a $Z$-boson. This results in an ultrahigh-energy hadron or photon that, in turn, produces the observed extensive air shower .

In both of these scenarios, the high-energy cosmic ray should point back to its source. It is this hypothesis that is tested in Ref. , with the conclusion that the five high-energy cosmic-ray events examined are all aligned with CQSOs, and that the probability that these alignments are coincidental is 0.005.

The authors chose to examine all high-energy cosmic-ray events whose energy is at least 1$\sigma$ above $8 \times 10^{19}$ eV and whose direction is known with a solid angle resolution, $\Delta\Omega$, of 10 deg$^{2}$ or better. While only qualitative reasons are given for these specific criteria, it is striking that the energy cut barely excludes two events from Haverah Park with energies of $(1.02 \pm 0.3) \times
10^{20}$ eV and $(1.05 \pm 0.3) \times 10^{20}$ eV, and one from Yakutsk with an energy of $(1.1 \pm
0.4) \times 10^{20}$ eV . Remarkably, one of the events used in the analysis of Ref. also fails the cut: this is the event labeled Ag110, which has a measured energy of $(1.10 \times 10^{20})$ eV $\pm$ 30%.

It is unclear what Farrar and Biermann mean by "solid angle resolution." In Table I of Ref. , the $\Delta\Omega$s given for two events (Ag210 and Ag110) contain the true event directions with 68% probability, while the $\Delta\Omega$s given for the other three events (FE320, HP120, HP105) contain the true event direction with only $\sim
12$% probability. In addition, the values of $\Delta\Omega$ in Table I of Ref. for FE320 and HP120 are incorrectly calculated.

These discrepancies call into question whether the events used in further analysis have been selected in an fair, unbiased manner, and whether the subsequent analysis, in which the probability that randomly distributed objects with a given surface density would appear aligned with the five events is calculated, is correct.

Even if the analysis of Ref. is correct, the statistical significance given for the alignment (0.005) is not. The authors formulate the hypothesis of correlations between the cosmic-ray directions and CQSOs (as opposed to other possible astrophysical objects) because a correlation with a CQSO had already been noted for the 320 TeV Fly's Eye event (FE320) . An event used to formulate a hypothesis may not be used to test that hypothesis. Eliminating FE320 from the analysis lowers the statistical significance of the alignment to 0.03. It is this number, not 0.005, that correctly assesses the evidence for the hypothesis that the high-energy cosmic-ray events point back to compact quasars, assuming that the selection criteria are unbiased and that the rest of the analysis in Ref. has been done correctly.

I gratefully acknowledge illuminating conversations with C. Sinnis. This work was partially supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the University of California.