research papers

X-ray ghost imaging with a specially developed beam splitter
aShanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800,
People's Republic of China, bShanghai Synchrotron Radiation Facility, Shanghai Advanced Research Institute, Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201204, People's Republic of China, and cUniversity of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, People's Republic of China
*Correspondence e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
X-ray ghost imaging with a crystal beam splitter has advantages in highly efficient imaging due to the simultaneous acquisition of signals from both the object beam and reference beam. However, beam splitting with a large field of view, uniform distribution and high correlation has been a great challenge up to now. Therefore, a dedicated beam splitter has been developed by optimizing the optical layout of a synchrotron radiation beamline and the fabrication process of a Laue crystal. A large field of view, consistent size, uniform intensity distribution and high correlation were obtained simultaneously for the two split beams. Modulated by a piece of copper foam upstream of the splitter, a correlation of 92% between the speckle fields of the object and reference beam and a Glauber function of 1.25 were achieved. Taking advantage of synthetic aperture X-ray ghost imaging (SAXGI), a circuit board of size 880 × 330 pixels was successfully imaged with high fidelity. In addition, even though 16 measurements corresponding to a sampling rate of 1% in SAXGI were used for image reconstruction, the skeleton structure of the circuit board can still be determined. In conclusion, the specially developed beam splitter is applicable for the efficient implementation of X-ray ghost imaging.
Keywords: X-ray ghost imaging; X-ray beam splitter; synthetic aperture X-ray ghost imaging; speckle correlation of X-rays.
1. Introduction
Owing to its nonlocal imaging characteristics, ghost imaging (GI) has been widely
used for imaging with visible light, infrared, X-ray and particle waves (Cheng & Han,
2004; Liu & Zhang, 2017
; Li et al., 2018
; He et al., 2021
). In addition, it can be implemented with few photons (Lane & Ratner, 2020
). X-rays have unique advantages due to their short wavelength and strong penetration,
but they also cause ionization damage to samples. Compared with traditional imaging
methods, the nonlocal characteristics of GI have the potential to greatly reduce the
radiation dose of X-ray imaging in theory and have important application prospects
in radiation-sensitive fields such as biomedicine (Ceddia & Paganin, 2018
). The experimental validation of X-ray ghost imaging (XGI) has made important progress
in recent years (Olbinado et al., 2021
; Klein et al., 2022
; Ceddia et al., 2023
), but there are still problems such as a low signal-to-noise ratio, low data acquisition
efficiency, difficulty achieving high resolution, a large field of view and a low
radiation dose, which seriously restrict the practical applications of this method.
GI realizes image reconstruction based on the intensity correlation of two beams with
consistent fluctuation characteristics. Obtaining the two beams in the object arm
and reference arm with high correlation is the key to GI experiments. Unlike with
visible light, beam splitting of X-rays is much more difficult. The virtual beam splitting
scheme can avoid the actual splitting of X-rays, which enables signal acquisition
of the object beam and the reference beam by switching over the sample in the incident
X-ray beam or obtaining the reference signals directly via computational GI (Yu et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2018
; He et al., 2020
). However, this scheme needs to switch the sample into and out of the X-ray beam
to achieve data acquisition of the reference and object signals, respectively, which
reduces the efficiency of the method greatly. Therefore, high-quality beam splitting
is critical for the efficient implementation of XGI, in which a large and consistent
beam size, uniform intensity distribution and high correlation of the two split beams
are required.
XGI with a crystal-based beam splitter has been reported, including experimental studies
based on synchrotron radiation sources (Pelliccia et al., 2016, 2018
; Kingston et al., 2018
) and laboratory X-ray sources (Schori & Shwartz, 2017
). Kunimune et al. used monocrystalline silicon Laue diffraction to split a monochromatic synchrotron
X-ray beam and first observed X-ray correlation of monochromatic synchrotron X-rays
(Kunimune et al., 1997
). Pelliccia et al. (2018
) and Kingston et al. (2018
) used natural masks to generate speckle patterns and then performed beam splitting
using double-sided polished monocrystalline silicon wafers. However, problems such
as low correlation between the diffracted beam and transmitted beam and inconsistent
spot size prevented it from achieving XGI higher image quality. Zhao et al. (2022
, 2024a
) successfully improved the spatial correlation of two beams based on the dynamic
theory of X-ray diffraction. The lattice of the crystal for X-ray diffraction is in
the angstrom region, which means that any slight variation in the incident beam and
the crystal itself will deteriorate the efficiency of the beam splitting. Therefore,
developing a dedicated crystal beam splitter for XGI is highly important.
To meet the demand of XGI with a beam splitter, this paper reports the development of a dedicated crystal beam splitter at the Shanghai Synchrotron Radiation Facility (SSRF) and experimentally verifies the feasibility of its application for XGI. First, the optimization of the beam splitter is introduced. Then, an experiment with a circuit board is carried out to demonstrate the applicability of the beam splitter for XGI. With the aim of obtaining low-dose X-ray imaging, XGI with fewer measurements has also been investigated. Finally, conclusions and related discussion are provided.
2. Beam splitter optimization for XGI
By optimizing the optical setup of the X-ray beamline to maintain the lattice plane
of the Bragg crystal of the monochromator and Laue crystal of the beam splitter in
a nondispersive configuration (see Appendix A), the receiving angle of the crystal of the beam splitter needs to match the divergence
angle of the incident X-ray beam from the double-crystal monochromator to ensure the
consistency of the field of view between the object (diffraction) beam and the reference
(transmission) beam. Both the monochromator crystals and the Laue crystal adopt low
indices of the lattice plane for X-ray diffraction to ensure the high-flux output
of the beam, increase the number of photons for XGI, and improve the imaging signal-to-noise
ratio and data acquisition efficiency. The Laue crystal is manufactured as a whole
with high-quality crystal rods grown by floating zone technique to avoid processing
stress and clamping stress affecting the uniformity of the split beams.
Experiments were carried out at the test beamline BL09B of the SSRF. The beamline
utilizes hard X-rays from a bending magnet for at-wavelength metrology and crystal
characterization (Li et al., 2019). Fig. 1
(a) shows a schematic diagram of the optical setup of the beamline. A Si(111) double-crystal
monochromator (DCM) is utilized to monochromatize the white light from the bending
magnet of the storage ring. Considering the penetration through the copper foam for
intensity modulation, a photon energy of 20 keV was selected for the experiments.
The thickness of the copper foam is approximately 300 µm, with pore sizes ranging
from 150 to 190 µm and an average porosity of 77.4%. According to the results obtained
using a multi-crystal configuration (Yang et al., 2020
), the divergence angle of a monochromatic X-ray beam is approximately 26 arcsec,
and the relative energy bandwidth is 6.3 × 10−4. Considering the strong absorbing characteristics of copper foam, the beam intensity
is randomly modulated to generate speckle patterns for XGI. A specially manufactured
Laue crystal was employed to split the incident monochromatic X-ray beam for the DCM
into diffraction and transmission beams. Then, the two split beams with an angle of
5.67°, i.e. the reference and object beams of XGI, were recorded by a pixel array detector (OnSemi
KAI-16000, an X-ray CCD camera) simultaneously, immediately downstream of the sample.
Considering the small angle between the split beams, the use of one pixel-array detector
to record the two beams at the same time will not cause significant errors. One part
of the detector acts as a two-dimensional detector for the reference beam, while the
other part is taken as a bucket detector array of synthetic aperture X-ray ghost imaging
(SAXGI) (Zhang et al., 2022a
). The effective area of the detector is 36 mm × 24 mm with a pixel size of 7.4 µm.
As shown in Fig. 1
(a), a set of slits is used to define the beam size and reduce the effect of X-ray scattering
on the imaging signal-to-noise ratio. Slit 1 installed in the vacuum chamber is mainly
used to define the incident beam size. Slit 2 inside the vacuum and Slit 3 outside
the vacuum are used to block the scattered X-rays. Behind the beryllium window used
for isolating the beamline vacuum from the atmosphere, a gas is used to monitor the real-time intensity of the incident monochromatic X-ray beam.
Due to the limited distance between the beryllium window and the detector, the absorption
loss of the 20 keV X-rays in the atmosphere is almost negligible.
![]() |
Figure 1 (a) Schematic diagram of the X-ray beamline, (b) experimental setup for XGI, (c) photograph of the wafer, (d) photograph of the specially developed beam splitter, (e and f) transmission and diffraction beams of a conventional wafer, and (g and h) transmission and diffraction beams of the dedicated beam splitter. |
As shown in Fig. 1(b), a Laue crystal of the dedicated beam splitter, located 10 cm downstream of the
copper foam, was used to split the incident beam into two beams by Laue diffraction.
To ensure the consistency of the imaging field of view in the split beams, we made
efforts in two aspects, including the nondivergence match of crystal optics between
the DCM and the splitter, and strain elimination of the Laue crystal. The monochromatic
beam mentioned above has a divergence angle of 26 arcsec, which is much greater than
the acceptance angle of the Si(111) crystal (2.7 arcsec). This disparity is a result
of the coupling between the photon energy and divergence angle, where the angular
distribution reflects the photon energy distribution. The distribution of photon energy
can result in inconsistencies in the imaging fields of view between the transmitted
beam and diffracted beam. To eliminate the detrimental effects caused by the energy
distribution, a Laue diffraction crystal is used as a beam splitter with the same
lattice plane as the DCM Si(111), for which the is 5.67°. Simultaneously, the lattice planes of the DCM and beam splitter are aligned
parallel to each other in a dispersion configuration. Thus, the acceptance angle of
the beam splitter is matched with the divergence angle of the monochromatic beam from
the DCM, which ensures consistent imaging fields of view for both the transmitted
and diffracted beams. For both the DCM and beam splitter, a low-index lattice plane
is selected for crystal diffraction to ensure a high output for XGI and a high correlation between the two beams (Zhao et al., 2024a
).
The strain of the Laue crystal will lead to an uneven intensity distribution in the
split X-ray beam. At the initial stage, we used a piece of wafer with a thickness
of 300 µm and both faces polished to split the X-ray beam, as shown in Fig. 1(c). The fixation method of clamping inevitably leads to stress inside the crystal,
and the corresponding strain of the lattice results in a distorted beam output. Figs.
1
(e) and 1(f) show transmission and diffraction beams of the wafer processed via a conventional
procedure and fastened by clamping. Obviously, the uniformity of the two beams is
severely deteriorated due to the stress resulting from crystal clamping. The distortion
of the plane at the scale of the lattice constant leads to an apparent uneven intensity
distribution. It is difficult to improve the output beam by optimizing the clamping
style.
To address this problem, a dedicated beam splitter was fabricated from a floating-zone
silicon single-crystal ingot to avoid the processing and clamping stress of the beam
splitter (Zhao et al., 2024b). As shown in Fig. 1
(d), the developed beam splitter consists of a working area and a base. The effective
working area is 15 mm × 40 mm with a thickness of 300 µm after acid etching, while
the base is used for supporting without clamping during the experiments. By compromising
the correlation and structural rigidity of the crystal plate, a thickness of 300 µm
is selected (Zhao et al., 2024a
). As shown in Figs. 1
(g) and 1(h), transmission and diffraction beams of the same size are obtained by the specially
developed beam splitter. Slight irregularities in the intensity distribution can also
be observed, which reflect the uneven thickness of the working area limited by the
fabrication precision. The developed beam splitter ensures that every point at the
surface of the Laue crystal satisfies the same diffraction conditions for an incident
X-ray beam, thus achieving a consistent beam size after splitting.
To evaluate the applicability of the developed beam splitter for XGI, the correlation
characteristics between two split beams randomly modulated by a piece of copper foam
were investigated. The results are shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 2
(a) shows one of the speckle patterns in the reference beam, while Fig. 2
(b) shows one of the speckle patterns in the corresponding object beam. The intensity
of the transmitted beam is approximately three times stronger than that of the diffracted
beam. The imaging fields of view after beam splitting are uniform and consistent with
the preserved details. We achieved beam splitting with spatial intensity correlation,
which is a prerequisite for XGI. The reconstruction of the GI can be obtained with
the following formula (Bromberg et al., 2009
; Katz et al., 2009
),
where x, y are the coordinates on the detection plane for the sample image s(x, y), which contains n pixels; * denotes convolution over x and y; PSF is the point-spread function; M is the total number of measurements; bi is the total intensity value of the ith measurement in the object arm; Ii(x, y) is the speckle pattern of the ith measurement in the reference arm; and and
are the average intensities of all the M measurements in the object arm and reference arm, respectively. PSF is associated
with finite spatial resolution. The covariance of the speckle fields defines the PSF
of GI, which implies a spatial resolution comparable with the smallest characteristic
size in speckle fields. Accordingly, the is the normalized form of the covariance. Therefore, the resolution of the GI can
be approximately estimated by the two-dimensional correlation coefficient,
where ρ is the two-dimensional subscripts r and b represent the reference arm and object arm, respectively, Cov represents covariance, and σ is the standard deviation.
![]() |
Figure 2 Correlation characteristics of the split speckle patterns. (a) Reference beam; (b) object beam; (c) point spread function (PSF) of GI; (d) central line-profile of the PSF in the horizontal and vertical directions; (e) FRC between the reference and object speckle patterns; (f) correlation statistical histogram between different speckle patterns; and (g) statistical distribution in the spatial and temporal dimensions. |
The peak of the two-dimensional et al., 2018; Oh et al., 2013
; Sprigg et al., 2016
). According to equation (2)
, the calculated values of the PSF are shown in Fig. 2
(c), and Fig. 2
(d) shows the central line-profile of the PSF in Fig. 2
(c). The calculations were performed by randomly selecting five pairs of beam-splitting
images and taking the average. As a result, the between the two modulated beams is significantly improved to 0.92, while the value
for the split beams from a wafer is 0.52 (see Appendix B
). The deterioration of the correlation is related to the characteristics of the incident
beam, beam splitting crystal and modulator, and more details are given in §4
. According to Fig. 2
(c), the spatial resolution for XGI is slightly anisotropic in two dimensions, with
lower resolution in the diffraction direction due to the effect of dynamic diffraction.
According to the profile shown in Fig. 2
(d), the FWHM is about 76 µm in the horizontal direction and about 104 µm in the diffraction
direction (vertical direction) on average. We also used Fourier ring correlation (FRC),
applied to registered speckle patterns, to estimate a best-case limit for the spatial
resolution of GI (Kingston et al., 2018
). As shown in Fig. 2
(e), at a fixed 1/7 FRC, the corresponding value of 21.3 µm is the upper limit of the
spatial resolution that can be achieved by GI. At present, the resolution has not
reached the upper limit, which may be related to the larger size of the beam modulator.
We utilized copper foam, a strong-absorbing material, to generate speckle patterns
with high contrast for the random modulation of XGI. An ensemble of speckle patterns
for XGI was obtained by a raster scan of the copper foam. The step size of the lateral
displacement of 200 µm was larger than the FWHM of the PSF to ensure randomness between
speckle patterns. To quantify the randomness of the ensemble of speckle patterns,
correlation coefficients were calculated for 3600 speckle patterns randomly selected
from 12000 speckle patterns. A total of C3600 2 calculations were performed, and the statistical results are shown in Fig. 2(f). The between all combinations of the speckle pattern ensemble is 0.01 ± 0.02, which indicates
a low correlation between the randomly modulated speckle patterns. In addition, the
statistical properties of this random process were analyzed. The gray values of all
the pixels in a single speckle pattern and the gray values of a pixel in all 12000
speckle patterns were selected for statistical analysis via a probability density
function. As an artificial pseudothermal light field, the gray value fluctuation of
a certain pixel in all the collected speckle patterns imitates the evolution of the
thermal light field with time. As shown in Fig. 2
(g), the spatial statistical distribution in a speckle pattern is in high agreement
with the temporal distribution, which indicates that the speckle fields generated
by the copper foam are ergodic. To further evaluate the intensity fluctuation of the
speckle field, the normalized second-order correlation function is utilized,
The calculated value of g(2)(x, x′; y, y′) is 1.25, which indicates that the speckle field exhibits high fluctuation properties and a strong noise resistance capability. As a result, the quantitative characterization of the speckle field generated by a natural mask of copper foam in terms of randomness, ergodicity and fluctuation demonstrates that the artificial pseudothermal light field generated is compliant with the requirements of XGI.
3. X-ray ghost imaging with split beams
SAXGI (Zhang et al., 2022a) is introduced to make full use of the advantages of the large size of the split
beam with a lower sampling rate, in which the bucket detector in conventional GI was
replaced by a bucket detector array. The objective of this experiment is to evaluate
the quality of split X-ray beams for ghost imaging. To avoid the effect of alignment
errors on the image reconstruction through the correlation between the split beams,
the object beam and reference beam are recorded without pixel binning by different
areas of a single X-ray CCD detector. During image reconstruction, signals in the
object beam are binned accordingly to form a so-called bucket detector array to meet
the requirements of SAXGI. Usually, the binned area is much smaller than the beam
size itself and fewer measurements are required to maintain a certain sampling rate.
A circuit board is employed for the XGI experiments, in which weak and strong absorption
circuit materials are used to evaluate the ability of XGI to reveal structures with
different X-ray contrasts. We conducted validation experiments at BL09B of the SSRF,
and Fig. 3 shows a comparison between ghost imaging and traditional projection imaging. In the
experiment, we used the same pixel array detector (7.4 µm pixel−1) to simultaneously collect the signals from the object and reference beam. The exposure
time was set to 50 ms based on the grayscale achieved in the reference beam. Fig.
3
(a) shows a direct projection image of the circuit board with an image size of 880 ×
330 pixels. Fig. 3
(b) shows the result of GI reconstruction by ensemble averaging, which has a low signal-to-noise
ratio and a significant block effect due to pixel binning in the object beam. Therefore,
image reconstruction with SAXGI is employed to improve image quality. According to
the principle of SAXGI, the signals in the object beam were effectively converted
into a bucket detector array by pixel binning. The image reconstruction algorithm
of compressed sensing was based on TVAL3 (Li et al., 2013
), which has strong noise resistance. Fig. 3
(c) shows the reconstruction result of compressed sensing GI with a measurement number
of M = 11234. The bucket size is 110 × 110 pixels, corresponding to a sampling rate of
92.8%. Although there is some deterioration in the structural details, the image reconstructed
by SAXGI with compressed sensing is comparable with the direct projection image overall,
and the circuit structure is clearly revealed. Furthermore, as shown in Figs. 3
(d) and 3
(e), the comparison between the GI image and projection image confirms the results for
Fig. 3
(c). Overall, the profiles of the weak and strong absorption circuit structures revealed
by these two imaging methods are consistent. The experiments also demonstrate the
significant advantage of compressed sensing compared with the ensemble averaging algorithm
when combined with SAXGI. Accordingly, the imaging results verify that the developed
beam splitter is applicable for efficient data acquisition and high-quality image
reconstruction of XGI.
![]() |
Figure 3 X-ray ghost imaging of a circuit board. (a) Projection image with a size of 880 × 330 pixels; (b) GI reconstruction using the ensemble averaging algorithm, where the bucket size for SAXGI is 110 × 110 pixels and the number of measurements is M = 11234; (c) GI reconstruction using the compressed sensing algorithm, with the same bucket size and measurement number; normalized line profiles for weak absorption (d) and strong absorption (e) circuit components at positions denoted by red and blue lines in (a) and (c), respectively. |
4. Discussion
We reduced the number of measurements to investigate the potential of XGI for low-dose
X-ray imaging with the developed beam splitter. In SAXGI, the smaller the bucket size,
the fewer measurements required for efficient image reconstruction (Zhang, 2023). By compromising the image quality and number of measurements, a single bucket size
of 40 × 40 pixels is selected for the image reconstruction of XGI, and the results
are shown in Fig. 4
, in which 1600 measurements give a sampling rate of 100%. Fig. 4
(a) shows the reconstructed image of XGI at a sampling rate of 10% (corresponding to
160 measurements) using the compressive sensing algorithm. The overall structure of
the circuit board appears relatively intact, with a structural similarity index measure
(SSIM) (Wang et al., 2004
) value of 0.72 compared with that of the conventional projection image and a signal-to-noise
ratio (SNR) value of 13.29 dB. We then further reduced the number of measurements
to 80, corresponding to a sampling rate of 5%. The reconstructed image is shown in
Fig. 4
(b), in which the overall circuit structure is still distinguishable with an SSIM value
of 0.70 but the image contrast is relatively low due to the insufficient sampling
rate. Fig. 4
(c) displays the result of XGI image reconstruction using only 16 measurements. Although
the details are almost overwhelmed by noise, the skeleton of the circuit structure
can still be constructed with a SSIM of 0.64 and a SNR of 8.61. As shown in Fig. 4
(d), the SSIM and SNR curves jump at a sampling rate of 1%. Thus, the image quality
with a sampling rate of 1% essentially reaches the limit of this imaging system. The
sampling rate of XGI is directly related to the radiation dose based on the assumption
of a consistent pattern illumination fraction per measurement (He et al., 2020
; Ceddia & Paganin, 2018
). Considering that the of the object beam is one-third of that of the reference beam after the beam splitter,
the radiation dose received by the sample is anticipated to be 0.33% of that in conventional
projection imaging. Certainly, a low radiation dose can be realized only if two detectors
with different sensitivity are employed to record the reference and object signals,
respectively. Moreover, the radiation dose of the sample can be further reduced by
using a detector with higher efficiency in the object beam.
![]() |
Figure 4 The reconstructed XGI image of 880 × 330 pixels with low measurement numbers where the bucket size is 40 × 40 pixels. (a) Measurement number M = 160 and sampling rate 10%; (b) measurement number M = 80 and sampling rate 5%; (c) measurement number M = 16 and sampling rate 1%; (d) SSIM and SNR as a function of sampling rate. |
Although reconstruction of sample information has been achieved with low measurement
numbers, there is still much room for improvement in image quality. To obtain a deeper
insight into our dual-beam experimental scheme, including its limitations and future
opportunities for application, we discuss the characteristics of the beam splitter
and the mask. First, we address the impact of the beam splitter on GI. The PSF of
dual-beam XGI can be rewritten from equation (2) as follows,
where =
;
is the position shift of the split X-ray beams; t is the thickness of the crystal; and Θ is the angular deviation of the energy direction within the crystal, which is closely related to the divergence angle of
the incidence beam. This leads to a decrease in the spatial resolution of GI (Zhao
et al., 2024a
). Due to the effect of the incident beam divergence, crystal quality and mask properties,
a of 0.92 for the two split X-ray beams is currently achieved. Using asymmetric diffraction
crystals as a beam collimator to obtain highly collimated monochromatic beams (Kuriyama
& Boettinger, 1976
), it is feasible to effectively reduce the displacement Δl of the output beam position, thereby improving the spatial resolution of GI. According
to the optical setup used in this experiment, when the divergence angle of the incident
beam is less than 0.7 arcsec, Δl is smaller than the one-pixel size (7.4 µm), and the diffraction effect has no impact
on the speckle pattern. As a result, the effect of crystal diffraction on the spatial
resolution of XGI is eliminated.
It is also crucial to select masks that are compatible with the beam splitter. In
this work, a natural mask (copper foam) was used to effectively reduce the scattering
effects on crystal diffraction, and it exhibited desirable fluctuations of g(2) = 1.25 and a randomness of 0.01. However, as shown in Fig. 2(f), the randomness of the speckle patterns follows a Gaussian distribution with a mean
of 0.01. Deviations from randomness of zero introduce noise and are unfavorable for
image reconstruction of XGI. Aminzadeh et al. designed a series of random binary and orthogonal patterns, fabricated with a combination
of photolithography and gold electroplating techniques (Aminzadeh et al., 2023
). Such masks, developed to generate high-quality speckle patterns, will not only
contribute to image reconstruction but also suppress scattered light, which is beneficial
for image reconstruction with beam correlations.
Certainly, high-quality correlated speckle patterns are only one aspect, and the development
of image reconstruction algorithms is equally important. In addition to compressed
sensing (Kang et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2022b
) and conventional regularization algorithms (Pelliccia et al., 2016
; Kingston et al., 2018
; Zhang et al., 2014
, 2022c
), deep learning has also played a significant role in image reconstruction (Shimobaba
et al., 2018
; Zhu et al., 2020
). Additionally, a global reconstruction strategy can be employed to reduce the impact
of block artifacts in SAXGI, but the perfect reconstruction of sub-images remains
the ultimate solution for addressing block effects. To achieve the goal of low-dose
GI, joint efforts are needed, relating to the experimental setup, speckle properties
and image reconstruction algorithms. However, the experimental results demonstrated
the potential of the setup and method developed in this paper for the efficient implementation
of X-ray ghost imaging, which is an important step toward low-dose X-ray imaging.
5. Conclusion
To meet the demand for X-ray ghost imaging with a beam splitter, we developed a dedicated crystal beam splitter at the SSRF and experimentally verified the feasibility of its application for X-ray ghost imaging. By optimizing the optical setup of the X-ray beamline and the beam splitter in a dispersive layout, a consistent field of view of the object beam and the reference beam was achieved. Low indices of the lattice plane for X-ray diffraction were adopted to ensure the high-flux output of the beam splitter and correspondingly improve the correlation between the reference beam and the object beam. The Laue crystal was manufactured using an optimized process to avoid clamping stress, and then intensity uniformity of the split beams was achieved. Combined with a natural modulator of copper foam, the developed beam splitter generated two separate beams with sufficiently large values of the Glauber function for the reconstruction of XGI. The concept of SAXGI is introduced to make full use of the large size of split beams and reduce the sampling of XGI. Finally, experiments on a circuit board demonstrated that the specially developed beam splitter complies with the efficient implementation of XGI. Although there are many aspects to be improved, the method established in the paper lays an important foundation for further extended application of XGI.
APPENDIX A
Nondispersive configuration
A DuMond diagram, typically employed for crystal diffraction, is used to analyze the
intrinsic connection between the energy and angular width of the incident and diffracted
beams in multi-crystal configurations (Yang et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020
). Fig. 5
shows DuMond diagrams for perfect crystal diffraction, where the effect results in the broadening of the diffracted beam angle ωD, which is the Darwin width of the crystal. According to the differential form of
the Bragg equation,
the energy width ΔλD can be determined. The blue window outlined by ωD and ΔλD in Fig. 5 represents the diffraction window of the crystal. It can be concluded that for white
beam with parallel incidence the emitted beam will have a certain energy distribution,
and for monochromatic beam with divergence the emitted beam will have a certain angular
distribution. In Fig. 6
, the DuMond window of the monochromator crystal remains fixed as the incident beam,
while the DuMond window of the beam splitter crystal is gradually approached through
angle scanning. When the two windows overlap, a diffracted intensity is detected on
a detector, and the result obtained by the detector is the convolution of the two
windows. In a nondispersive configuration, during the scanning process, the two DuMond
windows can completely overlap, which indicates that the consistent beam-splitting
fields are achieved. In comparison with the dispersive configuration in Fig. 5
(c), following the blue arrow direction of movement, different divergences and energy
of the diffracted beam are obtained, which clearly differs from the incident beam.
Therefore, the nondispersive configuration shown in Fig. 6
was chosen for our experiments.
![]() |
Figure 5 DuMond diagrams for (a) perfect crystal diffraction; (b) a nondispersive configuration; (c) a dispersive configuration. The oblique line and point regions are the DuMond windows of the monochromator and beam splitter, respectively. |
![]() |
Figure 6 Speckle patterns with the developed beam splitter and the conventional splitter. (a, b) Transmission and diffraction speckle patterns and (c) curves of the developed beam splitter; panels (d)–(f) correspond to the respective results of the conventional splitter. |
APPENDIX B
Developed beam splitter versus conventional splitter
By comparing with the results of the conventional splitter with a wafer shown in Figs.
6(d) and 6(e), the results from Figs. 6
(a) and 6(b) suggest that the developed beam splitter exhibits high beam-splitting performance.
According to Figs. 6
(d), 6(e) and 6(f), the beam size, intensity uniformity, speckle pattern consistency and achieved by the wafer splitter are all apparently inferior to that of the developed
splitter [as shown in Figs. 6
(a), 6(b) and 6(c)]. From equation (2)
, the curves are shown in Figs. 6
(c) and 6(f). The of the developed beam splitter is around 0.92, while that of the wafer is only 0.52.
With the same sampling rate, a higher usually indicates better image quality. This means that it is difficult to achieve
high-quality ghost imaging with the conventional splitter. In addition, the width
of the curves is reduced from approximately 104 µm (H) × 133 µm (V) to 76 µm (H) × 104 µm
(V), which implies that higher spatial resolution can be achieved by the developed
splitter.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank X.-W. Zhang, Q.-S. Diao and Z. Hong for their fruitful discussion and kind help.
Funding information
The following funding is acknowledged: National Key Research and Development Program of China (grant No. 2022YFA1603601; grant No. 2021YFF0601203; grant No. 2021YFA1600703); National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant No. 12205361).
References
Aminzadeh, L., Roberts, B., Young, B., Chiang, I. D., Svalbe, D. M., Paganin, D. M.
& Kingston, A. M. (2023). Opt. Express, 31, 24328–24346. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Bromberg, Y., Katz, O. & Silberberg, Y. (2009). Phys. Rev. A, 79, 053840. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Ceddia, D., Aminzadeh, A., Cook, P. K., Pelliccia, D., Kingston, A. M. & Paganin,
D. M. (2023). Optica, 10, 1067. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Ceddia, D. & Paganin, D. M. (2018). Phys. Rev. A, 97, 062119. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Cheng, J. & Han, S. (2004). Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 093903. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
He, Y.-H., Huang, Y., Zeng, Z., Li, Y., Tan, J., Chen, L.-A., Wu, L., Li, M., Quan,
B., Wang, S. & Liang, T.-J. (2021). Sci. Bull. 66, 133–138. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
He, Y.-H., Zhang, A.-X., Li, M.-F., Huang, Y.-Y., Quan, B.-G., Li, D.-Z., Wu, L.-A.
& Chen, L.-M. (2020). APL Photon. 5, 056102. Google Scholar
Kang, Y., Yao, Y. -P., Kang, Z. -H., Ma, L. & Zhang, T. (2015). J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, 32, 1063. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Katz, O., Bromberg, Y. & Silberberg, Y. (2009). Appl. Phys. Lett. 95, 131110. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Kingston, A. M., Pelliccia, D., Rack, A., Olbinado, M. P., Cheng, Y., Myers, G. R.
& Paganin, D. M. (2018). Optica, 5, 1516. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Klein, Y., Sefi, O., Schwartz, H. & Shwartz, S. (2022). Optica, 9, 63. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Kunimune, Y., Yoda, Y., Izumi, K., Yabashi, M., Zhang, X.-W., Harami, T., Ando, M.
& Kikuta, S. (1997). J. Synchrotron Rad. 4, 199–203. CrossRef CAS Web of Science IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Kuriyama, M. & Boettinger, W. J. (1976). Acta Cryst. A32, 511–512. CrossRef IUCr Journals Web of Science Google Scholar
Lane, T. J. & Ratner, D. (2020). Opt. Express, 28, 5898–5918. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Li, C.-B., Yin, W.-T., Jiang, H. & Zhang, Y. (2013). Comput. Optim. Appl. 56, 507–530. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Li, S., Cropp, F., Kabra, K., Lane, T., Wetzstein, G., Musumeci, P. & Ratner, D. (2018).
Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 114801. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Li, Z., Fan, Y.-C., Xue, L., Zhang, Z.-Y. & Wang, J. (2019). AIP Conf. Proc. 2054, 060040. Google Scholar
Li, Z.-L., Yang, J.-L., Si, S.-Y., Li, T., Hu, L.-F., Song, L., Xue, L., Wang, J.
& Zhang, X.-W. (2020). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 983, 164526. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Liu, H. -C. & Zhang, S. (2017). Appl. Phys. Lett. 111, 031110. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Oh, J. E., Cho, Y. W., Scarcelli, G. & Kim, Y. H. (2013). Opt. Lett. 38, 682–684. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Olbinado, M. P., Paganin, D. M., Cheng, Y. & Rack, A. (2021). Optica, 8, 1538. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Pelliccia, D., Olbinado, M. P., Rack, A., Kingston, A. M., Myers, G. R. & Paganin,
D. M. (2018). IUCrJ, 5, 428–438. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Pelliccia, D., Rack, A., Scheel, M., Cantelli, V. & Paganin, D. M. (2016). Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 113902. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Schori, A. & Shwartz, S. (2017). Opt. Express, 25, 14822–14828. Web of Science CrossRef CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Shimobaba, T., Endo, Y., Nishitsuji, T., Takahashi, T., Nagahama, Y., Hasegawa, S.,
Sano, M., Hirayama, R., Kakue, T., Shiraki, A. & Ito, T. (2018). Opt. Commun. 413, 147–151. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Sprigg, J., Peng, T. & Shih, Y. (2016). Sci. Rep. 6, 38077. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Wang, Z., Bovik, A. C., Sheikh, H. R. & Simoncelli, E. P. (2004). IEEE Trans. Image Process. 13, 600–612. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Yang, J.-L., Li, Z.-L., Li, T., Zhu, Y., Song, L., Xue, L. & Zhang, X. (2020). Acta Phys. Sin. 69, 104101. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Yu, H., Lu, R. -H., Han, S. -S., Xie, H. -L., Du, G. -H., Xiao, T. -Q. & Zhu, D. (2016).
Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 113901. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Zhang, A.-X., He, Y.-H., Wu, L.-A., Chen, L.-M. & Wang, B.-B. (2018). Optica, 5, 374–377. Web of Science CrossRef CAS Google Scholar
Zhang, C., Guo, S., Cao, J., Guan, J. & Gao, F.-L. (2014). Opt. Express, 22, 30063–30073. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Zhang, H.-P. (2023). Investigation on Megapixel X-ray Ghost Imaging with Low Radiation Dose, Doctorial dissertation, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, The People's
Republic of China. Google Scholar
Zhang, H.-P., Li, K., Wang, F.-X., Yu, H., Zhao, C.-Z., Du, G.-H., Li, Z.-L., Deng,
B., Xie, H.-L., Han, S.-S. & Xiao, T. (2022a). Chin. Opt. Lett. 20, 033401. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Zhang, H. -P., Li, K., Zhao, C. -Z., Tang, J. & Xiao, T. (2022b). Chin. Phys. B, 31, 064202. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Zhang, H.-P., Zhao, C.-Z., Ju, X.-L., Tang, J. & Xiao, T.-Q. (2022c). Acta Phys. Sin. 71, 074201. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Zhao, C.-Z., Si, S.-Y., Diao, Q.-S., Hong, Z., Li, Z.-L. & Xiao, T.-Q. (2024b). Proc. SPIE, 13069, 130691A. Google Scholar
Zhao, C.-Z., Si, S.-Y., Zhang, H.-P., Xue, L., Li, Z.-L. & Xiao, T.-Q. (2022). Acta Phys. Sin. 71, 046101. Web of Science CrossRef Google Scholar
Zhao, C.-Z., Si, S.-Y., Zhang, H.-P., Xue, L., Li, Z.-L. & Xiao, T.-Q. (2024a). Chin. Phys. B, 33, 014102. Google Scholar
Zhu, H., Yu, H., Tan, Z., Lu, R., Han, S., Huang, Z. & Wang, J. (2020). Opt. Express, 28, 17556–17569. Web of Science CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are cited.
