NPN: Non-Linear Projections of the Null-Space for Imaging Inverse Problems

NPN: Non-Linear Projections of the Null-Space for Imaging Inverse Problems

Dec 1, 2025·
Roman Jacome
Roman Jacome
Romario Gualdrón-Hurtado
Romario Gualdrón-Hurtado
Leon Suarez
Leon Suarez
Henry Arguello
Henry Arguello
Abstract
Imaging inverse problems aim to recover high-dimensional signals from undersampled, noisy measurements, a fundamentally ill-posed task with infinite solutions in the null-space of the sensing operator. To resolve this ambiguity, prior information is typically incorporated through handcrafted regularizers or learned models that constrain the solution space. However, these priors typically ignore the task-specific structure of that null-space. In this work, we propose Non-Linear Projections of the Null-Space (NPN), a regularization that promotes solutions lying in a learned, low-dimensional projection of the sensing matrix’s null-space. This yields interpretable, operator-aware priors and complements existing reconstruction frameworks. Empirically, NPN improves reconstruction fidelity across compressive sensing, deblurring, super-resolution, CT, and MRI with plug-and-play methods, unrolling networks, deep image prior, and diffusion models.
Type
Publication
Neural Information Processing Systems 2025

Key idea

Learn a low-dimensional projection matrix S whose rows lie in Null(H), and train a network G(y) to predict Sx. Enforce consistency during reconstruction.

Why NPN?

Adds model-aware, p-dimensional structure in Null(H); complementary to image-domain priors and integrates into PnP, Unrolling, DIP, and DMs.

Figure 1: Geometric comparison of subspace–prior learning.
Figure 1: Geometric comparison of subspace–prior learning.

Results

  • Faster Plug-and-Play convergence across noise levels and acceleration factors.
  • Higher PSNR/SSIM for CS, MRI, Super-Resolution, CT, and Deblurring; complementary to Diffusion solvers (DPS, DiffPIR).
  • Robust to projection dimension choices and sampling strategies.

Figure 2: PnP-FISTA convergence analysis in CS.
Figure 2: PnP-FISTA convergence analysis in CS.
Figure 3: Convergence for σ ∈ {2,5,10} and AF ∈ {4,8,12}.
Figure 3: Convergence for σ ∈ {2,5,10} and AF ∈ {4,8,12}.
Figure 4: Deblurring and MRI results for PnP and PnP-NPN.
Figure 4: Deblurring and MRI results for PnP and PnP-NPN.
Figure 5: Effect of p/n and S design.
Figure 5: Effect of p/n and S design.
Figure 6: DIP in Deblurring.
Figure 6: DIP in Deblurring.

Table 1: Dataset generalization. Each S, G, and Unrolling were optimized with CIFAR-10, and tested with the CIFAR-10 and STL10.
Table 1: Dataset generalization. Each S, G, and Unrolling were optimized with CIFAR-10, and tested with the CIFAR-10 and STL10.
Table 2: Comparison of metrics under different sampling strategies.
Table 2: Comparison of metrics under different sampling strategies.
Table 3: State-of-the-art comparison for CS, MRI, and Deblurring.
Table 3: State-of-the-art comparison for CS, MRI, and Deblurring.
Table 4: γ-ablation for DPS and DiffPIR.
Table 4: γ-ablation for DPS and DiffPIR.

Roman Jacome
Authors
PhD student at Universidad Industrial de Santander
Romario Gualdrón-Hurtado
Authors
M.Sc. Computer Science
Leon Suarez
Authors
PhD student at Universidad Industrial de Santander
Henry Arguello
Authors
Titular professor at Universidad Industrial de Santander