Implicit Neural Speckle Denoising

Abstract

Speckle fundamentally limits coherent imaging by introducing multiplicative, spatially correlated noise that obscures scene structure. Removing speckle noise from dynamic scenes—that do not benefit from conventional speckle averaging—is particularly challenging. We introduce a training-free framework that combines a spatiotemporal implicit neural representation with an aperture-aware maximum-likelihood formulation to recover dynamic, speckle-free imagery directly from noisy observations. The coherent likelihood explicitly models the aperture-dependent spatial covariance of speckle, enabling adaptation to arbitrary pupil geometries without retraining. A matrix-free implementation based on FFT-accelerated operators, stochastic approximations, and conjugate gradients makes optimization practical for realistic image sizes. Meanwhile, a blind holdout criterion provides automatic early stopping without clean reference data. Simulated and laboratory results demonstrate improved spatial fidelity, temporal consistency, and robustness to varying speckle statistics relative to classical, unsupervised, and supervised baselines.

Figure 1: Implicit neural speckle denoising. A spatiotemporal INR is optimized directly from noisy coherent measurements using an aperture-aware maximum-likelihood objective, enabling dynamic speckle denoising without prior training.

1 Introduction

Coherent imaging systems—including synthetic aperture radar (SAR), digital holography, and optical coherence tomography—measure the amplitude and phase of backscattered fields [14, 15]. A fundamental consequence of coherent detection is speckle: a granular, multiplicative noise pattern caused by random interference from unresolved scatterers [15]. Speckle obscures fine structure and hinders downstream tasks such as segmentation, classification, and change detection [2, 16], making speckle suppression a central challenge across coherent imaging modalities [4].

Existing approaches each resolve only part of the problem. Single-frame filters, from local-statistics methods such as Lee and Frost filtering [17, 13] to wavelet and nonlocal approaches [2, 25], reduce speckle by imposing spatial assumptions on a single realization, which generally trades noise suppression against spatial resolution. Multi-frame averaging and model-based estimation can improve this tradeoff by exploiting independent speckle realizations [15, 26], and recent aperture-aware models show the importance of retaining the coherent transfer function rather than assuming pixelwise independent speckle [1]. However, these methods typically assume a static scene, and scene motion can produce artifacts.

Learning-based denoisers offer strong image priors, but coherent imaging rarely provides clean training targets: every measurement is speckled. Supervised networks sidestep this with synthetic data at the cost of domain mismatch [22, 7], and Noise2Noise-style training instead requires paired, registered scenes with independent speckle realizations [18]. Self-supervised networks avoid clean targets but often require spatially decorrelated speckle and collections of representative measurements [5]. While some approaches bypass these requirements—sometimes needing only a single measurement [10]—they supervise against per-pixel marginal statistics without explicitly modeling aperture-induced covariance, and remain specific to a given sensor and imaging mode. Training-free approaches such as Deep Image Prior and its extensions remove the data requirement by fitting a network directly to the corrupted measurement [20, 35, 19], but have not been adapted to the multiplicative, spatially correlated statistics of coherent speckle. None of these families simultaneously accommodates dynamic scenes and aperture-dependent speckle correlations without retraining.

Implicit neural representations (INRs) provide a natural neural prior for dynamic coherent imaging. By mapping continuous coordinates to signal values, INRs can compactly represent spatial and temporal structure while favoring coherent scene explanations over unstructured noise [24, 23, 28, 30]. They have been successful across computational imaging tasks, including structured illumination microscopy [6], wavefront shaping [12], intensity diffraction tomography [21], and Fourier ptychographic microscopy [37], but, to our knowledge, they have not yet been coupled to an aperture-aware speckle likelihood for dynamic denoising.

In this work, we introduce a training-free framework for denoising dynamic coherent imagery, shown in Fig. 1. The method uses a spatiotemporal INR as a prior over the underlying speckle-free scene, but fits that prior with the statistics of coherent imaging rather than with a generic image-domain loss. The resulting aperture-aware likelihood preserves the spatial covariance induced by the coherent transfer function, allowing known pupil geometries to be incorporated directly instead of approximating speckle as independent pixelwise noise. To make this dense Gaussian likelihood practical, we propose a matrix-free implementation that enables scaling to realistic image sizes. The same likelihood also provides a blind holdout stopping criterion, enabling per-sequence denoising without clean references, external training data, motion estimates, or aperture-specific retraining. Together, these components turn known coherent-imaging physics into a practical supervision signal for dynamic speckle suppression.

Figure 2: Spatially correlated speckle. Simulated coherent measurements generated using large (left) and small (right) aperture sizes at fixed sensor-plane sampling. Smaller relative apertures produce larger speckle grains and stronger spatial correlations, making denoising more challenging. Insets show the aperture in white and sampled frequency support in red.

2 Likelihood-based implicit neural speckle denoising

2.1 Aperture-aware coherent likelihood

Coherent images of rough objects are corrupted by speckle because many unresolved scatterers interfere within each resolution cell. Under the standard fully developed speckle model, the object-plane field at time $t$ can be written as $r_{t}^{1/2}\circ g_{t}$, where $r_{t}\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{N}$ is the scene reflectance, $g_{t}\sim\mathcal{CN}(0,I)$ is a circular complex Gaussian speckle field, and $\circ$ denotes elementwise multiplication [14]. We model coherent propagation through the sampled pupil as

$$A=F^{H}\mathcal{D}(p)F,$$ (1)

where $F$ is the unitary two-dimensional DFT, $p$ is the real-valued pupil transmission function, and $\mathcal{D}(\cdot)$ forms a diagonal matrix. This model assumes negligible time-varying phase errors. Let $n_{t}\sim\mathcal{CN}(0,\sigma^{2}I)$ denote additive circular complex Gaussian measurement noise. The measured complex field is then

$$\tilde{y}_{t}=A\bigl(r_{t}^{1/2}\circ g_{t}\bigr)+n_{t},$$ (2)

which gives a probabilistic forward model for dynamic coherent measurements.

Conditioned on the reflectance $r_{t}$, the measurement is zero-mean complex Gaussian with covariance

$$\Sigma_{t}=A\mathcal{D}(r_{t})A^{H}+\sigma^{2}I.$$ (3)

This covariance is the mechanism by which aperture-dependent speckle correlations enter the likelihood. If the pupil fills the sampled spatial-frequency support, the coherent operator is approximately unitary and the speckle is approximately conditionally independent across pixels. When the pupil occupies only part of the sampled frequency grid, the coherent point-spread function broadens and each speckle grain spans multiple samples, producing the spatial correlations illustrated in Fig. 2.

Assuming independent speckle and additive-noise realizations over time, the negative log-likelihood of a sequence of $T$ measurements, up to additive constants, is

$$\mathcal{L}_{\text{MLE}}=\sum_{i=1}^{T}\Big[\log\det\bigl(\Sigma_{t_{i}}\bigr)+\tilde{y}_{t_{i}}^{H}\Sigma_{t_{i}}^{-1}\tilde{y}_{t_{i}}\Big].$$ (4)

This likelihood provides the data-fidelity term used throughout the paper; unlike pixelwise speckle losses, it retains the aperture-dependent covariance induced by coherent propagation. Since minimizing this objective yields the maximum-likelihood estimate of the reflectance parameters, we refer to it as the MLE loss throughout the paper. A full likelihood derivation is provided in Supplement 1.

Figure 3: Denoising neural architecture. Diagram of the modified wavelet implicit neural representation (WIRE [27]) used to optimize the likelihood-based loss for denoising.

2.2 Spatiotemporal implicit neural reconstruction

We estimate the dynamic reflectance sequence by representing it with an implicit neural representation (INR), a coordinate-based network that maps normalized spatial and temporal coordinates to reflectance:

$$\hat{r}(u,v,t)=f_{\theta}(u,v,t),\qquad(u,v,t)\in[-1,1]^{3}.$$ (5)

For each measurement sequence, we optimize the network parameters $\theta$ directly with the MLE loss in (4). The resulting reconstruction is training-free: no clean reference images, external datasets, or pretrained denoising priors are required.

We implement $f_{\theta}$ using a wavelet implicit neural representation (WIRE) [27]. WIRE is a fully connected multilayer perceptron that leverages complex Gabor nonlinearities, enabling localized oscillatory features that are well suited for representing fine spatial detail while maintaining stable optimization. For each hidden layer $\ell$, its input feature vector $h_{\ell-1}$ is passed through a linear transform followed by the complex Gabor activation

$$h_{\ell}=\exp\!\left(j\,\omega_{0}(W_{\ell}h_{\ell-1}+b_{\ell})-\left|s_{0}(W_{\ell}h_{\ell-1}+b_{\ell})\right|^{2}\right),$$ (6)

where $W_{\ell}$ and $b_{\ell}$ are layer weights and biases, $\omega_{0}$ controls the oscillation frequency, and $s_{0}$ controls the Gaussian envelope width. These parameters determine the frequency bias of the INR and are important for denoising, since fitting high-frequency structure too rapidly can cause the network to explain speckle before it has recovered the underlying reflectance.

In this work, we use a WIRE network with 12 hidden layers, each with 362 complex-valued neurons, totaling 1.6 million trainable parameters. This architecture is illustrated in Fig. 3. We use an oscillation frequency $\omega_{0}=1$ and Gaussian envelope width $s_{0}=2$. These values are significantly lower than the published WIRE variant, necessary to encourage a stronger low-frequency fitting bias and a smoother transition to higher spatial frequencies during optimization. This allows the model to recover fine scene detail with fewer artifacts, with a comparison available in Section 3 3.3. The output layer then linearly projects the complex-valued hidden representation to a single complex value, takes its real part, and applies a sigmoid nonlinearity to enforce nonnegativity of the resulting reflectance estimate. The network is fit to 32-frame windows and optimized using one randomly sampled frame per minibatch using Adam with learning rate $5\times 10^{-5}$.

Figure 4: Blind early stopping from the holdout likelihood. The holdout MLE (top) tracks the unobservable ground-truth MSE (bottom) during INR optimization, reaching its minimum near the best reconstruction point while using two withheld noisy measurements.

2.3 Blind holdout early stopping

Like other neural denoisers optimized directly on noisy measurements, the proposed INR can eventually overfit noise within a sequence. This creates a practical model-selection problem: the likelihood objective is necessary for fitting the reconstruction, but unconstrained optimization can begin to explain frame-specific speckle rather than only the shared scene reflectance. We address this by using the same physics-based MLE loss as a blind early-stopping signal.

Specifically, we withhold two measurement frames from the optimization loss and periodically evaluate the MLE loss on those held-out measurements, stopping when the holdout MLE reaches its minimum. Because the INR represents a shared spatiotemporal reflectance field, improved scene reconstruction reduces the holdout loss. In contrast, overfitting independent frame-specific speckle in the optimized frames increases the holdout loss. Thus, the holdout loss provides a reference-free proxy for the otherwise unobservable reconstruction error.

In simulation, this behavior can be evaluated directly: the holdout MLE reaches its minimum near the oracle MSE minimum, providing a practical stopping signal without clean references or oracle access to ground truth (Fig. 4). This is an important advantage of the proposed likelihood-based formulation: the same coherent forward model used to fit the INR also provides a natural stopping criterion.

All results reported for our proposed method use blind holdout early stopping unless otherwise stated. For the simulated data, we trigger early stopping on the minimum holdout MLE with a 150 iteration patience. The laboratory data exhibit noisier fitting, so we smooth the holdout MLE over 15 iterations and increase patience to 750 iterations.

Figure 5: Temporally consistent denoising. Simulated small-aperture speckle denoising on translating cameraman (left) and DERF-HD tractor (right) sequences. The $x$–$t$ plots stack intensities along the indicated horizontal line across time. Our method recovers greater detail with more stable temporal trajectories. Supplemental videos more clearly illustrate denoising performance.

Figure 6: Aperture-aware denoising. Simulated Golay-aperture speckle denoising on translating cameraman (left) and DERF-HD tractor (right) sequences. Our method recovers greater detail with more stable temporal trajectories. Supplemental videos more clearly illustrate denoising performance.

Table 1: Runtime scaling of likelihood-based denoising. Average denoising runtime per frame for explicit covariance evaluation and the proposed matrix-free implementation.

Resolution	Explicit MLE (s)	Matrix-free MLE (s)
$64\times 64$	32	41
$128\times 128$	963	47
$256\times 256$	OOM†	85
$512\times 512$	OOM†	222
†Out of memory on 96 GB VRAM GPU

2.4 Matrix-free likelihood optimization

The aperture-aware likelihood in (4) is the central data-fidelity term in the proposed method, but direct evaluation is not computationally practical at realistic image sizes. For each frame, explicit evaluation requires forming the dense covariance matrix $\Sigma_{t_{i}}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N}$, computing its log determinant, and evaluating an inverse quadratic form. This gives $\mathcal{O}(N^{3})$ time and $\mathcal{O}(N^{2})$ memory per frame, which quickly dominates INR optimization.

We instead evaluate the same likelihood matrix-free, without explicitly forming $\Sigma_{t_{i}}$ or its inverse. The implementation exploits three ingredients: (i) FFT-based application of the coherent covariance, (ii) stochastic Lanczos quadrature (SLQ) for the log-determinant, and (iii) conjugate gradients (CG) for the inverse quadratic form. Each covariance application is expressed through the coherent forward model and implemented with two-dimensional FFTs, while SLQ and CG require only repeated covariance matrix–vector products. The resulting per-frame cost scales as $\mathcal{O}((SK+G)N\log N)$, where $S$ is the number of Hutchinson probes, $K$ is the number of Lanczos iterations, and $G$ is the number of CG iterations. In practice, all presented experiments use $S=8$ Hutchinson probes, $K=20$ Lanczos iterations, and at most $G=200$ CG iterations.

Table 1 compares denoising times for both explicit and matrix-free MLE loss implementations for 400 optimization iterations. The explicit covariance implementation remains feasible at $64\times 64$ resolution, but becomes approximately 20 times slower by $128\times 128$ and runs out of memory at $256\times 256$ on a 96 GB GPU. In contrast, the matrix-free implementation remains feasible through $512\times 512$, enabling likelihood-based INR optimization at the resolutions used in our experiments. Matrix-free derivations and accuracy comparisons are provided in Supplement 1.

3 Results

3.1 Baselines and evaluation metrics

Across simulated and laboratory experiments, we compare against classical, unsupervised, and supervised denoising baselines: H-BM3D [9, 11], Deep Video Prior (DVP) [19], DRUNet [36], and FastDVDNet [31]. The supervised models are evaluated both with a standard pixelwise-speckle training model (corresponding to uncorrelated speckle) and with aperture-aware retraining, denoted by “-A,” in which training data are generated using the same aperture model as the test measurements. For laboratory experiments, this aperture model is estimated from the measured pupil support and is the same one used in the proposed MLE loss. Together, these baselines provide representative comparisons across classical single-frame despeckling, unsupervised neural video reconstruction, supervised image and video denoising, and aperture-matched retraining for spatially correlated speckle.

We report PSNR, SSIM [33], and ST-RRED [29] relative to clean simulated references when available. DVP is given oracle early stopping to report its best attainable reconstruction, while our method uses the blind holdout rule described in Section 2 2.3. Baseline implementations, training protocols, and metric details are provided in Supplement 1.

Table 2: Denoising performance on simulated speckle. Average PSNR (dB), SSIM, and ST-RRED for DERF-HD videos under two circular aperture sizes at fixed sensor-plane sampling. Best results are in bold.

	Large Aperture			Small Aperture
Method	PSNR $\uparrow$	SSIM $\uparrow$	ST-RRED $\downarrow$	PSNR $\uparrow$	SSIM $\uparrow$	ST-RRED $\downarrow$
Noisy input	10.6	0.10	1933	10.7	0.10	2671
H-BM3D	22.7	0.57	1264	16.3	0.28	2867
DVP	16.1	0.38	2811	16.2	0.38	3366
DRUNet	24.3	0.66	766	17.1	0.28	2588
DRUNet-A†	24.3	0.66	856	21.9	0.55	1828
FastDVDNet	24.3	0.63	628	19.3	0.40	2599
FastDVDNet-A†	24.7	0.64	505	22.8	0.55	1084
Ours	25.6	0.72	201	22.9	0.59	574

^†Aperture-aware (-A) supervised models were retrained separately for each aperture size.

3.2 Simulated experiments

We first evaluate dynamic denoising on simulated coherent measurements from the DERF-HD benchmark [3, 34] and a translating cameraman sequence. We use the first 32 frames of each sequence with source frames resized to $256\times 256$ resolution. Speckled complex-field measurements are generated using (2) with additive noise level $\sigma=0.02$ under two circular apertures at fixed sensor-plane sampling: a large aperture that fills the sampled Fourier grid and a smaller aperture with half the diameter that produces larger speckle grains and stronger spatial speckle correlation, as illustrated in Fig. 2. Additional dataset details are provided in Supplement 1.

Table 2 reports average performance across DERF-HD. For large-aperture speckle, our method achieves the best average performance across all metrics, reaching 25.6 dB PSNR, 0.72 SSIM, and 201 ST-RRED. This improves both PSNR and SSIM compared to the strongest supervised baselines, and reduces ST-RRED by more than a factor of two. The remaining baselines improve over the noisy input but leave substantial artifacts and significant temporal irregularity.

The robustness advantage is more pronounced in the small-aperture setting, where stronger speckle correlations cause standard supervised denoisers to degrade sharply: DRUNet drops from 24.3 to 17.1 dB, and FastDVDNet drops from 24.3 to 19.3 dB. Aperture-aware retraining recovers much of this loss, confirming the importance of matching the speckle statistics at training time, but it requires specialized training data for each aperture condition. In contrast, our method incorporates the known aperture directly in the likelihood model and achieves improved PSNR, SSIM, and ST-RRED without aperture-specific retraining.

Figure 5 provides examples of simulated small-aperture denoising on the translating cameraman and DERF-HD tractor sequences. Our reconstruction preserves sharper, temporally stable structure across both sequences. Notably, the supervised baselines exhibit significant frame-to-frame feature variations. These differences are more pronounced in video format in Visualizations 1–2.

To explore the performance of our method on more challenging apertures, we simulate speckle with a sparse, distributed aperture based on the Golay 6+1 metalens [32]. This is composed of a central sub-aperture surrounded by 6 off-axis sub-apertures. An example of this aperture and the resulting denoising performance can be seen in Fig. 6. As with the large- and small-aperture case, our method continues to outperform all baselines by recovering greater detail with significantly reduced frame-to-frame variation. On DERF-HD, our method matches PSNR performance of the best-performing retrained baseline FastDVDNet-A at 22.2 dB, improves SSIM from 0.52 to 0.55, and improves ST-RRED from 1274 to 701. Denoising performance is more pronounced in video format in Visualizations 3–4.

Table 3: Architecture and loss ablations. Comparison of network architectures and loss functions for the DERF-HD sunflower video with simulated large-aperture speckle. Our tuned WIRE and MLE loss outperform alternatives.

INR	Loss	PSNR $\uparrow$	SSIM $\uparrow$	ST-RRED $\downarrow$
Tuned WIRE	MLE	27.9	0.84	147
Original WIRE	MLE	23.7	0.65	704
SIREN	MLE	22.6	0.61	259
MLP	MLE	18.7	0.38	3556
Tuned WIRE	MSE	25.7	0.77	211
Original WIRE	MSE	22.3	0.61	678

Figure 7: Laboratory data collection. Off-axis digital holography setup used to collect speckled videos of moving objects. A signal path flood-illuminates targets 2.6 m away, and the return interferes with a fiber-delivered reference beam at the camera.

Figure 8: Improved detail recovery on laboratory data. Intensity profiles across laboratory USAF resolution bars. Our method preserves more distinct peaks and valleys, indicating improved recovery of fine spatial structure.

3.3 Ablation experiments

To separate the contributions of the INR architecture and the likelihood model, we ablate each on the $256\times 256$ DERF-HD sunflower sequence with simulated large-aperture speckle, with results summarized in Table 3. All variants in this comparison use oracle early stopping so that differences reflect the architecture and objective rather than the stopping rule.

We first fix the MLE loss and vary the INR backbone. A standard MLP recovers little fine detail, and SIREN [28] introduces significant artifacts, while the tuned WIRE parameterization described in Section 2 2.2 performs best. Relative to the original WIRE [27] under the same MLE objective, tuning improves PSNR from 23.7 to 27.9 dB, SSIM from 0.65 to 0.84, and ST-RRED from 704 to 147. We then fix the tuned WIRE backbone and replace the aperture-aware MLE objective with an intensity-domain mean squared error (MSE) loss. This variant still benefits from the spatiotemporal INR prior, but removing the likelihood-based objective reduces denoising performance across all metrics. Together, these comparisons show that the observed gains come from both the tuned spatiotemporal INR prior and the likelihood model’s treatment of aperture-dependent speckle correlations.

Figure 9: Temporally consistent laboratory denoising. Digital holography denoising of a translating toy target measured with a conventional circular aperture (left) and a translating resolution target measured with an annular aperture (right). Our method retains more temporally consistent features and adapts to the distinct aperture shapes without training data, while the retrained supervised baselines produce details that vary across frames. Supplemental videos more clearly illustrate denoising performance.

3.4 Laboratory experiments

To validate our approach with real data, we collected off-axis digital holography videos of manually translated targets using the setup in Fig. 7, described in detail in Supplement 1. The measurements are demodulated to $256\times 256$ complex-valued fields before denoising. Because clean reference images are unavailable for the laboratory measurements, we do not report full-reference metrics such as PSNR or SSIM. Instead, we evaluate laboratory performance using reference-free visual comparisons, temporal $x$–$t$ slices, and intensity-profile measurements. We limit these comparisons to the best-performing supervised baselines for space, with additional baselines shown in Visualizations 5–7.

We first evaluate a translating USAF resolution target, shown in Fig. 8. All methods substantially reduce visible speckle, and DRUNet-A in particular produces competitive frame-wise reconstructions (though they vary from frame to frame). However, differences become apparent in the high-frequency resolution bars. The intensity profiles in Fig. 8 show that the supervised baselines distort the high-frequency bar structure, causing adjacent bars to merge together. Our method preserves distinct peaks and valleys corresponding to individual bars.

To test performance on a less structured laboratory target, we also collected a translating toy sequence. Figure 9 (left) shows that DRUNet-A and FastDVDNet-A suppress speckle and produce plausible-looking individual frames, but some recovered features in the face and upper body shift, blur, or re-form across time. In contrast, the proposed likelihood-guided INR recovers sharper object structure while keeping features more stable throughout the sequence. The $x$–$t$ slices further highlight this behavior, showing more coherent trajectories corresponding to the translating object without sudden frame-to-frame variation. This indicates that the temporal consistency benefit is not restricted to periodic resolution bars.

We then evaluate aperture awareness in the laboratory by replacing the circular pupil with an annular aperture, with results shown in Fig. 9 (right). This annular aperture changes the coherent transfer function, and therefore the spatial covariance of the measured speckle, rather than merely changing image content. This laboratory modification also changes the field of view and magnification, so the resulting video shows a more highly magnified region of the resolution target containing only coarser bar groups. For this experiment, we estimate the inner and outer radius of the pupil support from the Fourier-domain magnitude of the demodulated laboratory measurements and use the resulting annular mask as the aperture function $p$ in the likelihood model. The measured annular support is shown in Supplement 1. We find that our method produces temporally consistent denoising; although the absence of finer bar groups makes spatial-resolution differences less apparent than in Fig. 8, our method preserves the coarse bar structure more consistently and reduces the frame-to-frame variation present in the supervised baselines. Together, the laboratory results show that the proposed likelihood-based INR extends beyond idealized simulations to dynamic digital holography measurements with real optical imperfections, varied scene structure, and changing aperture geometry.

4 Discussion and conclusion

We introduced a likelihood-guided implicit neural denoising framework for dynamic coherent imaging. The method represents time-varying scene reflectance with a spatiotemporal INR and fits it directly to noisy complex-field measurements using an aperture-aware coherent likelihood. This formulation accounts for spatially correlated speckle induced by the coherent transfer function, adapts naturally to known aperture changes, and supports holdout-based stopping without clean references or simulated ground truth. A matrix-free implementation makes the likelihood feasible to evaluate at realistic image resolutions.

Across simulated dynamic scenes, the method improved spatial fidelity and temporal consistency relative to classical, unsupervised, and supervised baselines. Laboratory digital holography experiments further showed that the framework extends beyond idealized simulations, resolving finer spatial detail and producing temporally stable denoising under both circular and annular apertures. These results suggest that physics-based likelihoods can reduce dependence on external training data and aperture-specific retraining in dynamic coherent imaging.

The primary limitation of the current approach is computational cost: each sequence requires per-instance INR optimization and repeated likelihood evaluation. Although the matrix-free likelihood makes this optimization feasible at the image sizes considered here, it remains much slower than feed-forward supervised denoisers at test time. Future work could accelerate reconstruction by reusing INR initializations across neighboring sequences, parallelizing spatial patches, adopting coarse-to-fine solver schedules, or developing lighter-weight spatiotemporal INR architectures.

The statistical model also assumes fully developed speckle, where the desired reconstruction is an intensity-like reflectance and the instantaneous coherent field is treated as a nuisance random process. This is appropriate for the rough-object and diffuse coherent-imaging regimes studied here, but richer object models may be needed for scenes with deterministic phase structure, persistent specular components, partially developed speckle, or temporal speckle correlation. Extensions of the framework to mixed coherent–diffuse fields and correlated speckle likelihoods [8] are promising directions for future work.

Overall, these results demonstrate that combining aperture-aware coherent likelihood models with implicit neural representations provides a promising path toward physics-guided implicit reconstruction of dynamic coherent imagery, particularly when clean references, matched training data, or motion estimates are unavailable.

Funding This work was supported in part by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) (N00014-23-1-2752); the National Science Foundation (NSF) (CAREER 2339616); and the Joint Directed Energy Transition Office (JDETO).

Disclosures The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgment Preliminary portions of this work were presented at the SPIE Unconventional Imaging, Sensing, and Adaptive Optics in 2024, "Time-varying implicit neural representations for unsupervised speckle denoising in dynamic scenes" [38]. This work was supported in part by high-performance computer time and resources from the DoD High Performance Computing Modernization Program. The authors thank Profs. Shirin Jalali and Arian Maleki for their input on implementation methodology and evaluation framework.

The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation thereon. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the Dept. of Army or the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)) or the U.S. Government.

Data availability Data underlying the results presented in this paper are not publicly available at this time but may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request.

Supplemental document See Supplement 1 for supporting content.