pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.22728 · v1 · pith:H4DEWMEBnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 🧮 math.NA · cs.NA· math.OC

A operatorname{prox}-Based Semi-Smooth Newton Method for TV-Minimization

S\"oren Bartels , Alex Kaltenbach This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 03:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.NA cs.NAmath.OC
keywords total variation minimizationsemi-smooth Newton methodproximal operatorsfinite element discretizationprimal-dual optimalityconvex optimizationsuperlinear convergence
0
0 comments X

The pith

A prox-based semi-smooth Newton method for total variation minimization is globally well-posed and locally superlinearly convergent after finite element discretization.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The authors introduce a semi-smooth Newton method that uses proximity operators to handle the non-differentiable total variation term in minimization problems. They reformulate the primal-dual optimality conditions into a nonlinear operator equation that admits Newton-type derivatives. For conforming finite element approximations the resulting iteration is proven to be globally solvable in each step and to converge locally with superlinear rate. The same framework covers many other convex problems and maintains invariance between primal and dual variables.

Core claim

The paper establishes that the primal-dual optimality conditions for the total variation minimization problem can be rewritten as a nonlinear operator equation possessing Newton-type differentiability. For a conforming finite element discretization this yields a semi-smooth Newton method that is globally well-posed at every iteration and converges locally superlinearly to the discrete solution.

What carries the argument

The prox-based reformulation of the primal-dual optimality conditions as a Newton-differentiable nonlinear operator equation.

If this is right

  • The approach extends directly to a large class of convex minimization problems.
  • It coincides with established semi-smooth Newton methods for obstacle problems.
  • The method satisfies a primal-dual invariance.
  • Under suitable assumptions the scheme remains well-posed in the infinite-dimensional setting.
  • Numerical performance shows reliable reduction of the discrete primal-dual gap to machine precision and robustness to proximity parameters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The superlinear convergence rate could make the method preferable to first-order proximal algorithms for high-accuracy solutions on fine meshes.
  • Primal-dual invariance might be used to construct efficient a posteriori error indicators for adaptive mesh refinement.
  • The method could be combined with multigrid or other acceleration techniques to further improve efficiency on large-scale problems.

Load-bearing premise

The reformulation of the primal-dual optimality conditions must produce a nonlinear operator equation that possesses Newton-type differentiability.

What would settle it

Numerical computation of the discrete solutions on successively refined meshes for a problem with known exact solution, verifying that the number of Newton iterations remains bounded while the error decreases at a superlinear rate independent of the mesh size.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22728 by Alex Kaltenbach, S\"oren Bartels.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Residual decay of the prox-based semi-smooth Newton method (cf. Algorithm 3.1) for different choices of the regularization parameter ε = h β 7 with β ∈ {0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3}. Left: Strategy 1 combining Algorithm 3.4 with Algorithm 3.1; only the iterations of Algorithm 3.1 are displayed, with k0 ∈ N indicating the number of preceding iterations of Algorithm 3.4. Right: Strategy 2 using Algor… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Residual decay of the prox-based semi-smooth Newton method (cf. Algorithm 3.1) for different choices of the proximity parameter γ = 2ℓ with ℓ ∈ {−2, −1, 0, 1, . . . , 9}. For Strategy 1, only the iterations of Algorithm 3.1 are displayed, with k0 ∈ N indicating the number of preceding iterations of Algorithm 3.4, which is identical for all ℓ ∈ {−2, −1, 0, 1, . . . , 9}. While γ = 1 does not always yield th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Residual decay (in terms of η 2 gap,h(u k h , zk h ), k ∈ N0, cf. (3.26c)) of the prox-based semi￾smooth Newton method (cf. Algorithm 3.1) and the primal semi-smooth Newton method (cf. Algo￾rithm 4.2) for the sequence of triangulations {Thi }i=0,...,7 and regularization parameters ε∈ {h, h2}. The results indicate that the convergence basin of the prox-based semi-smooth Newton method (cf. Algorithm 3.1) is … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Locally refined triangulations Ti , i ∈ {0, 2, 4, 6}, obtained by red-green-blue refinement by marking all triangles intersecting the discontinuity set Ju = ∂B2 r (0) (marked in yellow; the inter￾face is marked in red). The plot on the right shows the grading exponents βi , i = 0, . . . , 15, (blue). The observed convergence βi ↗ 2 (i → ∞) confirms asymptotically quadratic grading. Given the experimentally… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Residual decay of the prox-based semi-smooth Newton method (cf. Algorithm 3.1) un￾der mesh-refinement for the modified Strategies 1∗ and 2∗ , using the same initial iterate generated via Algorithm 3.4. Strategy 2∗ uses Armijo backtracking line search, whereas Strategy 1∗ does not. Strategy 2∗ appears more robust, although iteration counts also increase under mesh-refinement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this paper, we devise a $\operatorname{prox}$-based semi-smooth Newton method for the non-differentiable TV-minimization problem. To this end, the primal-dual optimality conditions are reformulated as a nonlinear operator equation with Newton-(type-)differentiable structure. We investigate the question of well-posedness of the resulting semi-smooth Newton scheme in the infinite-dimensional setting and identify structural properties of the associated Newton-type derivatives. For a conforming finite element discretization, we prove that the resulting semi-smooth Newton method is globally well-posed and locally super-linearly convergent. The approach extends to a large class of convex minimization problems, coincides with established semi-smooth Newton methods for obstacle problems, satisfies a primal-dual invariance, and, under suitable additional assumptions, is well-posed in the infinite-dimensional setting. Numerical experiments indicate a robust practical performance of the proposed method, including reliable reduction of the discrete primal-dual gap estimator to machine precision, robustness with respect to the choice of proximity parameters, an improved convergence basin compared to a canonical primal semi-smooth Newton method, and effective performance even for quadratically graded meshes using only a mesh-independent initialization criterion.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a prox-based semi-smooth Newton method for total variation (TV) minimization. Primal-dual optimality conditions are reformulated as a nonlinear operator equation with Newton-type differentiable structure. Well-posedness is analyzed in infinite dimensions with structural properties of the Newton-type derivatives identified. For conforming finite element discretizations, global well-posedness and local superlinear convergence of the semi-smooth Newton scheme are proved. The approach extends to a broad class of convex minimization problems, coincides with known methods for obstacle problems, satisfies primal-dual invariance, and numerical experiments demonstrate robust performance including reliable primal-dual gap reduction to machine precision, robustness to proximity parameters, and improved convergence basin relative to a primal semi-smooth Newton method.

Significance. If the global well-posedness and convergence results hold, the work supplies a theoretically supported solver for TV-minimization with guaranteed iteration existence from arbitrary initial data and local superlinear rates, extending prior semi-smooth Newton schemes while offering practical robustness on graded meshes. The identification of structural properties of the prox-based derivatives and the primal-dual invariance are notable strengths that could benefit variational imaging and related optimization tasks.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5] §5 (Discrete well-posedness and convergence): The proof that the semi-smooth Newton iteration is globally well-posed (i.e., the Newton step exists at every iterate for arbitrary initial data) requires uniform invertibility (or a merit-function guarantee) of the generalized derivative at all generated points. The structural properties derived for the Jacobian of the proximal mapping of the dual ball constraint do not explicitly exclude singularity when discrete gradients align with the boundary of the constraint set or for certain proximity-parameter values; this must be addressed to support the global existence claim independent of mesh size and initialization.
  2. [§4.2] §4.2 (Infinite-dimensional analysis): The well-posedness investigation identifies Newton-type differentiability but leaves open whether the generalized derivatives satisfy the conditions for global existence of the iteration in the continuous setting; the 'suitable additional assumptions' mentioned for infinite-dimensional well-posedness need to be stated explicitly and verified to be non-vacuous for the TV case.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the method 'coincides with established semi-smooth Newton methods for obstacle problems'; a brief remark or reference to the precise coincidence (e.g., via choice of prox) would clarify the connection.
  2. [Numerical experiments] Numerical section: The reported robustness with respect to proximity parameters is supported by experiments, but quantitative bounds or sensitivity plots would strengthen the claim that performance remains reliable across a wide range of parameter choices.
  3. [§3] Notation: The definition of the Newton-type derivative (likely in §3) uses a generalized Jacobian; ensuring consistent notation between the continuous and discrete settings would aid readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below, indicating the revisions we plan to incorporate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§5] §5 (Discrete well-posedness and convergence): The proof that the semi-smooth Newton iteration is globally well-posed (i.e., the Newton step exists at every iterate for arbitrary initial data) requires uniform invertibility (or a merit-function guarantee) of the generalized derivative at all generated points. The structural properties derived for the Jacobian of the proximal mapping of the dual ball constraint do not explicitly exclude singularity when discrete gradients align with the boundary of the constraint set or for certain proximity-parameter values; this must be addressed to support the global existence claim independent of mesh size and initialization.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for greater explicitness in the invertibility argument. The structural properties of the proximal mapping Jacobian, including its monotonicity and the positive contribution from the regularization term on the active set, do ensure nonsingularity even when discrete gradients align with the boundary or for admissible proximity parameters. To make this fully rigorous and independent of mesh size and initialization, we will revise §5 by adding a dedicated lemma with case analysis for boundary alignment scenarios. This will strengthen the global well-posedness proof without altering the main claims. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (Infinite-dimensional analysis): The well-posedness investigation identifies Newton-type differentiability but leaves open whether the generalized derivatives satisfy the conditions for global existence of the iteration in the continuous setting; the 'suitable additional assumptions' mentioned for infinite-dimensional well-posedness need to be stated explicitly and verified to be non-vacuous for the TV case.

    Authors: We agree that the suitable additional assumptions for infinite-dimensional well-posedness should be stated explicitly. In the revision of §4.2, we will list them clearly (e.g., a positive lower bound on the proximity parameter and suitable integrability of the data) and verify that they are non-vacuous for the TV-minimization problem by confirming they hold under the standard assumptions on the domain and forcing term used throughout the paper and in the numerical section. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: convergence claims follow from structural analysis of Newton derivatives under standard semismooth theory

full rationale

The derivation begins with a reformulation of primal-dual optimality conditions into a nonlinear operator equation possessing Newton-type differentiability. Structural properties of the associated generalized derivatives are identified, after which standard semismooth Newton convergence results are applied to establish global well-posedness and local superlinear convergence for the conforming finite-element discretization. These steps rely on the explicit form of the proximal mapping Jacobian for the dual ball and on mesh-independent initialization, without reducing the well-posedness statement to a self-definition, a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation whose content is itself unverified. The reported coincidence with established obstacle-problem schemes and the extension to broader convex problems supply independent content. No equation or theorem in the chain equates the target result to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the existence of a Newton-type differentiable structure after prox reformulation and on standard properties of proximity operators for convex functionals; no explicit free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Primal-dual optimality conditions admit a reformulation as a nonlinear operator equation with Newton-(type-)differentiable structure.
    Invoked to enable the semi-smooth Newton scheme in both infinite and discrete settings.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5749 in / 1188 out tokens · 28363 ms · 2026-05-22T03:08:25.665669+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H. Antil,S. Bartels,A. Kaltenbach, andR. Khandelwal, Variational problems with gradient constraints: A priori and a posteriori error identities,Math. Comput.(2025). doi:10.1090/mcom/4146

    work page doi:10.1090/mcom/4146 2025

  2. [2]

    Attouch,G

    H. Attouch,G. Buttazzo, andG. Michaille,Variational analysis in Sobolev and BV spaces. Applications to PDEs and optimization, 2nd revised ed.,MOS-SIAM Ser. Optim.17, SIAM; MOS,

    work page

  3. [3]

    doi:10.1137/1.9781611973488

    work page doi:10.1137/1.9781611973488

  4. [4]

    AuslenderandM

    A. AuslenderandM. Teboulle, Interior gradient and proximal methods for convex and conic optimization,SIAM J. Optim.16no. 3 (2006), 697–725. doi:10.1137/S1052623403427823

    work page doi:10.1137/s1052623403427823 2006

  5. [5]

    Balay et al.,PETSc Users Manual, Tech

    S. Balay et al.,PETSc Users Manual, Tech. Report ANL-95/11 - Revision 3.6, Argonne National Laboratory, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    BartelsandA

    S. BartelsandA. Kaltenbach,A prox-Based Semi-Smooth Newton Method for Convex Varia- tional Problems, in preparation

    work page

  7. [7]

    BartelsandA

    S. BartelsandA. Kaltenbach, Explicit A Posteriori Error Representation for Variational Problems and Application to TV-Minimization,Found. Comput. Math.(2024). doi:10.1007/s10208- 024-09676-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10208- 2024

  8. [8]

    Bartels,Numerical methods for nonlinear partial differential equations,Springer Ser

    S. Bartels,Numerical methods for nonlinear partial differential equations,Springer Ser. Comput. Math.47, Cham: Springer, 2015. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13797-1 1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13797-1 2015

  9. [9]

    Bartels, Nonconforming discretizations of convex minimization problems and precise relations to mixed methods,Comput

    S. Bartels, Nonconforming discretizations of convex minimization problems and precise relations to mixed methods,Comput. Math. Appl.93(2021), 214–229. doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2021.04.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2021.04.014 2021

  10. [10]

    Bartels,L

    S. Bartels,L. Diening, andR. H. Nochetto, Unconditional stability of semi-implicit discretiza- tions of singular flows,SIAM J. Numer. Anal.56no. 3 (2018), 1896–1914. doi:10.1137/17M1159166

    work page doi:10.1137/17m1159166 2018

  11. [11]

    Bartels,T

    S. Bartels,T. Gudi, andA. Kaltenbach, A priori and a posteriori error identities for the scalar Signorini problem,SIAM J. Numer. Anal.63no. 5 (2025), 2155–2186. doi:10.1137/24M1677691

    work page doi:10.1137/24m1677691 2025

  12. [12]

    BartelsandA

    S. BartelsandA. Kaltenbach, Error estimates for total-variation regularized minimization problems with singular dual solutions,Numer. Math.152no. 4 (2022), 881–906. doi:10.1007/s00211- 022-01324-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s00211- 2022

  13. [13]

    BartelsandA

    S. BartelsandA. Kaltenbach, Explicit and efficient error estimation for convex minimization problems,Math. Comput.92no. 343 (2023), 2247–2279. doi:10.1090/mcom/3821

    work page doi:10.1090/mcom/3821 2023

  14. [14]

    Bartels,R

    S. Bartels,R. Tovey, andF. Wassmer, Singular solutions, graded meshes, and adaptivity for total-variation regularized minimization problems,ESAIM, Math. Model. Numer. Anal.56no. 6 (2022), 1871–1888. doi:10.1051/m2an/2022056

    work page doi:10.1051/m2an/2022056 2022

  15. [15]

    H. H. BauschkeandP. L. Combettes,Convex analysis and monotone operator theory in Hilbert spaces, 2nd ed.,CMS Books Math./Ouvrages Math. SMC, Cham: Springer, 2017. doi:10.1007/978-3- 319-48311-5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3- 2017

  16. [16]

    Beck.First-order methods in optimization

    A. Beck,First-order methods in optimization,MOS-SIAM Ser. Optim.25, SIAM; Philadelphia, MOS, 2017. doi:10.1137/1.9781611974997

    work page doi:10.1137/1.9781611974997 2017

  17. [17]

    BeckandM

    A. BeckandM. Teboulle, Fast gradient-based algorithms for constrained total variation image denoising and deblurring problems,IEEE Trans. Image Process.18no. 11 (2009), 2419–2434. doi:10.1109/TIP.2009.2028250

    work page doi:10.1109/tip.2009.2028250 2009

  18. [18]

    A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems,

    A. BeckandM. Teboulle, A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems,SIAM J. Imaging Sci.2no. 1 (2009), 183–202. doi:10.1137/080716542

    work page doi:10.1137/080716542 2009

  19. [19]

    Time Bounds for Selection

    Y. BoykovandV. Kolmogorov, An experimental comparison of min-cut/max-flow algorithms for energy minimization in vision, inEnergy Minimization Methods in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,Lecture Notes in Computer Science2134, Springer, 2001, pp. 359–374. doi:10.1007/3- 540-44745-8 24

    work page doi:10.1007/3- 2001

  20. [20]

    Brezis,Functional analysis, Sobolev spaces and partial differential equations,Universitext, New York, NY: Springer, 2011

    H. Brezis,Functional analysis, Sobolev spaces and partial differential equations,Universitext, New York, NY: Springer, 2011. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-70914-7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-70914-7 2011

  21. [21]

    Chambolle, An algorithm for total variation minimization and applications,J

    A. Chambolle, An algorithm for total variation minimization and applications,J. Math. Imaging Vis.20no. 1-2 (2004), 89–97. doi:10.1023/B:JMIV.0000011325.36760.1e

    work page doi:10.1023/b:jmiv.0000011325.36760.1e 2004

  22. [22]

    ChambolleandT

    A. ChambolleandT. Pock, A first-order primal-dual algorithm for convex problems with applications to imaging,J. Math. Imaging Vis.40no. 1 (2011), 120–145. doi:10.1007/s10851-010- 0251-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10851-010- 2011

  23. [23]

    ChambolleandT

    A. ChambolleandT. Pock, Crouzeix-raviart approximation of the total variation on simplicial meshes,J. Math. Imaging Vis.62no. 6-7 (2020), 872–899. doi:10.1007/s10851-019-00939-3. prox-based semi-smooth Newton method for TV-minimization21

    work page doi:10.1007/s10851-019-00939-3 2020

  24. [24]

    T. F. Chan,G. H. Golub, andP. Mulet, A nonlinear primal-dual method for to- tal variation-based image restoration,SIAM J. Sci. Comput.20no. 6 (1999), 1964–1977. doi:10.1137/S1064827596299767

    work page doi:10.1137/s1064827596299767 1999

  25. [25]

    T. F. Chan,H. M. Zhou, andR. H.-F. Chan, Continuation method for total variation denoising problems, inAdvanced Signal Processing Algorithms(F. T. Luk, ed.),2563, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 1995, pp. 314–325. doi:10.1117/12.211408

    work page doi:10.1117/12.211408 1995

  26. [26]

    X. Chen,Z. Nashed, andL. Qi, Smoothing methods and semismooth methods for nondifferentiable operator equations,SIAM J. Numer. Anal.38no. 4 (2000), 1200–1216. doi:10.1137/S0036142999356719

    work page doi:10.1137/s0036142999356719 2000

  27. [27]

    DarbonandM

    J. DarbonandM. Sigelle, A Fast and Exact Algorithm for Total Variation Minimization, in Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis(J. S. Marques,N. P ´erez de la Blanca, andP. Pina, eds.), Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005, pp. 351–359. doi:10.1007/11492429 43

    work page doi:10.1007/11492429 2005

  28. [28]

    DieningandJ

    L. DieningandJ. Storn, Guaranteed upper bounds for iteration errors and modified Kaˇ canov schemes via discrete duality,Comput. Methods Appl. Math.25no. 3 (2025), 587–600. doi:10.1515/cmam-2025-0017

    work page doi:10.1515/cmam-2025-0017 2025

  29. [29]

    D. C. DobsonandC. R. Vogel, Convergence of an iterative method for total variation denoising, SIAM J. Numer. Anal.34no. 5 (1997), 1779–1791. doi:10.1137/S003614299528701X

    work page doi:10.1137/s003614299528701x 1997

  30. [30]

    EkelandandR

    I. EkelandandR. T ´emam,Convex analysis and variational problems,Class. Appl. Math.28, SIAM, 1999. doi:10.1137/1.9781611971088

    work page doi:10.1137/1.9781611971088 1999

  31. [31]

    GilbargandN

    D. GilbargandN. S. Trudinger,Elliptic partial differential equations of second order, reprint of the 1998 ed.,Class. Math., Berlin: Springer, 2001

    work page 1998

  32. [32]

    GoldfarbandW

    D. GoldfarbandW. Yin, Second-order cone programming methods for total variation-based image restoration,SIAM J. Sci. Comput.27no. 2 (2005), 622–645 (English). doi:10.1137/040608982

    work page doi:10.1137/040608982 2005

  33. [33]

    GoldsteinandS

    T. GoldsteinandS. Osher, The split Bregman method for ℓ1-regularized problems,SIAM J. Imaging Sci.2no. 2 (2009), 323–343 (English). doi:10.1137/080725891

    work page doi:10.1137/080725891 2009

  34. [34]

    GriesseandD

    R. GriesseandD. A. Lorenz, A semismooth Newton method for Tikhonov functionals with sparsity constraints,Inverse Probl.24no. 3 (2008), 19, Id/No 035007. doi:10.1088/0266-5611/24/3/035007

    work page doi:10.1088/0266-5611/24/3/035007 2008

  35. [35]

    Gr¨oger, A W 1,p-estimate for solutions to mixed boundary value problems for second order elliptic differential equations,Math

    K. Gr¨oger, A W 1,p-estimate for solutions to mixed boundary value problems for second order elliptic differential equations,Math. Ann.283no. 4 (1989), 679–687. doi:10.1007/BF01442860

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01442860 1989

  36. [36]

    Hinterm¨uller,K

    M. Hinterm¨uller,K. Ito, andK. Kunisch, The primal-dual active set strategy as a semismooth Newton method,SIAM J. Optim.13no. 3 (2003), 865–888. doi:10.1137/S1052623401383558

    work page doi:10.1137/s1052623401383558 2003

  37. [37]

    Hinterm ¨ullerandK

    M. Hinterm ¨ullerandK. Kunisch, Total bounded variation regularization as a bilater- ally constrained optimization problem,SIAM J. Appl. Math.64no. 4 (2004), 1311–1333. doi:10.1137/S0036139903422784

    work page doi:10.1137/s0036139903422784 2004

  38. [38]

    Hinterm ¨ullerandG

    M. Hinterm ¨ullerandG. Stadler, An infeasible primal-dual algorithm for total bounded variation–based Inf-convolution-type image restoration,SIAM J. Sci. Comput.28no. 1 (2006), 1–23. doi:10.1137/040613263

    work page doi:10.1137/040613263 2006

  39. [39]

    P. J. Huber, Robust estimation of a location parameter,Ann. Math. Stat.35(1964), 73–101. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177703732

    work page doi:10.1214/aoms/1177703732 1964

  40. [40]

    J. D. Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment,Computing in Science & Engineering9 no. 3 (2007), 90–95. doi:10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  41. [41]

    KaltenbachandT

    A. KaltenbachandT. Schreiber,Learning Proximity-Certified Warmstarts for TV-minimization, in preparation

    work page

  42. [42]

    Logg,K.-A

    A. Logg,K.-A. Mardal, andG. Wells(eds.),Automated solution of differential equations by the finite element method. The FEniCS book,Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. Eng.84, Berlin: Springer,

    work page

  43. [43]

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23099-8. [42]A. MarquinaandS. Osher, Explicit algorithms for a new time dependent model based on level set motion for nonlinear deblurring and noise removal,SIAM J. Sci. Comput.22no. 2 (2000), 387–405. doi:10.1137/S1064827599351751

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23099-8 2000

  44. [44]

    M. K. Ng,L. Qi,Y.-f. Yang, andY.-m. Huang, On semismooth Newton’s methods for total variation minimization,J. Math. Imaging Vis.27no. 3 (2007), 265–276. doi:10.1007/s10851-007- 0650-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10851-007- 2007

  45. [45]

    Rademacher, ¨Uber partielle und totale Differenzierbarkeit von Funktionen mehrerer Vari- ablen und ¨ uber die Transformation der Doppelintegrale

    H. Rademacher, ¨Uber partielle und totale Differenzierbarkeit von Funktionen mehrerer Vari- ablen und ¨ uber die Transformation der Doppelintegrale. I, II.,Math. Ann.79(1920), 340–359. doi:10.1007/BF01498415

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01498415 1920

  46. [46]

    L. I. Rudin,S. Osher, andE. Fatemi, Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms, Physica D60no. 1-4 (1992), 259–268. doi:10.1016/0167-2789(92)90242-F. S. Bartels and A. Kaltenbach22

    work page doi:10.1016/0167-2789(92)90242-f 1992

  47. [47]

    Souiai,Newton Methods for Total Variation Minimization, Master’s thesis, Rheinische Friedrich- Wilhelms-Universit¨ at Bonn, 2010

    M. Souiai,Newton Methods for Total Variation Minimization, Master’s thesis, Rheinische Friedrich- Wilhelms-Universit¨ at Bonn, 2010

    work page 2010

  48. [48]

    X.-C. Tai,R. Winther,X. Zhang, andW. Zheng, A uniform preconditioner for a Newton algorithm for total variation minimization and minimum-surface problems,SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 61no. 5 (2023), 2062–2083. doi:10.1137/22M1512776

    work page doi:10.1137/22m1512776 2023

  49. [49]

    Ulbrich, Semismooth Newton methods for operator equations in function spaces,SIAM J

    M. Ulbrich, Semismooth Newton methods for operator equations in function spaces,SIAM J. Optim.13no. 3 (2003), 805–841. doi:10.1137/S1052623400371569

    work page doi:10.1137/s1052623400371569 2003

  50. [50]

    C. R. VogelandM. E. Oman, Iterative methods for total variation denoising,SIAM J. Sci. Comput.17no. 1 (1996), 227–238. doi:10.1137/0917016

    work page doi:10.1137/0917016 1996

  51. [51]

    WuandX.-C

    C. WuandX.-C. Tai, Augmented Lagrangian method, dual methods, and split Bregman iteration for ROF, vectorial TV, and high order models,SIAM J. Imaging Sci.3no. 3 (2010), 300–339. doi:10.1137/090767558

    work page doi:10.1137/090767558 2010

  52. [52]

    Zeidler,Nonlinear functional analysis and its applications

    E. Zeidler,Nonlinear functional analysis and its applications. II/B: Nonlinear monotone operators. Transl. from the German by the author and by Leo F. Boron, New York etc.: Springer-Verlag, 1990

    work page 1990

  53. [53]

    M. ZhuandT. F. Chan,An Efficient Primal–Dual Hybrid Gradient Algorithm for Total Variation Image Restoration, CAM Report 08-34, UCLA, Department of Mathematics, 2008. Appendix In this appendix, we provide the proof of Theorem 3.6(3.26). Proof (of Theorem 3.6(3.26)). ad (3.26a).For every vh ∈V h, using the binomial formula and the discrete convex optimalit...

    work page 2008