Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 70 references

Closed-Form Approximation of the Total Variation Proximal Operator

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Closed-form operator $S_\tau$ is proved to be a quantitatively controlled approximation of the total-variation proximal operator, the proximal map of some convex function, and one gradient step on a Huber-smoothed TV.

desk verdict The real contribution is the explicit error bounds for a known closed-form TV-prox substitute, but the paper's 'always decreases TV' claim is not proven and should be softened. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07718 v2 pith:GSRIT45Y submitted 2024-12-10 eess.IV

Edward P. Chandler , Shirin Shoushtari , Brendt Wohlberg , Ulugbek S. Kamilov This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IV MSC 90C2565K0568U1094A08
keywords totalvariationproximaloperatorclosed-formapproximationHubersmoothingimagereconstructioncomputedtomographyconvexoptimizationalgorithms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Total variation (TV) regularization encourages piecewise-constant solutions to imaging inverse problems, but its proximal operator, the routine that iterative solvers call repeatedly, has no closed form and normally requires internal iterations. This paper takes a previously proposed closed-form operator $S_\tau$ and proves that it is the proximal operator of some convex function, that it is exactly one gradient-descent step on a Huber-smoothed version of TV, and that it is an approximate TV proximal operator whose error can be bounded and driven to zero by shrinking $\tau$. The same operator is tested inside accelerated proximal gradient and alternating-direction-multiplier algorithms on image denoising and limited-angle computed tomography. If the proofs are correct, TV-regularized imaging can be accelerated by replacing the iterative proximal step with a single closed-form operation whose accuracy is set by one scalar.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the operator $S_\tau(z)=W^T T_{\tau 2\sqrt d}(Wz)$, a shrink-then-project map: the linear map $W=\frac{1}{2\sqrt d}\begin{bmatrix}M\\D\end{bmatrix}$ stacks averaging and finite-difference operators so that $W^TW=I$, soft-thresholding $T_{\tau 2\sqrt d}$ acts componentwise for anisotropic TV and per-pixel group for isotropic TV, and $W^T$ returns the result to image space. The proofs work by recognizing $S_\tau$ as the composition of the proximal map of the scaled analysis norm $\bar h(u)=2\sqrt d\,\|u^{\mathrm{dif}}\|_{p,1}$ with the projection $WW^T$ onto the subspace generated by $W$, then bounding the projection distortion $\beta=WW^TT_{\tau 2\sqrt d}(Wz)-T_{\tau 2\sqrt d}(Wz)$. The same construction makes $S_\tau$ exactly a $\tau$-step of gradient descent on the Huber-smoothed TV function, because soft-thresholding equals subtracting the gradient of a Huber penalty.

What would settle it

Take a small random image $z$, compute the exact TV proximal operator $\mathrm{prox}_{\tau h}(z)$ by an iterative method, and compare it with $S_\tau(z)$ over a range of $\tau$: if $\|S_\tau(z)-\mathrm{prox}_{\tau h}(z)\|_2>\tau(4d\sqrt n)$ for any $z$ and $\tau$, or if the $\epsilon$-subdifferential inclusion in Proposition 3(b) fails, the main theorem is false. A second check targets the transfer assumption: run an accelerated proximal gradient method on a denoising problem at fixed $\tau$ while increasing image size $n$; if the distance from the final iterate to the exact TV solution grows with $n$ rather than tracking the operator error, the algorithmic premise is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the closed-form operator $S_\tau(z)=W^T T_{\tau 2\sqrt d}(Wz)$, where $W$ is a normalized union of averaging and difference operators with $W^TW=I$ and $T$ applies soft-thresholding with parameter $\tau 2\sqrt d$, is a quantitatively controllable approximation of the exact TV proximal operator. Proposition 3 states that for every $z$, $S_\tau(z)=\mathrm{prox}_{\tau h}(z+\delta)$ with $\|\delta\|_2\le \tau\epsilon_1$ and $z-S_\tau(z)\in\tau\partial_{\tau\epsilon_2}h(S_\tau(z))$, where $\epsilon_1=4d\sqrt n$ and $\epsilon_2=4nd^2$, for both anisotropic and isotropic TV. Proposition 2 shows the same operator equals one gradient-descent step on a Huber-smoothed TV function with step size $\tau$, and Proposition 1 establishes that a proper, closed, convex function $\hat h$ exists whose proximal operator is $S_\tau$, even though $\hat h$ is not given in closed form. Together these results make the approximation error shrink to zero as $\tau\to 0$ and underpin the use of $S_\tau$ inside proximal algorithms.

Load-bearing premise

The argument's load-bearing assumption is that a proximal step that is close to the exact TV one, with error bounds that grow with image size, will still yield final reconstructions close to the true TV solution when used inside an iterative solver; the paper proves the step-level closeness and tests the transfer only numerically.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TV-regularized denoising and CT reconstruction can skip the inner proximal iterations: replace $\mathrm{prox}_{\tau h}$ with $S_\tau$ and control accuracy through the step size or penalty parameter $\gamma$, since $\tau=\gamma\lambda$.
  • Smaller $\tau$ drives the approximation toward the exact TV proximal operator, giving one operator a continuum from fast rough reconstructions to near-exact ones.
  • Because $S_\tau$ is itself the proximal operator of some convex function, proximal algorithms that use it retain convergence guarantees even though the underlying function is not TV itself.
  • The equivalence to a single gradient step on Huber-smoothed TV connects the operator to smooth optimization theory; the gradient's Lipschitz constant is $1/\tau$, so the chosen step size sits at the boundary of the safe range.
  • The experiments show the practical payoff: in the tested APGM CT settings, the closed-form operator reaches the exact TV reconstruction quality while replacing 50 FPG sub-iterations per outer step with one closed-form evaluation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The error constants $\epsilon_1=4d\sqrt n$ and $\epsilon_2=4nd^2$ grow with image size, so for a fixed $\tau$ the operator-level guarantee weakens as images get larger; keeping a uniform absolute error would require shrinking $\tau$ with $n$, a consequence the paper does not develop.
  • Since $S_\tau$ is a proximal operator of an unknown convex function, one cannot read off which regularizer is actually minimized; one could estimate $\hat h$ numerically from its Moreau envelope and compare it with TV, a test the paper does not run.
  • The proof strategy of shrinking coefficients in an analysis frame and bounding the projection error looks transferable to other analysis-sparsity regularizers whose analysis operator satisfies $W^TW=I$, with dimension-dependent constants appearing in the same way.
  • The Introduction and Conclusion assert that $S_\tau$ always decreases the TV function, while the appendix proves the decrease only for the smoothed Huber version; checking whether $h(S_\tau(z))\le h(z)$ fails on some inputs would settle this asserted monotonicity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the closed-form operator Sτ(z) = W^T T_{τ2√d}(Wz), previously proposed as an approximation of the total-variation proximal operator, and provides three theoretical results: Proposition 1 shows that Sτ is the proximal operator of some proper closed convex function; Proposition 2 identifies Sτ as one gradient descent step on a Huber-smoothed version of TV; Proposition 3 gives quantitative approximate-proximal bounds, namely Sτ(z) = prox_{τh}(z+δ) with ||δ||₂ ≤ τ ε1 and z − Sτ(z) ∈ τ ∂_{τ ε2} h(Sτ(z)), with explicit constants ε1 = 4d√n and ε2 = 4nd² for both anisotropic and isotropic TV. The authors then validate the operator numerically by embedding it in APGM and ADMM for image denoising and limited-angle CT reconstruction, comparing against the exact TV proximal computed by FPG.

Significance. If the theoretical results stand, the paper provides a useful quantitative justification for a computationally cheap O(nd) TV-proximal approximation, with explicit error constants that can be driven to zero by reducing the proximal scaling parameter. The proofs in the appendix are largely self-contained, cover both anisotropic and isotropic TV, and connect the operator to the Huber smoothing and to standard notions of inexact proximal operators. The numerical validation is appropriate in scope, comparing against an external benchmark (FPG-based exact TV proximal). The main weakness is that one of the paper's stated contributions, the claim that Sτ always decreases the TV function, is not proven and is not a corollary of the presented results; this overstatement appears in the Introduction and Conclusion but does not invalidate the operator-level bounds in Propositions 1–3.

major comments (1)
  1. [§1, §5] The claim that Sτ 'always decreases the TV function' is stated as a contribution in the Introduction and repeated in the Conclusion ('we demonstrated that the operator consistently reduces the TV function'), but it is not proven anywhere. Proposition 2 establishes Sτ(z) = z − τ∇h̃(z), where h̃ is the Huber-smoothed TV, so the standard descent argument applies only to h̃, not to h itself. The closest consequence derivable from Proposition 3(b) is, after setting y = z, h(Sτ(z)) ≤ h(z) − (1/τ)||z − Sτ(z)||² + τ4nd², which still permits an O(τ) increase. The authors should either prove the TV-descent claim or remove it from the list of contributions and from the Conclusion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Proposition 3] The proposition statement lists only parts (a) and (b), but the discussion immediately after it refers to 'Proposition 3(b)' and 'Proposition 3(c)'; the proof also ends Part (a) with 'this establishes the desired result of part (b)' and Part (b) with 'Part (c)'. The labels should be made consistent.
  2. [§6, Proof of Proposition 2] In the isotropic part of the proof, the operator is written as Sτ(z) = z − τD^T∇ϕ_{τ4d}(Dz), but the function being differentiated is ψ from Eq. (12), not ϕ; this should be corrected to ∇ψ_{τ4d}.
  3. [§4] The 'exact' TV proximal operator is computed with 50 iterations of FPG, but the manuscript does not report the tolerance achieved by these sub-iterations; since the reference solution may itself be inexact, a brief statement of the resulting accuracy is needed to interpret the small relative errors in Table 1.
  4. [§4.3] The statement that Proposition 1 guarantees convergence of proximal-based algorithms should be qualified: convergence is to a minimizer of the implied convex function bh, not necessarily to a solution of the TV-regularized problem. The closeness of the final iterates to the exact TV solution is supported only empirically, and the Conclusion should not imply a theoretical solution-level guarantee.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central Propositions are proved from independent convex-analysis facts, and the numerical validation is benchmarked externally against FPG; the unsupported TV-descent claim is an overstatement, not a circular step.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is self-contained. Proposition 3's statement that Sτ(z) = prox_{τh}(z+δ) with ||δ||₂ ≤ τϵ₁ and z − Sτ(z) ∈ τ∂_{τϵ₂}h(Sτ(z)) is proved directly in the appendix from soft-thresholding properties, the spectral norm of W, and Moreau/Rockafellar subdifferential facts; it is not assumed or fitted. Proposition 1 is proved via Moreau's Corollary 10.c and direct nonexpansiveness, and Proposition 2 is an explicit algebraic identification of Sτ with a gradient step on a Huber-smoothed TV. The numerical experiments compare against the exact TV proximal operator computed by FPG, an external benchmark, and the τ-dependence of the reported errors is a theoretical prediction rather than a fitted parameter. The operator definition is inherited from the same group's earlier works [7–10], but the present theoretical analysis does not rely on those works as black boxes: all three propositions are argued with proofs included here. Hence the self-citation is descriptive and not load-bearing. One asserted contribution is unsupported: the Introduction claims Sτ 'always decreases the TV function,' and the Conclusion repeats 'we demonstrated that the operator consistently reduces the TV function,' but Proposition 2 proves descent only for the Huber-smoothed h̃, and Proposition 3(b) contains a positive slack τ4nd². This is an overclaim and a correctness risk, not a circularity, because it is not an input to the derivation. Overall circularity is minimal; the central results stand on independent mathematical reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's theoretical results rest on standard convex analysis (Moreau's prox characterization, subdifferential calculus, spectral bounds for finite-difference operators) and on the structural property that the analysis operator W is a tight frame with W^T W = I. No parameters are fitted to data: tau, lambda, and gamma are algorithm hyperparameters, and the error constants epsilon1 and epsilon2 are derived analytical bounds. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Moreau's characterization: a nonexpansive subgradient mapping is a proximal operator (Corollary 10.c in [62]).
    Used in the Proof of Proposition 1 to conclude that Sτ is a proximal operator of some convex function.
  • standard math Subdifferential chain rule: ∂(f∘W)(z) = W^T ∂f(Wz) for the linear map W and convex f.
    Used in the Proofs of Propositions 1 and 3 to relate subdifferentials in the transformed coordinates; no constraint qualification is discussed.
  • domain assumption The spectral norm of the finite difference operator D is bounded by 2√d under periodic boundary conditions.
    Used to compute the Lipschitz constant 1/τ of the smoothed TV gradient and to bound subgradient norms in Lemma 1; it is exact for even n in 1D and an upper bound otherwise.
  • standard math The Haar analysis operator W satisfies W^T W = I, i.e., it is a tight frame.
    Structural property of the scaled averaging and difference operators, asserted in Section 3.1 and used throughout the proofs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Closed-Form Approximation of the Total Variation Proximal Operator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GSRIT45Y

@misc{pith2026241207718,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Closed-Form Approximation of the Total Variation Proximal Operator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GSRIT45Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07718}
}
read the original abstract

Total variation (TV) is a widely used function for regularizing imaging inverse problems that is particularly appropriate for images whose underlying structure is piecewise constant. TV regularized optimization problems are typically solved using proximal methods, but the way in which they are applied is constrained by the absence of a closed-form expression for the proximal operator of the TV function. A closed-form approximation of the TV proximal operator has previously been proposed, but its accuracy was not theoretically explored in detail. We address this gap by making several new theoretical contributions, proving that the approximation leads to a proximal operator of some convex function, it is equivalent to a gradient descent step on a smoothed version of TV, and that its error can be fully characterized and controlled with its scaling parameter. We experimentally validate our theoretical results on image denoising and sparse-view computed tomography (CT) image reconstruction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07718 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Effect of τ on image denoising performance when using Sτ (z) in APGM compared to the exact TV reconstruction with regularization λ = 0.5. As written in Algorithm 1, τ = γλ, where γ is the step-size. The top-left shows the relative cost of the approximate TV reconstruction to the exact TV reconstruction. The PSNR and difference images are relative to the exact TV reconstruction. Following Proposition 3, a smaller τ r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effect of τ on the approximate reconstruction performance fb using the Sτ (z) relative to the exact TV reconstruction f ∗ . Sτ (z) is tested within the APGM and ADMM algorithms. For image denoising λ = 0.5 and for CT reconstruction λ = 5. In both cases, as written in Algorithms 1 and 2, τ = γλ, where γ is the step-size in APGM and the penalty parameter in ADMM. As expected from Proposition 3, the smaller the τ , the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effect of τ on limited angle Computed Tomography (CT) reconstruction using Sτ (z) in APGM compared to the exact TV reconstruction with regularization λ = 5. As written in Algorithm 1, τ = γλ, where γ is the step-size. The top-left shows relative cost of the approximate reconstruction to the exact reconstruction. The PSNR and difference images are relative to the exact reconstruction. Following Proposition 3, a small… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of τ on limited angle Computed Tomography (CT) reconstruction using Sτ (z) in ADMM compared to exact reconstruction with regularization λ = 5. As written in Algorithm 2, τ = γλ, where γ is the penalty parameter. The top-left shows relative cost of the approximat…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A visual illustration of the characterization of the projection as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms,

    L. I. Rudin, S. Osher, and E. Fatemi, “Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms,”Physica D, vol. 60, no. 1–4, pp. 259–268, Nov. 1992

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    Proximal algorithms,

    Neal Parikh and Stephen Boyd, “Proximal algorithms,”Foundations and Trends in Optimization, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 127—-239, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

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

    A. Beck and M. Teboulle, “A fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems,” SIAM J. Imag. Sciences, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 183–202, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers,

    S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato, and J. Eckstein, “Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers,”Found. and Trends in Mach. Learn., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–122, Jul. 2011. 17

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Fast gradient-based algorithm for constrained total variation image denoising and deblurring problems,

    A. Beck and M. Teboulle, “Fast gradient-based algorithm for constrained total variation image denoising and deblurring problems,”IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 2419–2434, Nov. 2009

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    The split Bregman method for l1-regularized problems,

    Tom Goldstein and Stanley Osher, “The split Bregman method for l1-regularized problems,”SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 323–343, 2009

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Variational justification of cycle spinning for wavelet-based solutions of inverse problems,

    U. S. Kamilov, E. Bostan, and M. Unser, “Variational justification of cycle spinning for wavelet-based solutions of inverse problems,”IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 1326–1330, Nov. 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Parallel proximal methods for total variation minimization,

    U. S. Kamilov, “Parallel proximal methods for total variation minimization,” inIEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech Signal Process., Shanghai, China, Mar. 19-25, 2016, pp. 4697–4701

    work page 2016

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    A parallel proximal algorithm for anisotropic total variation minimization,

    U. S. Kamilov, “A parallel proximal algorithm for anisotropic total variation minimization,”IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 539–548, Feb. 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Minimizing isotropic total variation without subiterations,

    U. S. Kamilov, “Minimizing isotropic total variation without subiterations,” inProc. 3rd Int. Travel. Workshop Interac. between Sparse models and Tech., Aalborg, Denmark, Aug. 24-26, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Better approximation and faster algorithm using the proximal average,

    Y.-L. Yu, “Better approximation and faster algorithm using the proximal average,” inProc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26, Lake Tahoe, CA, USA, December 5-10, 2013, pp. 458–466

    2013

  4. [12]

    Reconstruction in diffraction ultrasound tomography using nonuniform FFT,

    M. M. Bronstein, A. M. Bronstein, M. Zibulevsky, and H. Azhari, “Reconstruction in diffraction ultrasound tomography using nonuniform FFT,”IEEE Trans. Med. Imag., vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 1395–1401, Nov. 2002

    2002

  5. [13]

    Fast image recovery using variable splitting and constrained optimization,

    M. V. Afonso, J. M.Bioucas-Dias, and M. A. T. Figueiredo, “Fast image recovery using variable splitting and constrained optimization,”IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 2345–2356, Sep. 2010

    2010

  6. [14]

    Robust uncertainty principles: Exact signal reconstruction from highly incomplete frequency information,

    E. J. Candès, J. Romberg, and T. Tao, “Robust uncertainty principles: Exact signal reconstruction from highly incomplete frequency information,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 489–509, Feb. 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    Sparse MRI: The application of compressed sensing for rapid MR imaging,

    M. Lustig, D. L. Donoho, and J. M. Pauly, “Sparse MRI: The application of compressed sensing for rapid MR imaging,”Magn. Reson. Med., vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 1182–1195, Dec. 2007

    2007

  8. [16]

    Total variation denoising using posterior expectation,

    C. Louchet and L. Moisan, “Total variation denoising using posterior expectation,” inEur. Signal Process. Conf, Lausanne, Switzerland, Aug. 25-29, 2008

    2008

  9. [17]

    Adaptive total variation image deblurring: A majorization-minimization approach,

    J. P. Oliveira, J. M. Bioucas-Dias, and M. A. T. Figueiredo, “Adaptive total variation image deblurring: A majorization-minimization approach,”Signal Process., vol. 89, no. 9, pp. 1683–1693, Sep. 2009

    2009

  10. [18]

    A learning approach to optical tomography,

    U. S. Kamilov, I. N. Papadopoulos, M. H. Shoreh, A. Goy, C. Vonesch, M. Unser, and D. Psaltis, “A learning approach to optical tomography,” inFront. in Opt. 2015. 2015, p. LW3I.1, Optical Society of America

    2015

  11. [19]

    Sparse view CT image reconstruction based on total variation and wavelet frame regularization,

    Zhaoyan Qu, Ximing Yan, Jinxiao Pan, and Ping Chen, “Sparse view CT image reconstruction based on total variation and wavelet frame regularization,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 57400–57413, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Image restoration using total variation regularized deep image prior,

    J. Liu, Y. Sun, X. Xu, and U. S. Kamilov, “Image restoration using total variation regularized deep image prior,” inIEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech Signal Process., May 2019, pp. 7715–7719

    2019

  13. [21]

    Image denoising based on nonconvex anisotropic total-variation regularization,

    Juncheng Guo and Qinghua Chen, “Image denoising based on nonconvex anisotropic total-variation regularization,” Signal Process., vol. 186, pp. 108124, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Hyperspectral image restoration via spatial-spectral residual total variation regularized low-rank tensor decomposition,

    Xiangyang Kong, Yongqiang Zhao, Jonathan Cheung-Wai Chan, and Jize Xue, “Hyperspectral image restoration via spatial-spectral residual total variation regularized low-rank tensor decomposition,” Remote Sens., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 511, Jan. 2022. 18

    2022

  15. [23]

    Hyperspectral image restoration using weighted group sparsity-regularized low-rank tensor decomposition,

    Yong Chen, Wei He, Naoto Yokoya, and Ting-Zhu Huang, “Hyperspectral image restoration using weighted group sparsity-regularized low-rank tensor decomposition,”IEEE Trans. Cybernet., vol. 50, no. 8, pp. 3556–3570, Aug. 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Hyperspectral image restoration by hybrid spatio-spectral total variation,

    Saori Takeyama, Shunsuke Ono, and Itsuo Kumazawa, “Hyperspectral image restoration by hybrid spatio-spectral total variation,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech Signal Process., Mar. 2017, pp. 4586–4590

    2017

  17. [25]

    Efficient iterative regularization method for total variation-based image restoration,

    Ge Ma, Ziwei Yan, Zhifu Li, and Zhijia Zhao, “Efficient iterative regularization method for total variation-based image restoration,”Electronics, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 258, Jan. 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Edge-guided filtering based CT image denoising using fractional order total variation,

    Manoj Diwakar, Prabhishek Singh, and Deepak Garg, “Edge-guided filtering based CT image denoising using fractional order total variation,”Biomed. Signal Process. and Control, vol. 92, pp. 106072, Jun. 1, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    An introduction to continuous optimization for imaging,

    Antonin Chambolle and Thomas Pock, “An introduction to continuous optimization for imaging,”Acta Numerica, vol. 25, pp. 161–319, May 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    An image reconstruction method based on total variation and wavelet tight frame for limited-angle CT,

    Xiaoqiang Luo, Wei Yu, and Chengxiang Wang, “An image reconstruction method based on total variation and wavelet tight frame for limited-angle CT,”IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 1461–1470, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    High-Contrast Reflection Tomography With Total-Variation Constraints,

    Ajinkya Kadu, Hassan Mansour, and Petros T. Boufounos, “High-Contrast Reflection Tomography With Total-Variation Constraints,”IEEE Trans. Comput. Imag., vol. 6, pp. 1523–1536, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    A First-Order Primal-Dual Algorithm for Convex Problems with Applications to Imaging,

    Antonin Chambolle and Thomas Pock, “A First-Order Primal-Dual Algorithm for Convex Problems with Applications to Imaging,”Journal of Math. Imag. and Vision, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 120–145, May 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    A direct algorithm for 1-D total variation denoising,

    L. Condat, “A direct algorithm for 1-D total variation denoising,”IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 1054–1057, Nov. 2013

    2013

  24. [32]

    Mallat, A Wavelet Tool of Signal Processing: The Sparse Way, Academic Press, San Diego, 3rd edition, 2009

    S. Mallat, A Wavelet Tool of Signal Processing: The Sparse Way, Academic Press, San Diego, 3rd edition, 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    R. R. Coifman and D. L. Donoho,Springer Lecture Notes in Statistics, chapter Translation-invariant de-noising, pp. 125–150, Springer-Verlag, 1995

    1995

  26. [34]

    Wavelet denoising by recursive cycle spinning,

    A. K. Fletcher, K. Ramchandran, and V. K. Goyal, “Wavelet denoising by recursive cycle spinning,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Image Process. (ICIP’02), Rochester, NY, USA, Sep. 2002, pp. II.873–II.876

    2002

  27. [35]

    An EM algorithm for wavelet-based image restoration,

    M. A. T. Figueiredo and R. D. Nowak, “An EM algorithm for wavelet-based image restoration,”IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 906–916, Aug. 2003

    2003

  28. [36]

    A fast thresholded Landweber algorithm for wavelet-regularized multidimen- sional deconvolution,

    C. Vonesch and M. Unser, “A fast thresholded Landweber algorithm for wavelet-regularized multidimen- sional deconvolution,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 539–549, Apr. 2008

    2008

  29. [37]

    A fast multilevel algorithm for wavelet-regularized image restoration,

    C. Vonesch and M. Unser, “A fast multilevel algorithm for wavelet-regularized image restoration,”IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 509–523, Mar. 2009

    2009

  30. [38]

    A fast wavelet-based reconstruction method for magnetic resonance imaging,

    M. Guerquin-Kern, M. Häberlin, K. P. Prüssmann, and M. Unser, “A fast wavelet-based reconstruction method for magnetic resonance imaging,”IEEE Trans. Med. Imag., vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1649–1660, Sep. 2011

    2011

  31. [39]

    A hybrid regularizer combining orthonormal wavelets and finite differences for statistical reconstruction in 3-D CT,

    S. Ramani and J. A. Fessler, “A hybrid regularizer combining orthonormal wavelets and finite differences for statistical reconstruction in 3-D CT,” inProc. 2nd Intl. Mtg. Image Form. in X-ray CT, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2012, pp. 348–351

    2012

  32. [40]

    Wavelet shrinkage with consistent cycle spinning generalizes total variation denoising,

    U. S. Kamilov, E. Bostan, and M. Unser, “Wavelet shrinkage with consistent cycle spinning generalizes total variation denoising,”IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 187–190, Apr. 2012. 19

    2012

  33. [41]

    Model-based image reconstruction with wavelet sparsity regularization for through- plane resolution restoration in t2-weighted spin-echo prostate MRI,

    Eric A. Borisch, Adam T. Froemming, Roger C. Grimm, Akira Kawashima, Joshua D. Trzasko, and Stephen J. Riederer, “Model-based image reconstruction with wavelet sparsity regularization for through- plane resolution restoration in t2-weighted spin-echo prostate MRI,”Magn. Reson....

    2023

  34. [42]

    General phase regularized reconstruction using phase cycling,

    Frank Ong, Joseph Y. Cheng, and Michael Lustig, “General phase regularized reconstruction using phase cycling,” Magn. Reson. Med., vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 112–125, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Low-dose cone-beam computed tomography reconstruction through a fast three-dimensional compressed sensing method based on the three-dimensional pseudo-polar Fourier transform,

    N. Teyfouri, Hossein Rabbani, and I. Jabbari, “Low-dose cone-beam computed tomography reconstruction through a fast three-dimensional compressed sensing method based on the three-dimensional pseudo-polar Fourier transform,” J. Med. Signals and Sensors, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 8–24...

    2021

  36. [44]

    Monotone operators and the proximal point algorithm,

    R. T. Rockafellar, “Monotone operators and the proximal point algorithm,”SIAM J. Control and Optim. Sciences, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 877–898, 1976

    1976

  37. [45]

    New proximal point algorithms for convex minimization,

    Osman Güler, “New proximal point algorithms for convex minimization,”SIAM J. Optim, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 649–664, Nov. 1992

    1992

  38. [46]

    Stability of over-relaxations for the forward-backward algorithm, application to FISTA,

    J.-F. Aujol and Ch. Dossal, “Stability of over-relaxations for the forward-backward algorithm, application to FISTA,” SIAM J. Optim, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 2408–2433, Jan. 2015

    2015

  39. [47]

    Smooth optimization with approximate gradient,

    A. d’Aspremont, “Smooth optimization with approximate gradient,”SIAM J. Optim., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1171–1183, 2008

    2008

  40. [48]

    First-order methods of smooth convex optimization with inexact oracle,

    O. Devolder, F. Glineur, and Y. Nesterov, “First-order methods of smooth convex optimization with inexact oracle,” Math. Program. Ser. A, vol. 146, no. 1-2, pp. 37–75, 2013

    2013

  41. [49]

    Inexact and accelerated proximal point algorithms,

    Saverio Salzo and Silvia Villa, “Inexact and accelerated proximal point algorithms,”J. Convex Analysis, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1167–1192, 2012

    2012

  42. [50]

    Accelerated and inexact forward- backward algorithms,

    Silvia Villa, Saverio Salzo, Luca Baldassarre, and Alessandro Verri, “Accelerated and inexact forward- backward algorithms,” SIAM J. Optim., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1607–1633, Jan. 2013

    2013

  43. [51]

    Convergence rates of inexact proximal-gradient methods for convex optimization,

    M. Schmidt, N. Le Roux, and F. Bach, “Convergence rates of inexact proximal-gradient methods for convex optimization,” inProc. Adv. in Neural Inf. Proc. Syst., Granada, Spain, Dec. 12-15, 2011, vol. 24

    2011

  44. [52]

    Inexact accelerated high-order proximal-point methods,

    Yurii Nesterov, “Inexact accelerated high-order proximal-point methods,”Math. Program Ser. B, vol. 197, no. 1, pp. 1–26, Jan. 1, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    On inexact accelerated proximal gradient methods with relative error rules,

    Yunier Bello-Cruz, Max L. N. Gonçalves, and Nathan Krislock, “On inexact accelerated proximal gradient methods with relative error rules,”arXiv:2005.03766, May 7, 2020

    2005 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Incremental proximal methods for large scale convex optimization,

    D. P. Bertsekas, “Incremental proximal methods for large scale convex optimization,”Math. Program. Ser. B, vol. 129, pp. 163–195, 2011

    2011

  47. [55]

    Analysis versus synthesis in signal priors,

    M. Elad, P. Milanfar, and R. Rubinstein, “Analysis versus synthesis in signal priors,”Inverse Problems, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 947–968, 2007

    2007

  48. [56]

    Total variation denoising via the moreau envelope,

    Ivan Selesnick, “Total variation denoising via the moreau envelope,”IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 216–220, 2017

    2017

  49. [57]

    Adaptive regularization of some inverse problems in image analysis,

    Byung-Woo Hong, Jakeoung Koo, Martin Burger, and Stefano Soatto, “Adaptive regularization of some inverse problems in image analysis,”IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 29, pp. 2507–2521, 2020

    2020

  50. [58]

    A direct algorithm for optimization problems with the huber penalty,

    Jingyan Xu, Frédéric Noo, and Benjamin M. W. Tsui, “A direct algorithm for optimization problems with the huber penalty,”IEEE Trans. Med. Imag., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 162–172, 2018. 20

    2018

  51. [59]

    Global solutions of variational models with convex regularization,

    Thomas Pock, Daniel Cremers, Horst Bischof, and Antonin Chambolle, “Global solutions of variational models with convex regularization,”SIAM J. Imag. Sciences, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1122–1145, 2010

    2010

  52. [60]

    Bilevel training schemes in imaging for total variation–type functionals with convex integrands,

    Valerio Pagliari, Kostas Papafitsoros, Bogdan Raibtă, and Andreas Vikelis, “Bilevel training schemes in imaging for total variation–type functionals with convex integrands,”SIAM J. Imag. Sciences, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1690–1728, 2022

    2022

  53. [61]

    Robust Estimation of a Location Parameter,

    Peter J. Huber, “Robust Estimation of a Location Parameter,”The Annals of Math. Stat., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 73–101, Mar. 1964

    1964

  54. [62]

    Proximité et dualité dans un espace hilbertien,

    J. J. Moreau, “Proximité et dualité dans un espace hilbertien,”Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de France, vol. 93, pp. 273–299, 1965

    1965

  55. [63]

    123 ofGrundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1963, First edition

    Kosaku Yosida, Functional Analysis, vol. 123 ofGrundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1963, First edition

    1963

  56. [64]

    Analysis and synthesis denoisers for forward-backward plug-and-play algorithms,

    Matthieu Kowalski, Benoît Malézieux, Thomas Moreau, and Audrey Repetti, “Analysis and synthesis denoisers for forward-backward plug-and-play algorithms,”HAL Archives, 2024, ffhal-04786802v2f

    2024

  57. [65]

    Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe,Convex Optimization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004

    2004

  58. [66]

    Ralph Tyrell Rockafellar,Convex Analysis, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1970

    1970

  59. [67]

    On the subdifferentiability of convex functions,

    A. Brøndsted and R. T. Rockafellar, “On the subdifferentiability of convex functions,”Proc. of the Amer. Math. Society, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 605–611, 1965

    1965

  60. [68]

    XDesign: an open-source software package for designing X-ray imaging phantoms and experiments,

    D. J. Ching and D. Gürsoy, “XDesign: an open-source software package for designing X-ray imaging phantoms and experiments,”J. Synchrotron Rad., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 537–544, 2017

    2017

  61. [69]

    Scientific computational imaging code (SCICO),

    Thilo Balke, Fernando Davis, Cristina Garcia-Cardona, Soumendu Majee, Michael McCann, Luke Pfister, and Brendt Wohlberg, “Scientific computational imaging code (SCICO),”J. Open Source Software, vol. 7, no. 78, pp. 4722, 2022

    2022

  62. [70]

    Bauschke and Patrick L

    Heinz H. Bauschke and Patrick L. Combettes,Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces, CMS Books in Mathematics/Ouvrages de Mathématiques de la SMC. Springer, 2nd edition, 2017. 21

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.