4.6 Article

Local behavior of sparse analysis regularization: Applications to risk estimation

期刊

APPLIED AND COMPUTATIONAL HARMONIC ANALYSIS
卷 35, 期 3, 页码 433-451

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.acha.2012.11.006

关键词

Sparsity; Analysis regularization; Inverse problems; l(1) minimization; Local behavior; Degrees of freedom; SURE; GSURE; Unbiased risk estimation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we aim at recovering an unknown signal x(0) from noisy measurements y = Phi x(0) + w, where Phi is an ill-conditioned or singular linear operator and w accounts for some noise. To regularize such an ill-posed inverse problem, we impose an analysis sparsity prior. More precisely, the recovery is cast as a convex optimization program where the objective is the sum of a quadratic data fidelity term and a regularization term formed of the l(1)-norm of the correlations between the sought after signal and atoms in a given (generally overcomplete) dictionary. The l(1)-sparsity analysis prior is weighted by a regularization parameter lambda > 0. In this paper, we prove that any minimizer of this problem is a piecewise-affine function of the observations y and the regularization parameter lambda. As a byproduct, we exploit these properties to get an objectively guided choice of lambda. In particular, we develop an extension of the Generalized Stein Unbiased Risk Estimator (GSURE) and show that it is an unbiased and reliable estimator of an appropriately defined risk. The latter encompasses special cases such as the prediction risk, the projection risk and the estimation risk. We apply these risk estimators to the special case of l(1)-sparsity analysis regularization. We also discuss implementation issues and propose fast algorithms to solve the l(1)-analysis minimization problem and to compute the associated GSURE. We finally illustrate the applicability of our framework to parameter(s) selection on several imaging problems. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据