An Iterative Shrinkage Approach to Total-Variation Image Restoration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of restoration of digital images from their degraded measurements plays a central role in a multitude of practically important applications. A particularly challenging instance of this problem occurs in the case when the degradation phenomenon is modeled by an ill-conditioned operator. In such a situation, the presence of noise makes it impossible to recover a valuable approximation of the image of interest without using some a priori information about its properties. Such a priori information--commonly referred to as simply priors--is essential for image restoration, rendering it stable and robust to noise. Moreover, using the priors makes the recovered images exhibit some plausible features of their original counterpart. Particularly, if the original image is known to be a piecewise smooth function, one of the standard priors used in this case is defined by the Rudin-Osher-Fatemi model, which results in total variation (TV) based image restoration. The current arsenal of algorithms for TV-based image restoration is vast. In this present paper, a different approach to the solution of the problem is proposed based upon the method of iterative shrinkage (aka iterated thresholding). In the proposed method, the TV-based image restoration is performed through a recursive application of two simple procedures, viz. linear filtering and soft thresholding. Therefore, the method can be identified as belonging to the group of first-order algorithms which are efficient in dealing with images of relatively large sizes. Another valuable feature of the proposed method consists in its working directly with the TV functional, rather then with its smoothed versions. Moreover, the method provides a single solution for both isotropic and anisotropic definitions of the TV functional, thereby establishing a useful connection between the two formulae. Finally, a number of standard examples of image deblurring are demonstrated, in which the proposed method can provide restoration results of superior quality as compared to the case of sparse-wavelet deconvolution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".