Multigrid Preconditioning for Regularized Least-Squares Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In this paper, we are concerned with efficiently solving the sequences of regularized linear least-squares problems associated with employing Tikhonov-type regularization with regularization operators designed to enforce edge recovery. An optimal regularization parameter, which balances the fidelity to the data with the edge-enforcing constraint term, is typically not known a priori. This adds to the total number of regularized linear least-squares problems that must be solved before the final image can be recovered. Therefore, in this paper, we determine effective multigrid preconditioners for these sequences of systems. We focus our approach on the sequences that arise as a result of the edge-preserving method introduced in [S. Gazzola et al., Inverse Problems, 36 (2020), 124004], where we can exploit an interpretation of the regularization term as a diffusion operator; however, our methods are also applicable in other edge-preserving settings, such as iteratively reweighted least-squares problems. Particular attention is paid to the selection of components of the multigrid preconditioner in order to achieve robustness for different ranges of the regularization parameter value. In addition, we present a parameter trimming approach that, when used with the L-curve heuristic, reduces the total number of solves required. We demonstrate our preconditioning and parameter trimming routines on examples in computed tomography and image deblurring.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".