Nonlinear image recovery with half-quadratic regularization
Abstract
One popular method for the recovery of an ideal intensity image from corrupted or indirect measurements is regularization: minimize an objective function that enforces a roughness penalty in addition to coherence with the data. Linear estimates are relatively easy to compute but generally introduce systematic errors; for example, they are incapable of recovering discontinuities and other important image attributes. In contrast, nonlinear estimates are more accurate but are often far less accessible. This is particularly true when the objective function is nonconvex, and the distribution of each data component depends on many image components through a linear operator with broad support. Our approach is based on an auxiliary array and an extended objective function in which the original variables appear quadratically and the auxiliary variables are decoupled. Minimizing over the auxiliary array alone yields the original function so that the original image estimate can be obtained by joint minimization. This can be done efficiently by Monte Carlo methods, for example by FFT-based annealing using a Markov chain that alternates between (global) transitions from one array to the other. Experiments are reported in optical astronomy, with space telescope data, and computed tomography.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
With variable splitting techniques, denoiser prior can be plugged in as a modular part of model-based optimization methods to solve other inverse problems.
“Recent works have revealed that, with the aid of variable splitting techniques, denoiser prior can be plugged in as a modular part of model-based optimization methods to solve other inverse problems (e.g., deblurring).”
From Learning Deep CNN Denoiser Prior for Image Restoration (2017) · cites this paper as [28]
Cites
Bayesian-Based Iterative Method of Image Restoration*
Richardson, W. H. (1972) · Journal of the Optical Society of America · doi:10.1364/josa.62.000055 · Cited by 4,160 · see citing works
An iterative technique for the rectification of observed distributions
Lucy, L. B. (1974) · The Astronomical Journal · doi:10.1086/111605 · Cited by 3,866 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Learning Deep CNN Denoiser Prior for Image Restoration
Zhang, K., Zuo, W., Gu, S., & Zhang, L. (2017) · 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.300 · Cited by 2,116 · see citing works
“Fortunately, with the aid of variable splitting techniques, such as alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) method [5] and halfquadratic splitting (HQS) method [28], it is possible to deal with fidelity term and regularization term separately [44], and particularly, the regularization term only corresponds…”
MethodMajorization-Minimization Algorithms in Signal Processing, Communications, and Machine Learning
Sun, Y., Babu, P., & Palomar, D. P. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/tsp.2016.2601299 · Cited by 1,820 · see citing works
From learning models of natural image patches to whole image restoration
Zoran, D., & Weiss, Y. (2011) · 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/iccv.2011.6126278 · Cited by 1,522 · see citing works
Shrinkage Fields for Effective Image Restoration
Schmidt, U., & Roth, S. (2014) · 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2014.349 · Cited by 543 · see citing works
A Fast Wavelet-Based Reconstruction Method for Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Guerquin-Kern, M., Haberlin, M., Pruessmann, K. P., & Unser, M. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2011.2140121 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Deep Learning for Handling Kernel/model Uncertainty in Image Deconvolution
Nan, Y., & Ji, H. (2020) · 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00246 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
- Authors
- Geman, D., & Yang, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
- University of Arizona (US)
- ORCID
- Chengda Yang
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Image Processing
- Published
- 1995-07
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 932-946
- ISSN
- 1057-7149 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1996726072
- Cited by
- 1,000
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 41 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 75 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 32
- FWCI
- 11.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Signal Denoising Methods
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Mathematical Physics › Numerical methods in inverse problems
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Adaptive optics and wavefront sensing
- Keywords
- half-quadratic regularization, non-convex optimization, auxiliary variable method, Markov chain Monte Carlo, image deblurring, space telescope data, computed tomography
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review