The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Nonlinear wavelet image processing: variational problems, compression, and noise removal through wavelet shrinkage
Open accessAbstract
This paper examines the relationship between wavelet-based image processing algorithms and variational problems. Algorithms are derived as exact or approximate minimizers of variational problems; in particular, we show that wavelet shrinkage can be considered the exact minimizer of the following problem. Given an image F defined on a square I, minimize over all g in the Besov space B(1)(1)(L (1)(I)) the functional |F-g|(L2)(I)(2)+lambda|g|(B(1)(1 )(L(1(I)))). We use the theory of nonlinear wavelet image compression in L(2)(I) to derive accurate error bounds for noise removal through wavelet shrinkage applied to images corrupted with i.i.d., mean zero, Gaussian noise. A new signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), which we claim more accurately reflects the visual perception of noise in images, arises in this derivation. We present extensive computations that support the hypothesis that near-optimal shrinkage parameters can be derived if one knows (or can estimate) only two parameters about an image F: the largest alpha for which FinEpsilon(q)(alpha )(L(q)(I)),1/q=alpha/2+1/2, and the norm |F|B(q)(alpha)(L(q)(I)). Both theoretical and experimental results indicate that our choice of shrinkage parameters yields uniformly better results than Donoho and Johnstone's VisuShrink procedure; an example suggests, however, that Donoho and Johnstone's SureShrink method, which uses a different shrinkage parameter for each dyadic level, achieves a lower error than our procedure.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Daubechies, I. (1992) · doi:10.1137/1.9781611970104 · Cited by 15,979
Spline Models for Observational Data
Wahba, G. (1990) · doi:10.1137/1.9781611970128 · Cited by 4,184
Cited by
A Fast Iterative Shrinkage-Thresholding Algorithm for Linear Inverse Problems
Beck, A., & Teboulle, M. (2009) · SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences · doi:10.1137/080716542 · Cited by 11,952
Image Denoising Via Sparse and Redundant Representations Over Learned Dictionaries
Elad, M., & Aharon, M. (2006) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2006.881969 · Cited by 5,321
An iterative thresholding algorithm for linear inverse problems with a sparsity constraint.
Daubechies, I., Defrise, M., & De Mol, C. (2004) · Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics · doi:10.1002/cpa.20042 · Cited by 4,958
Deep learning for visual understanding: A review
Guo, Y., Liu, Y., Oerlemans, A., Lao, S., Wu, S., & Lew, M. S. (2016) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2015.09.116 · Cited by 2,504
A New TwIST: Two-Step Iterative Shrinkage/Thresholding Algorithms for Image Restoration
Bioucas-Dias, J. M., & Figueiredo, M. A. T. (2007) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/tip.2007.909319 · Cited by 2,064
Metadata
- Authors
- Chambolle, A., De Vore, R. A., Lee, N.-Y., & Lucier, B. J.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Image Processing
- Published
- 1998-03
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 319-335
- ISSN
- 1057-7149 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-0042
- OpenAlex
- W2158252006
- Cited by
- 751
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 22.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.