Cited by 36Sparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesNumerical methods in inverse problemsImage and Signal Denoising Methods

Representer Theorems for Sparsity-Promoting $\ell _{1}$ Regularization

Open access
Unser, Michael, Fageot, Julien, Gupta, Harshit·2016·IEEE Transactions on Information Theory

Abstract

We present a theoretical analysis and comparison of the effect of l1versus l2regularization for the resolution of ill-posed linear inverse and/or compressed sensing problems. Our formulation covers the most general setting where the solution is specified as the minimizer of a convex cost functional. We derive a series of representer theorems that give the generic form of the solution depending on the type of regularization. We start with the analysis of the problem in finite dimensions and then extend our results to the infinite-dimensional spaces l2(Z) and l1(Z). We also consider the use of linear transformations in the form of dictionaries or regularization operators. In particular, we show that the l2solution is forced to live in a predefined subspace that is intrinsically smooth and tied to the measurement operator. The l1solution, on the other hand, is formed by adaptively selecting a subset of atoms in a dictionary that is specified by the regularization operator. Beside the proof that l1solutions are intrinsically sparse, the main outcome of our investigation is that the use of l1regularization is much more favorable for injecting prior knowledge: it results in a functional form that is independent of the system matrix, while this is not so in the l2scenario.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tit.2016.2590421

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Unser, M., Fageot, J., & Gupta, H.
Affiliations
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory
Published
2016-09
Volume
62
Issue
9
Pages
5167-5180
ISSN
  • 0018-9448 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9654
OpenAlex
W2500060407
Cited by
36
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2
FWCI
2.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Information Theory (publishedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Research Council (No 267439 - FUN-SP)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Sparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Mathematical Physics › Numerical methods in inverse problems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Signal Denoising Methods
Keywords
representer theorem, L1 regularization, Tikhonov regularization, sparsity-promoting regularization, ill-posed linear inverse problems, compressed sensing, convex optimization, dictionaries, regularization operators, sparse solutions, prior knowledge incorporation, infinite-dimensional function spaces

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