Article

The Lagrange method for the regularization of discrete ill-posed problems

(Impact Factor: 0.98). 01/2008; 39(3):347-368. DOI: 10.1007/s10589-007-9059-3

ABSTRACT In many science and engineering applications, the discretization of linear ill-posed problems gives rise to large ill-conditioned
linear systems with the right-hand side degraded by noise. The solution of such linear systems requires the solution of minimization
problems with one quadratic constraint, depending on an estimate of the variance of the noise. This strategy is known as regularization.
In this work, we propose a modification of the Lagrange method for the solution of the noise constrained regularization problem.
We present the numerical results of test problems, image restoration and medical imaging denoising. Our results indicate that
the proposed Lagrange method is effective and efficient in computing good regularized solutions of ill-conditioned linear
systems and in computing the corresponding Lagrange multipliers. Moreover, our numerical experiments show that the Lagrange
method is computationally convenient. Therefore, the Lagrange method is a promising approach for dealing with ill-posed problems.

1 Follower
·
96 Views
• Source
Conference Paper: Revisión de Métodos de Regularización Directa y sus Aplicaciones en las Ciencias Atmosféricas
[Hide abstract]
L Convención Nacional del Instituto Mexicano de Ingenieros Químicos; 10/2010
• Source
Article: The effect of regularization on drug- reaction relationships The effect of regularization on drug-reaction relationships
[Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The least-squares method is a standard approach used in data fitting that has important applications in many areas in science and engineering including many finance problems. In the case when the problem under consideration involves large-scale sparse matrices regularization methods are used to obtain more stable solutions by relaxing the data fitting. In this article, a new regularization algorithm is introduced based on the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker conditions and the Fisher–Burmeister function. The Newton method is used for solving corresponding systems of equations. The advantages of the proposed method has been demonstrated in the establishment of drug-reaction relationships based on the Australian Adverse Drug Reaction Advisory Committee database.
Optimization 05/2012; 61:405-422. DOI:10.1080/02331934.2011.641547 · 0.77 Impact Factor
• Source
Article: An iterative lagrange multiplier method for constrained total variation-based image denoising
[Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Various effective algorithms have been proposed in the past two decades for nonlinear PDEs arising from the unconstrained total-variation-based image denoising problem regularizing the total variation constrained minimization model. Such algorithms can be used to obtain a satisfactory result as long as a suitable regularization parameter balancing the trade-off between a good fit to the data and a regular solution is given. However, it is generally difficult to obtain a suitable regularization parameter without which restored images can be unsatisfactory: if it is too large, then the resulting solution is still contaminated by noise, while if too small, the solution is a poor approximation of the true noise-free solution. To provide an automatic method for the regularization parameter when the noise level is known a priori, one way is to address the coupled Karush–Kuhn–Tucker (KKT) systems from the constrained total variation optimization problem. So far much less work has been done on this problem. This paper presents an iterative update algorithm for a Lagrange multiplier to solve the KKT conditions, and our proposed method can adaptively deal with noisy images with different variances $\sigma^2$. Numerical experiments show that our model can effectively find a highly accurate solution and produce excellent restoration results in terms of image quality. Read More: http://epubs.siam.org/action/showAbstract?page=983&volume=50&issue=3&journalCode=sjnaam
SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 05/2012; 50(3):983–1003. DOI:10.1137/110829209 · 1.69 Impact Factor