v2009.01.01 - Convex Optimization
v2009.01.01 - Convex Optimization v2009.01.01 - Convex Optimization
334 CHAPTER 4. SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMMING Figure 89: Neighboring-pixel candidates from [309] for estimating image-gradient. Our implementation selects adaptively from darkest four • about central. Because of P idempotence and Hermitian symmetry and sgn(κ)= κ/|κ| , this is equivalent to lim ǫ→0 ( Ψ T δ(y)δ(|Ψ vec U| + ǫ1) −1 Ψ + λP ) vec U = λPf (770) where small positive constant ǫ ∈ R + has been introduced for invertibility. When small enough for practical purposes 4.51 (ǫ≈1E-3), we may ignore the limiting operation. Then the mapping, for λ ≫ 1/ǫ and 0 ≼ y ≼ 1 vec U t+1 = ( Ψ T δ(y)δ(|Ψ vec U t | + ǫ1) −1 Ψ + λP ) −1 λPf (771) is a contraction in U t that can be solved recursively in t for its unique fixed point; id est, until U t+1 → U t . [197, p.300] Calculating this inversion directly is not possible for large matrices on contemporary computers because of numerical precision, so we employ the conjugate gradient method of solution [128,4.8.3.2] at each recursion in the Matlab program. 4.51 We are looking for at least 50dB image/error ratio from only 4.1% subsampled data (10 radial lines in k-space). With this setting of ǫ, we actually attain in excess of 100dB from a very simple Matlab program in about a minute on a 2006 vintage laptop. By trading execution time and treating image-gradient cardinality as a known quantity for this phantom, over 160dB is achievable.
4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAINT EXAMPLES 335 Observe that P (759), in the equality constraint from problem (765), is not a fat matrix. 4.52 Although number of Fourier samples taken is equal to the number of nonzero entries in binary mask Φ , matrix P is square but never actually formed during computation. Rather, a two-dimensional fast Fourier transform of U is computed followed by masking with ΘΦΘ and then an inverse fast Fourier transform. This technique significantly reduces memory requirements and, together with contraction method of solution, is the principal reason for relatively fast computation when compared with previous methods. convex iteration Direction vector y is initialized to 1 until the first fixed point is found; which means, the first sequence of contractions begins calculating the (1-norm) solution U ⋆ to (765) via problem (767). Once U ⋆ is found, vector y is updated according to an estimate of image-gradient cardinality c : Sum of the 4n 2 −c smallest entries of |Ψ vec U ⋆ |∈ R 4n2 is the optimal objective value from a linear program, for 0≤c≤4n 2 − 1 4n ∑ 2 π(|Ψ vec U ⋆ |) i = minimize 〈|Ψ vec U ⋆ | , y〉 y∈R 4n2 subject to 0 ≼ y ≼ 1 i=c+1 y T 1 = 4n 2 −c (467) where π is the nonlinear permutation-operator sorting its vector argument into nonincreasing order. An optimal solution y to (467), that is an extreme point of its feasible set, is known in closed form: it has 1 in each entry corresponding to the 4n 2 −c smallest entries of |Ψ vec U ⋆ | and has 0 elsewhere (page 295). The updated image U ⋆ is assigned to U t , the contraction sequence is recomputed solving (767), direction vector y is updated again, and so on until convergence. There are two features that distinguish problem formulation (767) and our particular implementation of it (available on Wıκımization): 1) An image-gradient estimate may engage any combination of four adjacent pixels. In other words, the algorithm is not locked into a four-point gradient estimate (Figure 89); number of points constituting an estimate is determined by direction vector y . Indeed, we find only 5092 zero entries in y for the Shepp-Logan phantom; meaning, 4.52 Fat is typical of compressed sensing problems; e.g., [60] [67].
- Page 283 and 284: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 285 and 286: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 287 and 288: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 289 and 290: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 291 and 292: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 293 and 294: 4.4. RANK-CONSTRAINED SEMIDEFINITE
- Page 295 and 296: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 295 m
- Page 297 and 298: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 297 m
- Page 299 and 300: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 299 a
- Page 301 and 302: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 301 f
- Page 303 and 304: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 303 n
- Page 305 and 306: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 305 W
- Page 307 and 308: 4.5. CONSTRAINING CARDINALITY 307 t
- Page 309 and 310: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 311 and 312: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 313 and 314: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 315 and 316: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 317 and 318: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 319 and 320: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 321 and 322: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 323 and 324: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 325 and 326: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 327 and 328: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 329 and 330: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 331 and 332: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 333: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 337 and 338: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 339 and 340: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 341 and 342: 4.7. CONVEX ITERATION RANK-1 341 fi
- Page 343 and 344: 4.7. CONVEX ITERATION RANK-1 343 Gi
- Page 345 and 346: Chapter 5 Euclidean Distance Matrix
- Page 347 and 348: 5.2. FIRST METRIC PROPERTIES 347 co
- Page 349 and 350: 5.3. ∃ FIFTH EUCLIDEAN METRIC PRO
- Page 351 and 352: 5.3. ∃ FIFTH EUCLIDEAN METRIC PRO
- Page 353 and 354: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 353 The collect
- Page 355 and 356: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 355 5.4.2 Gram-
- Page 357 and 358: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 357 D ∈ EDM N
- Page 359 and 360: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 359 5.4.2.2.1 E
- Page 361 and 362: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 361 ten affine
- Page 363 and 364: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 363 spheres: Th
- Page 365 and 366: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 365 By eliminat
- Page 367 and 368: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 367 where Φ ij
- Page 369 and 370: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 369 5.4.2.2.6 D
- Page 371 and 372: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 371 10 5 ˇx 4
- Page 373 and 374: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 373 corrected b
- Page 375 and 376: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 375 by translat
- Page 377 and 378: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 377 Crippen & H
- Page 379 and 380: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 379 where ([√
- Page 381 and 382: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 381 because (A.
- Page 383 and 384: 5.5. INVARIANCE 383 5.5.1.0.1 Examp
4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAINT EXAMPLES 335<br />
Observe that P (759), in the equality constraint from problem (765), is<br />
not a fat matrix. 4.52 Although number of Fourier samples taken is equal to<br />
the number of nonzero entries in binary mask Φ , matrix P is square but<br />
never actually formed during computation. Rather, a two-dimensional fast<br />
Fourier transform of U is computed followed by masking with ΘΦΘ and<br />
then an inverse fast Fourier transform. This technique significantly reduces<br />
memory requirements and, together with contraction method of solution,<br />
is the principal reason for relatively fast computation when compared with<br />
previous methods.<br />
convex iteration<br />
Direction vector y is initialized to 1 until the first fixed point is found; which<br />
means, the first sequence of contractions begins calculating the (1-norm)<br />
solution U ⋆ to (765) via problem (767). Once U ⋆ is found, vector y is<br />
updated according to an estimate of image-gradient cardinality c : Sum<br />
of the 4n 2 −c smallest entries of |Ψ vec U ⋆ |∈ R 4n2 is the optimal objective<br />
value from a linear program, for 0≤c≤4n 2 − 1<br />
4n ∑<br />
2<br />
π(|Ψ vec U ⋆ |) i = minimize 〈|Ψ vec U ⋆ | , y〉<br />
y∈R 4n2<br />
subject to 0 ≼ y ≼ 1<br />
i=c+1<br />
y T 1 = 4n 2 −c<br />
(467)<br />
where π is the nonlinear permutation-operator sorting its vector argument<br />
into nonincreasing order. An optimal solution y to (467), that is an<br />
extreme point of its feasible set, is known in closed form: it has 1 in each<br />
entry corresponding to the 4n 2 −c smallest entries of |Ψ vec U ⋆ | and has 0<br />
elsewhere (page 295). The updated image U ⋆ is assigned to U t , the<br />
contraction sequence is recomputed solving (767), direction vector y is<br />
updated again, and so on until convergence.<br />
There are two features that distinguish problem formulation (767) and<br />
our particular implementation of it (available on Wıκımization):<br />
1) An image-gradient estimate may engage any combination of four<br />
adjacent pixels. In other words, the algorithm is not locked into a<br />
four-point gradient estimate (Figure 89); number of points constituting<br />
an estimate is determined by direction vector y . Indeed, we find<br />
only 5092 zero entries in y for the Shepp-Logan phantom; meaning,<br />
4.52 Fat is typical of compressed sensing problems; e.g., [60] [67].