American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

Advanced
doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020071

Bilinear constraint based ADMM for mixed Poisson-Gaussian noise removal

Jie Zhang 1,2, , Yuping Duan 3, , Yue Lu 1, , Michael K. Ng 2, and  Huibin Chang 1,,

1. 

School of Mathematical Sciences, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, 300387, China
2. 

Department of Mathematics, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
3. 

Center for Applied Mathematics, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China

* Corresponding author: Huibin Chang

Received  January 2020 Revised  September 2020 Published  November 2020

In this paper, we propose new operator-splitting algorithms for the total variation regularized infimal convolution (TV-IC) model [6] in order to remove mixed Poisson-Gaussian (MPG) noise. In the existing splitting algorithm for TV-IC, an inner loop by Newton method had to be adopted for one nonlinear optimization subproblem, which increased the computation cost per outer loop. By introducing a new bilinear constraint and applying the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM), all subproblems of the proposed algorithms named as BCA (short for Bilinear Constraint based ADMM algorithm) and BCA$ _{f} $ (short for a variant of BCA with $ {\bf f} $ully splitting form) can be very efficiently solved. Especially for the proposed BCA$ _{f} $, they can be calculated without any inner iterations. The convergence of the proposed algorithms are investigated, where particularly, a Huber type TV regularizer is adopted to guarantee the convergence of BCA$ _f $. Numerically, compared to existing primal-dual algorithms for the TV-IC model, the proposed algorithms, with fewer tunable parameters, converge much faster and produce comparable results meanwhile.

Keywords: Mixed Poisson-Gaussian noise, total variation, alternating direction method of multipliers, bilinear constraint, convergence.
Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary:65K10, 65F22;Secondary:94A08, 46N10.
Citation: Jie Zhang, Yuping Duan, Yue Lu, Michael K. Ng, Huibin Chang. Bilinear constraint based ADMM for mixed Poisson-Gaussian noise removal. Inverse Problems & Imaging, doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020071
References:
[1]

B. Begovic, V. Stankovic and L. Stankovic, Contrast enhancement and denoising of Poisson and Gaussian mixture noise for solar images, 18th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Brussels, Belgium, 2011, 185-188. doi: 10.1109/ICIP.2011.6115829.  Google Scholar

[2]

F. Benvenuto, A. L. Camera, C. Theys, A. Ferrari, H. Lantéri and M. Bertero, The study of an iterative method for the reconstruction of images corrupted by Poisson and Gaussian noise, Inverse Problems, 24 (2008), 035016, 20pp. doi: 10.1088/0266-5611/24/3/035016.  Google Scholar

[3]

S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato and J. Eckstein, Distributed Optimization and Statistical Learning via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers, Found. Trends Mach. Learn., 3 (2011), 1-122.  doi: 10.1561/9781601984616.  Google Scholar

[4]

L. Calatroni, C. Cao, J. D. L. Reyes, C. Schönlieb and T. Valkonen, Bilevel approaches for learning of variational imaging models, Variational Methods, 252-290, Radon Ser. Comput. Appl. Math., 18, De Gruyter, Berlin, 2017.  Google Scholar

[5]

L. Calatroni and K. Papafitsoros, Analysis and automatic parameter selection of a variational model for mixed Gaussian and salt-and-pepper noise removal, Inverse Problems, 35 (2019), 114001, 37pp. doi: 10.1088/1361-6420/ab291a.  Google Scholar

[6]

L. Calatroni, J. D. L. Reyes and C. Schönlieb, Infimal convolution of data discrepancies for mixed noise removal, SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 10 (2017), 1196-1233.  doi: 10.1137/16M1101684.  Google Scholar

[7]

A. Chakrabarti and T. E. Zickler, Image restoration with signal-dependent Camera noise, preprint, arXiv: 1204.2994. Google Scholar

[8]

A. Chambolle, An algorithm for total variation minimization and applications, J. Math. Imaging Vis., 20 (2004), 89-97.   Google Scholar

[9]

H. Chang, P. Enfedaque and S. Marchesini, Blind ptychographic phase retrieval via convergent alternating direction method of multipliers, SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 12 (2019), 153-185.  doi: 10.1137/18M1188446.  Google Scholar

[10]

C. Chen, B. He, Y. Ye and X. Yuan, The direct extension of ADMM for multi-block convex minimization problems is not necessarily convergent, Mathematical Programming, 155 (2016), 57-79.  doi: 10.1007/s10107-014-0826-5.  Google Scholar

[11]

E. Chouzenoux, A. Jezierska, J. Pesquet and H. Talbot, A convex approach for image restoration with exact poisson-gaussian likelihood, SIAM J. Imaging Sciences, 8 (2015), 2662-2682.  doi: 10.1137/15M1014395.  Google Scholar

[12]

W. Deng, M. Lai, Z. Peng and W. Yin, Parallel multi-block ADMM with O (1/k) convergence, Journal of Scientific Computing, 71 (2017), 712-736.  doi: 10.1007/s10915-016-0318-2.  Google Scholar

[13]

Q. Ding and Y. Long and X. Zhang and J. A. Fessler, Statistical image reconstruction using mixed poisson-gaussian noise model for X-ray CT, preprint, arXiv: 1801.09533. Google Scholar

[14]

J. Eckstein and D. P. Bertsekas, On the Douglas-Rachford splitting method and the proximal point algorithm for maximal monotone operators, Mathematical Programming, 55 (1992), 293-318.  doi: 10.1007/BF01581204.  Google Scholar

[15]

A. Foi, M. Trimeche, V. Katkovnik and K. Egiazarian, Practical poissonian-gaussian noise modeling and fitting for single-image raw-data, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 17 (2008), 1737-1754.  doi: 10.1109/TIP.2008.2001399.  Google Scholar

[16]

D. Gabay and B. Mercier, A dual algorithm for the solution of nonlinear variational problems via finite element approximation, Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 2 (1976), 17-40.  doi: 10.1016/0898-1221(76)90003-1.  Google Scholar

[17]

R. Glowinski and A. Marroco, Sur l'approximation, par éléments finis d'ordre un, et la résolution, par pénalisation-dualité d'une classe de problèmes de Dirichlet non linéaires, Revue Française D'automatique, Informatique, Recherche Opérationnelle. Analyse Numérique, 9 (1975), 41-76. doi: 10.1051/m2an/197509R200411.  Google Scholar

[18]

D. Hajinezhad and Q. Shi, Alternating direction method of multipliers for a class of nonconvex bilinear optimization: convergence analysis and applications, Journal of Global Optimization, 70 (2018), 261-288.  doi: 10.1007/s10898-017-0594-x.  Google Scholar

[19]

M. Hong, Z. Luo and M. Razaviyayn, Convergence analysis of alternating direction method of multipliers for a family of nonconvex problems, SIAM Journal on Optimization, 26 (2016), 337-364.  doi: 10.1137/140990309.  Google Scholar

[20]

P. J. Huber, Robust Estimation of a Location Parameter, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 35 (1964), 73-101.  doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177703732.  Google Scholar

[21]

A. Jezierska, C. Chaux, J. Pesquet and H. Talbot, An EM approach for Poisson-Gaussian noise modeling, 19th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), Barcelona, Spain, 2011, 2244-2248. Google Scholar

[22]

A. Lanza, S. Morigi, F. Sgallari and Y. Wen, Image restoration with Poisson-Gaussian mixed noise, Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering: Imaging & Visualization, 2 (2014), 12-24.  doi: 10.1080/21681163.2013.811039.  Google Scholar

[23]

T. Le, R. Chartrand and T. Asaki, A variational approach to reconstructing images corrupted by poisson noise, Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 27 (2007), 257-263.  doi: 10.1007/s10851-007-0652-y.  Google Scholar

[24]

J. Li, Z. Shen, R. Yin and X. Zhang, A reweighted $L^2$ method for image restoration with Poisson and mixed Poisson-Gaussian noise, Inverse Problems & Imaging, 9 (2015), 875-894.  doi: 10.3934/ipi.2015.9.875.  Google Scholar

[25]

T. Lin, S. Ma and S. Zhang, On the global linear convergence of the admm with multiblock variables, SIAM Journal on Optimization, 25 (2015), 1478-1497.  doi: 10.1137/140971178.  Google Scholar

[26]

Y. Lou and M. Yan, Fast L1-L2 minimization via a proximal operator, Journal of Scientific Computing, 74 (2018), 767-785.  doi: 10.1007/s10915-017-0463-2.  Google Scholar

[27]

M. Mäkitalo and A. Foi, Optimal inversion of the generalized Anscombe transformation for Poisson-Gaussian noise, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 22 (2013), 91-103.  doi: 10.1109/TIP.2012.2202675.  Google Scholar

[28]

Y. Marnissi, Y. Zheng and J. Pesquet, Fast variational Bayesian signal recovery in the presence of Poisson-Gaussian noise, IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Shanghai, China, 2016, 3964-3968. doi: 10.1109/ICASSP.2016.7472421.  Google Scholar

[29]

J. Mei, Y. Dong, T. Huang and W. Yin, Cauchy noise removal by nonconvex ADMM with convergence guarantees, Journal of Scientific Computing, 74 (2018), 743-766.  doi: 10.1007/s10915-017-0460-5.  Google Scholar

[30]

F. Murtagh, J.-L Starck and A. Bijaoui, Image restoration with noise suppression using a multiresolution support, Astronomy & Astrophysics, Suppl. Ser, 112 (1995), 179-189.   Google Scholar

[31]

B. O' Donoghue, G. Stathopoulos and S. Boyd, A splitting method for optimal control, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 21 (2013), 2432-2442.   Google Scholar

[32]

C. T. Pham, G. Gamard, A. Kopylov and T. Tran, An algorithm for image restoration with mixed noise using total variation regularization, Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences, 26 (2018), 2832-2846.  doi: 10.3906/elk-1803-100.  Google Scholar

[33]

J. D. L. Reyes and C. Schönlieb, Image denoising: Learning the noise model via nonsmooth PDE-constrained optimization, Inverse Problems & Imaging, 7 (2013), 1183-1214.  doi: 10.3934/ipi.2013.7.1183.  Google Scholar

[34]

L. Rudin, S. Osher and E. Fatemi, Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms, Physica. D, 60 (1992), 259-268.  doi: 10.1016/0167-2789(92)90242-F.  Google Scholar

[35] J.-L. Starck, F. Murtagh and A. Bijaoui, Image Processing and Data Analysis: The Multiscale Approach, Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, 1998.  doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511564352.  Google Scholar
[36]

D. N. H. Thanh and S. D. Dvoenko, A method of total variation to remove the mixed Poisson-Gaussian noise, Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis, 26 (2016), 285-293.  doi: 10.1134/S1054661816020231.  Google Scholar

[37]

Y. Wang, W. Yin and J. Zeng, Global convergence of ADMM in nonconvex nonsmooth optimization, Journal of Scientific Computing, 78 (2019), 29-63.  doi: 10.1007/s10915-018-0757-z.  Google Scholar

[38]

Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh and E. P. Simoncelli, Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13 (2004), 600-612.  doi: 10.1109/TIP.2003.819861.  Google Scholar

[39]

C. Wu and X. Tai, Augmented Lagrangian method, dual methods, and split Bregman iteration for ROF, vectorial TV, and high order models, SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 3 (2010), 300-339.  doi: 10.1137/090767558.  Google Scholar

[40]

C. Wu, J. Zhang and X. Tai, Augmented Lagrangian method for total variation restoration with non-quadratic fidelity, Inverse Problems & Imaging, 5 (2011), 237-261.  doi: 10.3934/ipi.2011.5.237.  Google Scholar

show all references

References:
[1]

B. Begovic, V. Stankovic and L. Stankovic, Contrast enhancement and denoising of Poisson and Gaussian mixture noise for solar images, 18th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Brussels, Belgium, 2011, 185-188. doi: 10.1109/ICIP.2011.6115829.  Google Scholar

[2]

F. Benvenuto, A. L. Camera, C. Theys, A. Ferrari, H. Lantéri and M. Bertero, The study of an iterative method for the reconstruction of images corrupted by Poisson and Gaussian noise, Inverse Problems, 24 (2008), 035016, 20pp. doi: 10.1088/0266-5611/24/3/035016.  Google Scholar

[3]

S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato and J. Eckstein, Distributed Optimization and Statistical Learning via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers, Found. Trends Mach. Learn., 3 (2011), 1-122.  doi: 10.1561/9781601984616.  Google Scholar

[4]

L. Calatroni, C. Cao, J. D. L. Reyes, C. Schönlieb and T. Valkonen, Bilevel approaches for learning of variational imaging models, Variational Methods, 252-290, Radon Ser. Comput. Appl. Math., 18, De Gruyter, Berlin, 2017.  Google Scholar

[5]

L. Calatroni and K. Papafitsoros, Analysis and automatic parameter selection of a variational model for mixed Gaussian and salt-and-pepper noise removal, Inverse Problems, 35 (2019), 114001, 37pp. doi: 10.1088/1361-6420/ab291a.  Google Scholar

[6]

L. Calatroni, J. D. L. Reyes and C. Schönlieb, Infimal convolution of data discrepancies for mixed noise removal, SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 10 (2017), 1196-1233.  doi: 10.1137/16M1101684.  Google Scholar

[7]

A. Chakrabarti and T. E. Zickler, Image restoration with signal-dependent Camera noise, preprint, arXiv: 1204.2994. Google Scholar

[8]

A. Chambolle, An algorithm for total variation minimization and applications, J. Math. Imaging Vis., 20 (2004), 89-97.   Google Scholar

[9]

H. Chang, P. Enfedaque and S. Marchesini, Blind ptychographic phase retrieval via convergent alternating direction method of multipliers, SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 12 (2019), 153-185.  doi: 10.1137/18M1188446.  Google Scholar

[10]

C. Chen, B. He, Y. Ye and X. Yuan, The direct extension of ADMM for multi-block convex minimization problems is not necessarily convergent, Mathematical Programming, 155 (2016), 57-79.  doi: 10.1007/s10107-014-0826-5.  Google Scholar

[11]

E. Chouzenoux, A. Jezierska, J. Pesquet and H. Talbot, A convex approach for image restoration with exact poisson-gaussian likelihood, SIAM J. Imaging Sciences, 8 (2015), 2662-2682.  doi: 10.1137/15M1014395.  Google Scholar

[12]

W. Deng, M. Lai, Z. Peng and W. Yin, Parallel multi-block ADMM with O (1/k) convergence, Journal of Scientific Computing, 71 (2017), 712-736.  doi: 10.1007/s10915-016-0318-2.  Google Scholar

[13]

Q. Ding and Y. Long and X. Zhang and J. A. Fessler, Statistical image reconstruction using mixed poisson-gaussian noise model for X-ray CT, preprint, arXiv: 1801.09533. Google Scholar

[14]

J. Eckstein and D. P. Bertsekas, On the Douglas-Rachford splitting method and the proximal point algorithm for maximal monotone operators, Mathematical Programming, 55 (1992), 293-318.  doi: 10.1007/BF01581204.  Google Scholar

[15]

A. Foi, M. Trimeche, V. Katkovnik and K. Egiazarian, Practical poissonian-gaussian noise modeling and fitting for single-image raw-data, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 17 (2008), 1737-1754.  doi: 10.1109/TIP.2008.2001399.  Google Scholar

[16]

D. Gabay and B. Mercier, A dual algorithm for the solution of nonlinear variational problems via finite element approximation, Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 2 (1976), 17-40.  doi: 10.1016/0898-1221(76)90003-1.  Google Scholar

[17]

R. Glowinski and A. Marroco, Sur l'approximation, par éléments finis d'ordre un, et la résolution, par pénalisation-dualité d'une classe de problèmes de Dirichlet non linéaires, Revue Française D'automatique, Informatique, Recherche Opérationnelle. Analyse Numérique, 9 (1975), 41-76. doi: 10.1051/m2an/197509R200411.  Google Scholar

[18]

D. Hajinezhad and Q. Shi, Alternating direction method of multipliers for a class of nonconvex bilinear optimization: convergence analysis and applications, Journal of Global Optimization, 70 (2018), 261-288.  doi: 10.1007/s10898-017-0594-x.  Google Scholar

[19]

M. Hong, Z. Luo and M. Razaviyayn, Convergence analysis of alternating direction method of multipliers for a family of nonconvex problems, SIAM Journal on Optimization, 26 (2016), 337-364.  doi: 10.1137/140990309.  Google Scholar

[20]

P. J. Huber, Robust Estimation of a Location Parameter, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 35 (1964), 73-101.  doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177703732.  Google Scholar

[21]

A. Jezierska, C. Chaux, J. Pesquet and H. Talbot, An EM approach for Poisson-Gaussian noise modeling, 19th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), Barcelona, Spain, 2011, 2244-2248. Google Scholar

[22]

A. Lanza, S. Morigi, F. Sgallari and Y. Wen, Image restoration with Poisson-Gaussian mixed noise, Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering: Imaging & Visualization, 2 (2014), 12-24.  doi: 10.1080/21681163.2013.811039.  Google Scholar

[23]

T. Le, R. Chartrand and T. Asaki, A variational approach to reconstructing images corrupted by poisson noise, Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 27 (2007), 257-263.  doi: 10.1007/s10851-007-0652-y.  Google Scholar

[24]

J. Li, Z. Shen, R. Yin and X. Zhang, A reweighted $L^2$ method for image restoration with Poisson and mixed Poisson-Gaussian noise, Inverse Problems & Imaging, 9 (2015), 875-894.  doi: 10.3934/ipi.2015.9.875.  Google Scholar

[25]

T. Lin, S. Ma and S. Zhang, On the global linear convergence of the admm with multiblock variables, SIAM Journal on Optimization, 25 (2015), 1478-1497.  doi: 10.1137/140971178.  Google Scholar

[26]

Y. Lou and M. Yan, Fast L1-L2 minimization via a proximal operator, Journal of Scientific Computing, 74 (2018), 767-785.  doi: 10.1007/s10915-017-0463-2.  Google Scholar

[27]

M. Mäkitalo and A. Foi, Optimal inversion of the generalized Anscombe transformation for Poisson-Gaussian noise, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 22 (2013), 91-103.  doi: 10.1109/TIP.2012.2202675.  Google Scholar

[28]

Y. Marnissi, Y. Zheng and J. Pesquet, Fast variational Bayesian signal recovery in the presence of Poisson-Gaussian noise, IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Shanghai, China, 2016, 3964-3968. doi: 10.1109/ICASSP.2016.7472421.  Google Scholar

[29]

J. Mei, Y. Dong, T. Huang and W. Yin, Cauchy noise removal by nonconvex ADMM with convergence guarantees, Journal of Scientific Computing, 74 (2018), 743-766.  doi: 10.1007/s10915-017-0460-5.  Google Scholar

[30]

F. Murtagh, J.-L Starck and A. Bijaoui, Image restoration with noise suppression using a multiresolution support, Astronomy & Astrophysics, Suppl. Ser, 112 (1995), 179-189.   Google Scholar

[31]

B. O' Donoghue, G. Stathopoulos and S. Boyd, A splitting method for optimal control, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 21 (2013), 2432-2442.   Google Scholar

[32]

C. T. Pham, G. Gamard, A. Kopylov and T. Tran, An algorithm for image restoration with mixed noise using total variation regularization, Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences, 26 (2018), 2832-2846.  doi: 10.3906/elk-1803-100.  Google Scholar

[33]

J. D. L. Reyes and C. Schönlieb, Image denoising: Learning the noise model via nonsmooth PDE-constrained optimization, Inverse Problems & Imaging, 7 (2013), 1183-1214.  doi: 10.3934/ipi.2013.7.1183.  Google Scholar

[34]

L. Rudin, S. Osher and E. Fatemi, Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms, Physica. D, 60 (1992), 259-268.  doi: 10.1016/0167-2789(92)90242-F.  Google Scholar

[35] J.-L. Starck, F. Murtagh and A. Bijaoui, Image Processing and Data Analysis: The Multiscale Approach, Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, 1998.  doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511564352.  Google Scholar
[36]

D. N. H. Thanh and S. D. Dvoenko, A method of total variation to remove the mixed Poisson-Gaussian noise, Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis, 26 (2016), 285-293.  doi: 10.1134/S1054661816020231.  Google Scholar

[37]

Y. Wang, W. Yin and J. Zeng, Global convergence of ADMM in nonconvex nonsmooth optimization, Journal of Scientific Computing, 78 (2019), 29-63.  doi: 10.1007/s10915-018-0757-z.  Google Scholar

[38]

Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh and E. P. Simoncelli, Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13 (2004), 600-612.  doi: 10.1109/TIP.2003.819861.  Google Scholar

[39]

C. Wu and X. Tai, Augmented Lagrangian method, dual methods, and split Bregman iteration for ROF, vectorial TV, and high order models, SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 3 (2010), 300-339.  doi: 10.1137/090767558.  Google Scholar

[40]

C. Wu, J. Zhang and X. Tai, Augmented Lagrangian method for total variation restoration with non-quadratic fidelity, Inverse Problems & Imaging, 5 (2011), 237-261.  doi: 10.3934/ipi.2011.5.237.  Google Scholar

Figure 1.  (A) Circles; (B) Fluorescent Cells; (C) Cameraman
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 2.  Recovery results by proposed algorithms and other compared algorithms (with SNRs(dB) below the figures) for the image "Circles" in the case of MPG noises which are generated with $ \eta = 4, \sigma = 10^{-4} $
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 3.  Recovery results by proposed algorithms and other compared algorithms (with SNRs(dB) below the figures) for the image "Fluorescent Cells" in the case of MPG noises which are generated with $ \eta=16, \sigma=10^{-4} $
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 4.  Recovery results by proposed algorithms and other compared algorithms (with SNRs(dB) below the figures) for the image "Cameraman" in the case of MPG noises which are generated with $ \eta = 64, \sigma = 10^{-1} $. Comparing with other results, there are less grey blocks in the restoration images of proposed algorithms on the blue circle, which can show the better performance of our proposed algorithms
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 5.  Line profiles of recovery results showed in Fig. 4
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 6.  Histories of SNR changes for proposed algorithms and TV+PD w.r.t. the elapsed CPU time (in log scale). Left: $ \eta = 4, \sigma = 10^{-1} $. Right: $ \eta = 16, \sigma = 10^{-1} $
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 7.  Rcovery results by SSN and BCA$ _f $-HTV. (A): Noisy image, SNR = 12.79. (B): Recovery result by SSN, $ SNR = 18.86, t = 6.763386s $. (C): Recovery result by BCA$ _f $-HTV, $ SNR = 18.88, t = 2.377923s $. (D): Poisson residuums of noisy images. (E): Poisson residuums by SSN. (F): Poisson residuums by BCA$ _f $-HTV
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 8.  SE ($ \tfrac{\Vert u_{k+1}-u_{k}\Vert}{\Vert u_{k}\Vert} $) changes v.s. iteration number (both in log scale): Top: BCA; Medium:BCA$ _f $; Bottom: BCA$ _f $-HTV; Left: $ \eta = 1, \sigma = 10^{-1} $; Right: $ \eta = 1, \sigma = 10^{-4} $. The test image is Circles(Fig1(A))
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 9.  The performance of BCA w.r.t. $ \alpha $ (in log scale), where $ \eta = 1, \sigma = 10^{-4} $, using test image Circles(Fig1(A))
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 10.  The performance of BCA$ _f $ w.r.t. $ \alpha_w $ (in log scale), $ \alpha_p $ (in log scale), where $ \eta = 1, \sigma = 10^{-4} $, using test image Circles(Fig1(A))
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 11.  The performance of BCA$ _f $-HTV w.r.t. $ \alpha_w $ (in log scale), $ \alpha_p $ (in log scale), where $ \eta = 1, \sigma = 10^{-4} $, using test image Circles(Fig1(A))
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 12.  SNR changes w.r.t. the parameter $ \epsilon $ for BCA Algorithm, using test image Circles(Fig1(A))
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 13.  Minimum value curves of $ w $ for BCA Algorithm. The test image is Circles(Fig1(A))
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Table 1.  SNR changes w.r.t. the number of inner iterations using gradient descent method [8] for proposed BCA Algorithm
$ \eta $ $ \sigma $ 1 2 5 10 20 100
1 $ 10^{-1} $ 15.20 18.08 17.57 18.16 18.17 18.17
1 $ 10^{-4} $ 16.20 18.39 16.35 18.40 18.40 18.40
4 $ 10^{-1} $ 19.92 21.92 21.90 21.98 21.97 21.98
4 $ 10^{-4} $ 20.05 22.37 22.36 22.47 22.48 22.49
16 $ 10^{-1} $ 22.50 25.17 25.27 25.28 25.26 25.28
16 $ 10^{-4} $ 23.59 26.17 26.40 26.37 26.38 26.40
Table Options

Download as excel

$ \eta $ $ \sigma $ 1 2 5 10 20 100
1 $ 10^{-1} $ 15.20 18.08 17.57 18.16 18.17 18.17
1 $ 10^{-4} $ 16.20 18.39 16.35 18.40 18.40 18.40
4 $ 10^{-1} $ 19.92 21.92 21.90 21.98 21.97 21.98
4 $ 10^{-4} $ 20.05 22.37 22.36 22.47 22.48 22.49
16 $ 10^{-1} $ 22.50 25.17 25.27 25.28 25.26 25.28
16 $ 10^{-4} $ 23.59 26.17 26.40 26.37 26.38 26.40
Table 2.  Denoising performance (First row: SNR in dB. Second row: SSIM.) with Poisson-Gaussian Noise
Image $ \eta $ $ \sigma $ Noisy TV+$ L^2 $ TV+KL TV+EPG TV+SP TV+KL+$ L^2 $ TV+PD BCA BCA$ _f $
Circle 1 $ 10^{-1} $ 2.50 17.21 16.68 17.07 16.76 17.28 17.44 17.84 17.97
0.0452 0.6147 0.4044 0.6580 0.4059 0.3975 0.7544 0.7125 0.9007
1 $ 10^{-4} $ 2.57 17.34 17.16 17.11 17.24 17.76 17.00 18.02 18.10
0.5494 0.6087 0.7997 0.7740 0.8678 0.8251 0.8711 0.8913 0.9029
4 $ 10^{-1} $ 5.92 21.48 20.44 20.74 20.77 21.29 21.64 22.01 21.78
0.0687 0.7149 0.4763 0.6260 0.5305 0.5259 0.9216 0.7153 0.9357
4 $ 10^{-4} $ 6.32 21.64 21.83 21.14 21.83 22.00 22.16 22.18 22.35
0.5793 0.7397 0.9385 0.9395 0.9385 0.9299 0.9466 0.9472 0.9180
16 $ 10^{-1} $ 9.88 24.64 22.33 22.54 22.62 23.89 23.54 25.28 25.04
0.0971 0.8411 0.5088 0.5315 0.5436 0.5438 0.8141 0.9697 0.8079
16 $ 10^{-4} $ 11.55 25.46 26.41 25.14 26.41 26.46 26.47 26.37 27.12
0.6149 0.8816 0.9500 0.9447 0.9500 0.9594 0.9651 0.9676 0.9168
Average 6.46 21.30 20.81 20.62 20.94 21.45 21.38 21.95 22.06
0.3258 0.7335 0.6796 0.745 0.7061 0.6969 0.8788 0.8673 0.8970
Fluorescent Cells 1 $ 10^{-1} $ 1.16 9.88 9.72 9.29 9.72 9.96 9.48 10.37 10.33
0.0402 0.4861 0.4508 0.3149 0.4532 0.4512 0.4572 0.5026 0.4971
1 $ 10^{-4} $ 1.22 9.97 9.83 9.46 9.83 9.98 9.79 10.43 10.41
0.0598 0.5058 0.4954 0.3289 0.4954 0.5003 0.4471 0.5108 0.5014
4 $ 10^{-1} $ 3.14 11.10 11.58 11.12 11.54 11.75 11.62 11.66 12.06
0.1181 0.5554 0.5369 0.5093 0.5239 0.5588 0.5674 0.5753 0.5801
4 $ 10^{-4} $ 3.59 11.25 11.88 11.32 11.88 12.17 11.88 11.96 12.38
0.1680 0.5765 0.6078 0.4593 0.6078 0.6133 0.5531 0.6160 0.6139
16 $ 10^{-1} $ 5.77 13.43 12.66 12.52 12.64 13.27 13.45 13.37 13.50
0.2282 0.6424 0.5998 0.5271 0.5989 0.6383 0.6669 0.6557 0.6685
16 $ 10^{-4} $ 7.87 14.17 14.16 14.30 14.16 14.59 14.47 14.42 14.62
0.4003 0.7360 0.7228 0.6895 0.7228 0.7388 0.7309 0.7379 0.7368
Average 3.79 11.63 11.64 11.34 11.63 11.95 11.78 12.04 12.22
0.1691 0.5837 0.5689 0.4710 0.5670 0.5835 0.5704 0.5997 0.5996
Cameraman 1 $ 10^{-1} $ 1.97 13.06 14.25 13.13 14.19 14.30 14.30 14.59 14.56
0.0496 0.4167 0.5498 0.3452 0.5322 0.5432 0.5524 0.5633 0.5644
1 $ 10^{-4} $ 2.00 13.09 14.36 13.04 14.36 14.40 14.33 14.57 14.52
0.0628 0.4238 0.4602 0.3342 0.4602 0.4760 0.4362 0.5854 0.5659
4 $ 10^{-1} $ 5.02 15.66 16.46 15.5 16.43 16.56 16.17 16.79 16.83
0.1178 0.5729 0.6552 0.4863 0.6540 0.6720 0.6422 0.6417 0.6655
4 $ 10^{-4} $ 5.28 15.81 16.27 15.64 16.27 16.47 16.14 16.99 17.00
0.1514 0.5879 0.6301 0.5027 0.6301 0.6160 0.6047 0.6697 0.6770
16 $ 10^{-1} $ 9.06 18.25 18.60 18.24 18.60 18.81 18.18 18.99 19.02
0.1992 0.6393 0.7126 0.6355 0.7181 0.7163 0.6527 0.7112 0.7214
16 $ 10^{-4} $ 10.24 18.88 19.44 18.83 19.44 19.64 19.59 19.81 19.53
0.2920 0.6980 0.7321 0.6616 0.7321 0.7503 0.7317 0.7614 0.7764
Average 5.60 15.79 16.56 15.73 16.55 16.70 16.45 16.96 16.91
0.1455 0.5564 0.6233 0.4940 0.6211 0.6290 0.6033 0.6555 0.6618
Table Options

Download as excel

Image $ \eta $ $ \sigma $ Noisy TV+$ L^2 $ TV+KL TV+EPG TV+SP TV+KL+$ L^2 $ TV+PD BCA BCA$ _f $
Circle 1 $ 10^{-1} $ 2.50 17.21 16.68 17.07 16.76 17.28 17.44 17.84 17.97
0.0452 0.6147 0.4044 0.6580 0.4059 0.3975 0.7544 0.7125 0.9007
1 $ 10^{-4} $ 2.57 17.34 17.16 17.11 17.24 17.76 17.00 18.02 18.10
0.5494 0.6087 0.7997 0.7740 0.8678 0.8251 0.8711 0.8913 0.9029
4 $ 10^{-1} $ 5.92 21.48 20.44 20.74 20.77 21.29 21.64 22.01 21.78
0.0687 0.7149 0.4763 0.6260 0.5305 0.5259 0.9216 0.7153 0.9357
4 $ 10^{-4} $ 6.32 21.64 21.83 21.14 21.83 22.00 22.16 22.18 22.35
0.5793 0.7397 0.9385 0.9395 0.9385 0.9299 0.9466 0.9472 0.9180
16 $ 10^{-1} $ 9.88 24.64 22.33 22.54 22.62 23.89 23.54 25.28 25.04
0.0971 0.8411 0.5088 0.5315 0.5436 0.5438 0.8141 0.9697 0.8079
16 $ 10^{-4} $ 11.55 25.46 26.41 25.14 26.41 26.46 26.47 26.37 27.12
0.6149 0.8816 0.9500 0.9447 0.9500 0.9594 0.9651 0.9676 0.9168
Average 6.46 21.30 20.81 20.62 20.94 21.45 21.38 21.95 22.06
0.3258 0.7335 0.6796 0.745 0.7061 0.6969 0.8788 0.8673 0.8970
Fluorescent Cells 1 $ 10^{-1} $ 1.16 9.88 9.72 9.29 9.72 9.96 9.48 10.37 10.33
0.0402 0.4861 0.4508 0.3149 0.4532 0.4512 0.4572 0.5026 0.4971
1 $ 10^{-4} $ 1.22 9.97 9.83 9.46 9.83 9.98 9.79 10.43 10.41
0.0598 0.5058 0.4954 0.3289 0.4954 0.5003 0.4471 0.5108 0.5014
4 $ 10^{-1} $ 3.14 11.10 11.58 11.12 11.54 11.75 11.62 11.66 12.06
0.1181 0.5554 0.5369 0.5093 0.5239 0.5588 0.5674 0.5753 0.5801
4 $ 10^{-4} $ 3.59 11.25 11.88 11.32 11.88 12.17 11.88 11.96 12.38
0.1680 0.5765 0.6078 0.4593 0.6078 0.6133 0.5531 0.6160 0.6139
16 $ 10^{-1} $ 5.77 13.43 12.66 12.52 12.64 13.27 13.45 13.37 13.50
0.2282 0.6424 0.5998 0.5271 0.5989 0.6383 0.6669 0.6557 0.6685
16 $ 10^{-4} $ 7.87 14.17 14.16 14.30 14.16 14.59 14.47 14.42 14.62
0.4003 0.7360 0.7228 0.6895 0.7228 0.7388 0.7309 0.7379 0.7368
Average 3.79 11.63 11.64 11.34 11.63 11.95 11.78 12.04 12.22
0.1691 0.5837 0.5689 0.4710 0.5670 0.5835 0.5704 0.5997 0.5996
Cameraman 1 $ 10^{-1} $ 1.97 13.06 14.25 13.13 14.19 14.30 14.30 14.59 14.56
0.0496 0.4167 0.5498 0.3452 0.5322 0.5432 0.5524 0.5633 0.5644
1 $ 10^{-4} $ 2.00 13.09 14.36 13.04 14.36 14.40 14.33 14.57 14.52
0.0628 0.4238 0.4602 0.3342 0.4602 0.4760 0.4362 0.5854 0.5659
4 $ 10^{-1} $ 5.02 15.66 16.46 15.5 16.43 16.56 16.17 16.79 16.83
0.1178 0.5729 0.6552 0.4863 0.6540 0.6720 0.6422 0.6417 0.6655
4 $ 10^{-4} $ 5.28 15.81 16.27 15.64 16.27 16.47 16.14 16.99 17.00
0.1514 0.5879 0.6301 0.5027 0.6301 0.6160 0.6047 0.6697 0.6770
16 $ 10^{-1} $ 9.06 18.25 18.60 18.24 18.60 18.81 18.18 18.99 19.02
0.1992 0.6393 0.7126 0.6355 0.7181 0.7163 0.6527 0.7112 0.7214
16 $ 10^{-4} $ 10.24 18.88 19.44 18.83 19.44 19.64 19.59 19.81 19.53
0.2920 0.6980 0.7321 0.6616 0.7321 0.7503 0.7317 0.7614 0.7764
Average 5.60 15.79 16.56 15.73 16.55 16.70 16.45 16.96 16.91
0.1455 0.5564 0.6233 0.4940 0.6211 0.6290 0.6033 0.6555 0.6618
Table 3.  Computational time of the proposed algorithms and TV+PD (in seconds)
Image $ \eta $ $ \sigma $ TV+PD BCA BCA$ _f $
Circle 1 $ 10^{-1} $ 40.4971 4.6052 1.0314
1 $ 10^{-4} $ 18.5340 4.6922 1.2650
4 $ 10^{-1} $ 7.3436 0.7641 0.7001
4 $ 10^{-4} $ 39.6196 1.1891 0.6030
16 $ 10^{-1} $ 36.3221 1.2652 0.4643
16 $ 10^{-4} $ 39.5773 0.6123 0.3070
Average 30.3156 2.1880 0.7285
Fluorescent Cells 1 $ 10^{-1} $ 21.7999 8.3016 2.1735
1 $ 10^{-4} $ 41.6892 8.9243 2.5687
4 $ 10^{-1} $ 40.1406 4.1263 2.4025
4 $ 10^{-4} $ 38.6224 3.8464 2.0889
16 $ 10^{-1} $ 37.7174 7.3265 6.1742
16 $ 10^{-4} $ 7.7788 7.6185 1.1258
Average 31.2914 6.6906 2.7556
Cameraman 1 $ 10^{-1} $ 9.3735 1.3062 1.2272
1 $ 10^{-4} $ 40.9848 3.2183 0.9053
4 $ 10^{-1} $ 36.8623 0.6872 1.5084
4 $ 10^{-4} $ 36.4358 0.6179 1.4209
16 $ 10^{-1} $ 3.3691 0.5151 0.9925
16 $ 10^{-4} $ 11.0407 0.3607 0.5260
Average 23.0140 1.1176 1.0967
Table Options

Download as excel

Image $ \eta $ $ \sigma $ TV+PD BCA BCA$ _f $
Circle 1 $ 10^{-1} $ 40.4971 4.6052 1.0314
1 $ 10^{-4} $ 18.5340 4.6922 1.2650
4 $ 10^{-1} $ 7.3436 0.7641 0.7001
4 $ 10^{-4} $ 39.6196 1.1891 0.6030
16 $ 10^{-1} $ 36.3221 1.2652 0.4643
16 $ 10^{-4} $ 39.5773 0.6123 0.3070
Average 30.3156 2.1880 0.7285
Fluorescent Cells 1 $ 10^{-1} $ 21.7999 8.3016 2.1735
1 $ 10^{-4} $ 41.6892 8.9243 2.5687
4 $ 10^{-1} $ 40.1406 4.1263 2.4025
4 $ 10^{-4} $ 38.6224 3.8464 2.0889
16 $ 10^{-1} $ 37.7174 7.3265 6.1742
16 $ 10^{-4} $ 7.7788 7.6185 1.1258
Average 31.2914 6.6906 2.7556
Cameraman 1 $ 10^{-1} $ 9.3735 1.3062 1.2272
1 $ 10^{-4} $ 40.9848 3.2183 0.9053
4 $ 10^{-1} $ 36.8623 0.6872 1.5084
4 $ 10^{-4} $ 36.4358 0.6179 1.4209
16 $ 10^{-1} $ 3.3691 0.5151 0.9925
16 $ 10^{-4} $ 11.0407 0.3607 0.5260
Average 23.0140 1.1176 1.0967
[1]

Bao Wang, Alex Lin, Penghang Yin, Wei Zhu, Andrea L. Bertozzi, Stanley J. Osher. Adversarial defense via the data-dependent activation, total variation minimization, and adversarial training. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2021, 15 (1) : 129-145. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020046
[2]

Hui Gao, Jian Lv, Xiaoliang Wang, Liping Pang. An alternating linearization bundle method for a class of nonconvex optimization problem with inexact information. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (2) : 805-825. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019135
[3]

Mingchao Zhao, You-Wei Wen, Michael Ng, Hongwei Li. A nonlocal low rank model for poisson noise removal. Inverse Problems & Imaging, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2021003
[4]

Peter Frolkovič, Viera Kleinová. A new numerical method for level set motion in normal direction used in optical flow estimation. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2021, 14 (3) : 851-863. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020347
[5]

Alain Bensoussan, Xinwei Feng, Jianhui Huang. Linear-quadratic-Gaussian mean-field-game with partial observation and common noise. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2021, 11 (1) : 23-46. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2020025
[6]

Ying Liu, Yanping Chen, Yunqing Huang, Yang Wang. Two-grid method for semiconductor device problem by mixed finite element method and characteristics finite element method. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29 (1) : 1859-1880. doi: 10.3934/era.2020095
[7]

Gang Luo, Qingzhi Yang. The point-wise convergence of shifted symmetric higher order power method. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (1) : 357-368. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019115
[8]

Wenya Qi, Padmanabhan Seshaiyer, Junping Wang. A four-field mixed finite element method for Biot's consolidation problems. Electronic Research Archive, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/era.2020127
[9]

Ilyasse Lamrani, Imad El Harraki, Ali Boutoulout, Fatima-Zahrae El Alaoui. Feedback stabilization of bilinear coupled hyperbolic systems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020434
[10]

Zuliang Lu, Fei Huang, Xiankui Wu, Lin Li, Shang Liu. Convergence and quasi-optimality of $ L^2- $norms based an adaptive finite element method for nonlinear optimal control problems. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1459-1486. doi: 10.3934/era.2020077
[11]

Petr Čoupek, María J. Garrido-Atienza. Bilinear equations in Hilbert space driven by paths of low regularity. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (1) : 121-154. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020230
[12]

Claudia Lederman, Noemi Wolanski. An optimization problem with volume constraint for an inhomogeneous operator with nonstandard growth. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020391
[13]

George W. Patrick. The geometry of convergence in numerical analysis. Journal of Computational Dynamics, 2021, 8 (1) : 33-58. doi: 10.3934/jcd.2021003
[14]

Matania Ben–Artzi, Joseph Falcovitz, Jiequan Li. The convergence of the GRP scheme. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2009, 23 (1&2) : 1-27. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2009.23.1
[15]

Huyuan Chen, Dong Ye, Feng Zhou. On gaussian curvature equation in $ \mathbb{R}^2 $ with prescribed nonpositive curvature. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2020, 40 (6) : 3201-3214. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020125
[16]

Mahdi Karimi, Seyed Jafar Sadjadi. Optimization of a Multi-Item Inventory model for deteriorating items with capacity constraint using dynamic programming. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021013
[17]

Hai-Liang Li, Tong Yang, Mingying Zhong. Diffusion limit of the Vlasov-Poisson-Boltzmann system. Kinetic & Related Models, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/krm.2021003
[18]

Fengwei Li, Qin Yue, Xiaoming Sun. The values of two classes of Gaussian periods in index 2 case and weight distributions of linear codes. Advances in Mathematics of Communications, 2021, 15 (1) : 131-153. doi: 10.3934/amc.2020049
[19]

Thierry Horsin, Mohamed Ali Jendoubi. On the convergence to equilibria of a sequence defined by an implicit scheme. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020465
[20]

Philipp Harms. Strong convergence rates for markovian representations of fractional processes. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020367

2019 Impact Factor: 1.373

Tools

Metrics

  • PDF downloads (29)
  • HTML views (85)
  • Cited by (0)

Other articles
by authors

[Back to Top]

Copyright © 2020 American Institute of Mathematical Sciences