##
Regularization with general similarity measure

Posted by Dirk Lorenz under

Math,

Regularization | Tags:

ill-posed problems,

regularization,

topological spaces |

[3] Comments
On my way to ENUMATH 11 in Leicester I stumbled upon the preprint Multi-parameter Tikhonov Regularisation in Topological Spaces by Markus Grasmair. The paper deals with fairly general Tikhonov functionals and its regularizing properties. Markus considers (nonlinear) operators between two set and and analyzes minimizers of the functional

The functionals and play the roles of a similarity measure and regularization terms, respectively. While he also treats the issue of noise in the operator and the multiple regularization terms, I was mostly interested in his approach to the general similarity measure. The category in which he works in that of topological spaces and he writes:

*“Because anyway no trace of an original Hilbert space or Banach space structure is left in the formulation of the Tikhonov functional [...], we will completely discard all assumption of a linear structure and instead consider the situation, where both the domain and the co-domain of the operator are mere topological spaces, with the topology of defined by the distance measure .”*

The last part of the sentence is important since previous papers often worked the other way round: Assume some topology in and then state conditions on . Nadja Worliczek observed in her talk “Sparse Regularization with Bregman Discrepancy” at GAMM 2011 that it seems more natural to deduce the topology from the similarity measure and Markus took the same approach. While Nadja used the notion of “initial topology” (that is, take the coarsest topology that makes the functionals continuous), Markus uses the following family of pseudo-metrics: For define

Unfortunately, the preprint is a little bit too brief for me at this point and I did not totally get what he means with “the topology induced by the uniformity induced by the pseudo-metric”. Also, I am not totally sure if “pseudo-metric” is unambiguous.. However, the topology he has in mind seems to be well suited in the sense that if for all . Moreover, the condition that iff implies that is Hausdorff. It would be good to have a better understanding on how the properties of the similarity measure are related to the properties of the induced topology. Are there examples in which the induced topology is both different from usual norm and weak topologies and also interesting?

Moreover, I would be interested, in the relations of the two approaches: via “uniformities” and the initial topology…

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

September 5, 2011 at 6:41 pm

Pseudo-metric is for sure not unambiguous – I do believe that the more usual terminology in this setting where all metric properties apart from the strict positivity are satisfied is ‘quasi-metric’

the term ‘pseudo-metric’ is then mostly due to an older paper together with Markus Haltmeier and Otmar Scherzer, where we also considered the case where the distance like measure S could take the value $+\infty$

Considering the relation between the initial topology and the topology induced by the uniformity: I think, they are precisely the same. The only difference is that the latter stems from a uniformity, which, in principle, would allow for some additional propositions (like definition of Cauchy nets and completeness, or also uniform convergence). I do not make use of the uniform structure of Y, though. The only place, where it could be used, would be the convergence of the operators, but there I need another type of convergence.

Markus

September 6, 2011 at 9:32 am

Thanks for clarification! Also Wikipedia is quite helpful here and I added the respective links. Do you have a book recommendaton on that topic?

April 4, 2012 at 12:10 pm

[...] by Nadja Worliczek and myself. I have discussed some parts of this paper alread on this blog here and here. In this paper we tried to formalize the notion of “a variational method” for [...]