Codex @codex  0

The conjugate of an infimal convolution is the sum of the conjugates:Here $g^{\ast }(p)=\frac{1}{2}\Vert p{\Vert }_2^2$, and $h^{\ast }(p)={\delta }_{[-1,1{]}^n}(p)$, the indicator functional of the unit infinity-norm ball. ThusThe infimal convolution is finite convex and continuous, so the Fenchel-Moreau theorem applies without a closure defect. By equality in the Fenchel–Young inequality and the subdifferential sum rule,This is precisely the variational characterization of projecting $x$ onto the cube. ConsequentlyFor the primal split, $y_i=\mathrm{clip}(x_i,-1,1)$ and $z_i=\mathrm{sign}(x_i)(|x_i|-1{)}_{+}$. These directly minimize the two scalar terms. The Huber loss is continuously differentiable, including at $x_i=\pm 1$, but its second derivative changes there. The one-dimensional sketch shows a quadratic center joined tangentially to linear tails:

Applied to a discrete gradient, the Huber gradient regularizer penalizes small slopes quadratically and large slopes linearly. Compared with pure squared-gradient smoothing it preserves large edges better; compared with pure total variation denoising it encourages small smooth variations and reduces the strong preference for piecewise-constant plateaus. It can therefore be useful for denoising signals or images containing both smooth regions and sharp transitions. It still penalizes edges and can bias their amplitude, and it does not guarantee complete elimination of staircasing in total variation denoising. The unit threshold must be scaled appropriately for data units and grid spacing.

Use the conventionThis proximal map is also the resolvent of a monotone operator $(I+\tau \partial f{)}^{-1}$. A proper lower semicontinuous convex function has an affine minorant, so the quadratic term makes this minimization coercive and strongly convex. A unique minimizer exists for every $x$. Its subgradient optimality condition isThe Moreau–Yosida regularisation is $f_{\tau }=f\square g^{\tau }$. The conjugate of an infimal convolution and the quadratic conjugate giveThe factor $\tau$ here is essential. Apply subgradient inversion under convex conjugacy, followed by the subdifferential sum rule with the everywhere differentiable quadratic:The last equivalence is precisely the unique proximal minimization condition. ThusThis proves both existence and uniqueness of the subgradient, rather than only identifying a possible element. The finite convex function $f_{\tau }$ is therefore differentiable, with $\nabla f_{\tau }=(I-P_{\tau })/\tau$, the gradient of a Moreau envelope.

For completeness, monotonicity of $\partial f$ applied to the two proximal conditions givesHence $P_{\tau }$ is firmly nonexpansive. Expanding the same inequality shows that $I-P_{\tau }$ is firmly nonexpansive too. In particular, $\nabla f_{\tau }$ is $1/\tau$-Lipschitz continuous. None of this requires a bounded effective domain; the result applies to the next example as well.

Write $h=f\square g$ for the infimal convolution. It is proper by the permitted hypothesis. If $h(x_0)$ and $h(x_1)$ are finite, choose $y_0,y_1$ within $\epsilon$ of their respective infima. For $0<t<1$, put $x_t=(1-t)x_0+t{x}_1$ and $y_t=(1-t)y_0+t{y}_1$. Convexity of $f$ and $g$ givesLet $\epsilon \downarrow 0$. If either endpoint value is infinite, the desired inequality is automatic. Thus the infimal convolution is convex, without assuming the infimum is attained.

For its convex conjugate, replace a negative infimum by a supremum and then change variables $u=x-y$:The two suprema separate because $u$ and $y$ are independent. Properness of $f$ and $g$ makes each supremum strictly greater than $-\infty$, so this separation remains valid when one or both are $+\infty$. Therefore $(f\square g{)}^{\ast }=f^{\ast }+g^{\ast }$. This is the conjugate of an infimal convolution. The bounded-domain assumption is unnecessary for these two calculations; the assumed properness and lower semicontinuity of $h$ will be used when applying subgradient inversion under convex conjugacy.