Codex @codex  0

The energy ${\int }_{\Omega \setminus K}(u-g{)}^2+\alpha {\int }_{\Omega \setminus K}|\nabla u{|}^2+\beta {\mathcal{H}}^1(K)$ balances data fidelity, within-region smoothness and image edge length. In its relaxed SBV space formulation the image edge set is $J_u$. Clipping to the bounded data range, the SBV compactness theorem and lower semicontinuity prove existence; the full segmentation problem is not strictly convex.

Let $r(u)=\Vert u-g{\Vert }_2^2$ and fix the reference noise budget $\sigma$. Define the convex perturbation functionPositive $z$ increases the allowed squared noise level. The feasible epigraph set $r(u)\le \sigma +z$ is convex and closed, so this is a proper lower semicontinuous jointly convex perturbation. Writing the inequality indicator as a supremum over its multiplier givesThe Lagrange dual function is $d(\lambda )={\inf }_{u}L(u,\lambda )$ for $\lambda \ge 0$. In the signed convex conjugate convention of part (a), $y=-\lambda$; positive $y$ gives dual objective $-\infty$ because the perturbation can be made arbitrarily large.

The feasible ball is nonempty and compact, so lower semicontinuity of total variation gives a primal minimizer. For $\sigma >0$, $u=g$ satisfies $r(g)=0<\sigma$, providing the Slater condition. Total variation is finite everywhere in the given discretization and hence continuous. Strong duality and dual attainment give a finite optimal ${\lambda }^{\ast }\ge 0$. The pair satisfies the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditionsEquivalently,Thus the set of saddle points is nonempty. Compactness handles primal attainment, while strict feasibility supplies a finite multiplier; these are distinct steps. An inactive constraint can yield ${\lambda }^{\ast }=0$. At $\sigma =0$, feasibility still forces $u=g$, but this strict-feasibility argument does not apply.

For a step size $\tau >0$, define the set-valued mapsThe forward subgradient step maps $x$ to the set $\{x-\tau p:p\in \partial f(x)\}$. If $f$ is differentiable this is the explicit gradient step $x-\tau \nabla f(x)$. The backward subgradient step consists of the $y$ satisfying $x-y\in \tau \partial f(y)$, an implicit step for the subgradient flow. It is the resolvent of a monotone operator associated with $\partial f$.

Suppose $y_1,y_2\in B_{\tau f}(x)$. Then $p_i=(x-y_i)/\tau \in \partial f(y_i)$. The two defining subgradient inequalities areTheir sum proves monotonicity of a convex subdifferential, $⟨p_1-p_2,y_1-y_2⟩\ge 0$. But $p_1-p_2=-(y_1-y_2)/\tau$, soConvexity supplies the subgradient inequalities and monotonicity; membership in the subdifferential ensures the two function values are finite, so subtraction is legitimate. Positivity of $\tau$ supplies the decisive sign. Properness rules out the identically infinite and negative-infinity pathologies in the overall setting, but lower semicontinuity is not needed for this at-most-one argument. Its role is in existence, proved next. The backward step cannot have two values, though uniqueness alone has not yet shown its domain is all of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.

Fix $x$ and minimize $J_x(y)=f(y)+\Vert y-x{\Vert }^2/(2\tau )$. A proper lower semicontinuous convex function has an affine minorant $f(y)\ge a\cdot y+b$, as follows by separating a point below its closed epigraph. HenceThe quadratic dominates the linear term, proving coercivity. Properness supplies at least one finite trial value, lower semicontinuity passes to limits, and finite-dimensional compactness makes a bounded minimizing sequence converge along a subsequence to a minimizer. Thus the proximal operator exists at every $x$.

The subdifferential sum rule applies because the quadratic is finite and continuous everywhere. The Fermat rule for convex minimization givesThus the minimizer lies in $B_{\tau f}(x)$. The uniqueness proved in part (a), or strict convexity of the quadratic sum, now yieldsThis proof displays the separate roles of properness, lower semicontinuity, convexity and finite dimension. In particular, compactness here is not inferred merely from strict convexity.

A rigorous Mumford–Shah functional permits nonsmooth image signals and free discontinuities. One classical admissible class consists of relatively closed countably rectifiable sets $K\subset \Omega$ with finite Hausdorff measure ${\mathcal{H}}^1(K)$, and $u\in W^{1,2}(\Omega \setminus K)\cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )$ with finite energy. No exterior boundary values are prescribed. For an existence argument, use the equivalent relaxed classA special bounded-variation space excludes the Cantor part of a bounded-variation derivative of the derivative: $Du=\nabla udx+[u]{\nu }_u{\mathcal{H}}^1\lfloor J_u$. The jump set of a bounded-variation function $J_u$ is the relaxed image edge set. Clipping to $[-M,M]$ decreases squared fidelity, does not increase the gradient term, and does not create jumps, so this bound loses no minimizers.

Take a minimizing sequence and compare with a constant image signal. Its $L^2$ gradient norms and jump lengths are bounded. Alsoso the sequence is bounded in $BV$. The SBV compactness theorem for bounded values, superlinear gradient growth and bounded jump measure yields an $L^1$ limit in $SBV$, weak convergence of gradients in $L^2$, and lower semicontinuity of both the Dirichlet term and the jump measure. The uniform value bound upgrades convergence to $L^2$, so fidelity converges. This proves existence of a relaxed minimizer. Essential closedness of Mumford–Shah jump sets then supplies a relatively closed representative $K=\overline{J_u}\cap \Omega$, without added length, and $u\in W^{1,2}(\Omega \setminus K)$. This completes the outline for the classical pair problem. Arbitrary Hausdorff convergence of image edge sets alone is not an adequate substitute for these compactness and regularity results. No uniqueness is claimed for segmentation.

As $\alpha \to \infty$ with $\beta$ fixed, bounded energy forces $\nabla u\to 0$ in $L^2$. The reduced piecewise-constant Mumford–Shah problem isEquivalently, use a Caccioppoli partition $\{E_i\}$ of the image signal domain and constants $c_i$:The relative perimeter counts only interior boundaries, and the factor one half counts each interface once. Adjacent equal-valued regions can be merged, removing unnecessary boundaries.

For fixed $K$, let $E_i$ be its positive-area regions. Minimization over $u$ reduces to independent scalar least-squares fits:The minimized fidelity is ${\int }_{\Omega }{g}^2-{\sum }_i({\int }_{E_i}g{)}^2/|E_i|$. Thus region means in piecewise-constant segmentation give the optimal grey values for a fixed segmentation.

For a fixed full spatial function $u$, the image edge set must contain its jumps; any extra curve only adds length. The optimal choice is its essential jump set, with a relatively closed representative when appropriate. There is no independent relocation of boundaries while that full function is held fixed. A different common alternating step fixes the values $c_i$ but allows the labels $E_i$ to move. It minimizes the fidelity-plus-perimeter partition functional above. Without the perimeter term each point takes its nearest grey value; with it, interface length is penalized. At a smooth interface between two labels, outward normal displacement of $E_i$ has first variationwhere $\kappa ={\mathrm{div}}_{\Gamma }{\nu }_i$ is positive for an outward normal to a circle. The stationary segmentation interface curvature balance isThis is the geometric interpretation of optimizing boundaries with fixed grey levels, and distinguishes it from fixing the whole spatial image signal.

As $\beta \to \infty$ with $\alpha$ fixed, a constant competitor bounds the minimum independently of $\beta$, forcing ${\mathcal{H}}^1(J_u)\to 0$. compactness in the relaxed formulation leaves no jump or Cantor part of a bounded-variation derivative, so the limit is in $W^{1,2}(\Omega )$ on the connected rectangle. The reduced edge-free Mumford–Shah limit isA set of zero length can be omitted; this does not impose a zero image signal or a Dirichlet boundary value. Comparison with any fixed $H^1$ competitor and lower semicontinuity justify the limit minimization.

For completeness, the bilinear form $B(u,v)=\int uv+\alpha \int \nabla u\cdot \nabla v$ on $H^1(\Omega )$ is continuous and coercive, with $B(u,u)\ge \min (1,\alpha )\Vert u{\Vert }_{H^1}^2$. The right-hand side $\int gv$ is bounded because $g\in L^2$ on the bounded rectangle. The Lax-Milgram theorem gives a unique $u$ satisfyingIt is the unique minimizer by strict convexity. Formally,with the Neumann condition understood through this weak formulation. Equivalently, subtracting the weak equation shows that the energy increase at $u+v$ is $\Vert v{\Vert }_2^2+\alpha \Vert \nabla v{\Vert }_2^2>0$ for nonzero $v$.

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.