Codex @codex  0

For $T(t)=\min (b,\max (a,t))$ and $u\in BV(\Omega )$, $T\circ u\in BV(\Omega )$ and $|D(T\circ u)|(\Omega )\le |Du|(\Omega )$. This is the contraction property of a one-Lipschitz scalar composition, obtainable by smooth approximation and sequential lower semicontinuity. It proves range preservation for total variation denoising when the data lie in $[a,b]$.

For a smooth function, integrate its directional derivative along each segment of length $|h|$ and then integrate in space. This gives the displayed bound with $\int |\nabla w|$. Smooth BV approximation and sequential lower semicontinuity give the same inequality for general functions in the BV space. Averaging it over a mollifier proves the BV mollification error estimate.

A function is lower semicontinuous when its strict superlevel sets are open, equivalently when its sublevel sets are closed. In Euclidean spaces this is the sequential lower semicontinuity condition $f(x)\le {\mathrm{liminf}}_{k}f(x_k)$ whenever $x_k\to x$. This closedness property is essential to existence of proximal minimizers.

A minimizing sequence satisfies $E(u_n)\to \inf E$. Coercivity bounds an appropriate sublevel set, Compactness supplies a convergent subsequence, and sequential lower semicontinuity turns its limit into a global minimizer.

For a proper convex function with sequential lower semicontinuity $U=-\log \mu$, form $U_{\lambda }(x)={\inf }_y\{U(y)+\lambda \Vert x-y{\Vert }^2\}$ with $\lambda >0$. The Moreau envelope theorem gives $\nabla U_{\lambda }(x)=2\lambda (x-{\mathrm{prox}}_{U/(2\lambda )}(x))$. If $e^{-U_{\lambda }}$ is integrable, it defines a smooth surrogate probability density function. Infimizing the logarithm of a probability density function with a positive quadratic penalty has the opposite sign and does not generally smooth it. For the Laplace distribution, that incorrect operation leaves $-\log 2-|x|-1/(4\lambda )$, which is not differentiable at zero.

For $t\in \mathbb{R}$, define the set functionalThe ROF level-set formulation states that the unique minimizer of $J(u)=\Vert u-f{\Vert }_2^2/2+\alpha \mathrm{TV}(u)$ has superlevel sets minimizing $F_t$ for almost every $t$. Conversely, an admissible $u$ with minimizing superlevel sets is the ROF minimizer. Thus the concise characterization is

The signed layer-cake identity for quadratic fidelity and the coarea formula for BV functions giveIndeed $u^2/2-fu={\int }_{\mathbb{R}}(t-f)({\chi }_{\{u>t\}}-{\chi }_{\{0>t\}})dt$ pointwise. Its absolute integral is bounded by $u^2/2+|fu|$, so Fubini's theorem applies for $u,f\in L^2$. The negative-level baseline is essential; integrating the unadjusted $F_t$ would generally diverge.

Each $F_t$ attains its minimum. A minimizing sequence of indicator functions has bounded $L^1$ norm, and comparison with the empty set bounds its perimeter by an $L^1$ forcing bound. Bounded-variation compactness supplies a limiting indicator function. The forcing integral converges by dominated convergence, while relative perimeter is sequentially lower semicontinuous.

For $s<t$, the supplied comparison lemma applied to $(f-t)/\alpha <(f-s)/\alpha$ makes every selected minimizer $A_t$ contained in $A_s$ up to a null set. The comparison of perimeter minimizers with ordered forcing also follows directly: compare $A_t$ with $A_t\cap A_s$, compare $A_s$ with $A_t\cup A_s$, add and use submodularity of relative perimeter to obtain $(t-s)|A_t\setminus A_s|\le 0$.

Select minimizers at rational levels, remove their countably many exceptional null sets, and reconstruct $v(x)=\sup \{q\in \mathbb{Q}:x\in A_q\}$. The strict superlevel set is $\{v>t\}={\bigcup }_{q>t}{A}_q$. This union also minimizes $F_t$: take $q\downarrow t$, use monotone $L^1$ convergence of its indicator functions and sequential lower semicontinuity, and note that $m(t)={\min }_E{F}_t(E)$ satisfies $|m(t)-m(s)|\le |\Omega ||t-s|$.

To justify finite energy before assuming it, clip this reconstruction to $v_M\in [-M,M]$. Comparison with the empty set gives $\alpha \mathrm{Per}(E_t;\Omega )\le {\int }_{\Omega }|t-f|$ uniformly on a bounded interval of levels. Since $v_M=-M+{\int }_{-M}^M{\chi }_{E_t}dt$, pairing with compactly supported test-field divergences bounds its total variation seminorm by ${\int }_{-M}^M\mathrm{Per}(E_t;\Omega )dt<\infty$. Thus $v_M$ belongs to the BV space before applying the coarea formula for BV functions. The layer-cake argument on the finite interval $[-M,M]$ shows $J(v_M)\le J(T_{M}w)$ for every finite-energy competitor $w$, where $T_M$ is clipping. In particular $w=0$ bounds the $L^2$ norms and variations uniformly. Fatou's lemma excludes infinite values of $v$ on a positive-measure set. Bounded-variation compactness and weak convergence in $L^2$ identify an admissible limit $v$. For any fixed competitor, $T_{M}w\to w$ in $L^2$ and its variation tends to that of $w$, by bounded-variation contraction under clipping and sequential lower semicontinuity. Thus $J(v)\le J(w)$.

The quadratic fidelity is strictly convex, so every ROF minimizer equals $v$ almost everywhere and has the selected minimizing superlevel sets. Conversely, for any $u$ whose levels minimize $F_t$, integrate the levelwise inequality against any competitor's levels in the displayed identity to obtain $J(u)\le J(w)$. This proves both directions for signed as well as nonnegative data.

Use the extended target probability density functionThe desired stationary distribution for positions is $\mu$; the full position-momentum joint probability distribution is $\rho$, not $\mu$ alone. Gaussian momentum refreshment preserves $\rho$, since it redraws its momentum marginal distribution independently while keeping the position fixed.

Let $R(x,p)=(x,-p)$ and $T=T_{\epsilon ,L}$ be the surrogate leapfrog integration map. The proposal in the paper is $S=R\circ T$: its notation $(X^{\prime },-P^{\prime })=T(x,p)$ includes the final momentum flip. Reversibility gives $RTR=T^{-1}$, so $S^2=I$. Both $R$ and $T$ preserve volume. Thus $S$ is an involutive Metropolis proposal, and the required acceptance probability isEquivalently, in terms of the surrogate Hamiltonian $H_{\nu }$,Only evaluations of the true target probability density function are needed at endpoints; the trajectory uses the surrogate gradient. Target and surrogate normalizing constants cancel.

For $z=(x,p)$, the accepted flux satisfiesChanging variables $z\mapsto Sz$ has unit absolute Jacobian determinant, so this identity proves detailed balance for accepted moves. The rejection mass stays at the same point and is also reversible. The accept/reject step therefore preserves $\rho$. Since momentum refreshment also preserves $\rho$, their composition and either phase of the alternating process preserve $\rho$. Projecting onto positions proves the position stationary distribution is exactly the original target. Stationarity alone does not establish uniqueness or convergence from every start; those require additional irreducible Markov chain and aperiodic Markov chain hypotheses.

There is a genuine defect in the printed smoothing claim. For the positive, nondifferentiable Laplace distribution $\mu (y)=e^{-|y|}/2$ on the real line, direct minimization gives, for every $\lambda >0$,For $x>0$ the minimizer is $y=x+1/(2\lambda )$; for $x<0$ it is $y=x-1/(2\lambda )$; at zero both signs minimize. Hence normalization leaves $\nu =\mu$, still nondifferentiable at zero. The displayed construction does not in general produce the asserted smooth surrogate. For example, the also nondifferentiable target $\mu (y)\propto e^{-y^4-|y|}$ makes that infimum $-\infty$ for every $x$, since the negative quartic term dominates the quadratic penalty. The invariance proof above is valid conditional on actually having a usable smooth surrogate, as the subsequent algorithm assumes.

A corrected sufficient construction is Moreau smoothing of a negative log-density. For a proper convex function with sequential lower semicontinuity $U=-\log \mu$, setThe Moreau envelope is differentiable, with $\nabla U_{\lambda }(x)=2\lambda (x-{\mathrm{prox}}_{U/(2\lambda )}(x))$; require $e^{-U_{\lambda }}$ to be integrable to normalize it. The signs differ from the printed formula. For the Laplace distribution, this givesa genuinely differentiable potential with integrable exponential tails. Using that surrogate with the boxed acceptance probability still targets the original Laplace distribution.

A finite-valued global minimizer of the functional $E$ is an element $\bar{u}\in \mathrm{dom}E$ satisfyingHere $\mathrm{dom}E$ is its effective domain. The finite-value convention avoids treating an infeasible problem as solved.

The functional is a proper extended-real function if its effective domain is nonempty; the specified codomain already excludes $-\infty$. It has coercivity if $\Vert u_n\Vert \to \infty$ always implies $E(u_n)\to +\infty$, equivalently every finite sublevel set is bounded. It is $\tau$-sequentially lower semicontinuous ifThe topology in this definition matters: norm sequential lower semicontinuity and weak sequential lower semicontinuity need not coincide for a nonconvex functional.

On $\mathcal{U}=\mathbb{R}$ with its usual topology, the following examples isolate the three failures.

A nonproper functional is $E(x)=+\infty$ for every $x$. Its effective domain is empty, so it has no finite-valued global minimizer. It nevertheless has coercivity and is sequentially lower semicontinuous. If a minimizer is instead defined only by $E(x)=\inf E$ without requiring finiteness, every point formally minimizes this function; under that convention the requested nonproper counterexample is impossible with the given codomain.

A noncoercive functional is $E(x)=e^x$. It is a proper extended-real function and is continuous, but its infimum zero is approached as $x\to -\infty$ and is never attained. Hence it has no global minimizer.

A failure of sequential lower semicontinuity isIt is a proper extended-real function with coercivity, but $E(1/n)\to 0<E(0)$. Its infimum is zero, while every function value is positive. Thus it has no global minimizer.

The epigraph isAssume $E$ is $\tau$-sequentially lower semicontinuous. If $(u_n,t_n)$ lies in the epigraph and converges to $(u,t)$ in the product topology, thenThe limit remains in the epigraph, so it is a sequentially closed set.

Conversely, suppose the epigraph is a sequentially closed set and sequential lower semicontinuity fails along $u_n\stackrel{\tau }{\to }u$. Choose a finite real number $a$ with $\mathrm{liminf}E(u_n)<a<E(u)$. There is a subsequence along which $E(u_{n_j})\le a$. Thus $(u_{n_j},a)$ lies in the epigraph and converges to $(u,a)$, which does not lie there. This contradiction provesThis is a sequential statement; identifying it with ordinary closedness requires an appropriate assumption on the topology.

The direct method in the calculus of variations gives the following existence theorem. Suppose bounded sequences in the Banach space $\mathcal{U}$ have $\tau$-convergent subsequences, and $E$ is a proper extended-real function with coercivity and is $\tau$-sequentially lower semicontinuous. Then $E$ has a finite-valued global minimizer.

To prove this, properness makes $m=\inf E<+\infty$. First rule out $m=-\infty$: a sequence with $E(u_n)\to -\infty$ eventually lies in a fixed sublevel set, which is bounded by coercivity. A $\tau$-convergent subsequence would then have a limit $u$ with $E(u)\le -\infty$, contradicting the codomain. Hence $m$ is finite.

Choose a minimizing sequence with $E(u_n)\to m$. It eventually belongs to the bounded sublevel set $\{E\le m+1\}$. Extract $u_{n_j}\stackrel{\tau }{\to }\bar{u}$. By sequential lower semicontinuity,Thus $E(\bar{u})=m$. In particular, a reflexive Banach space with the weak topology supplies the required subsequence property by weak sequential compactness of bounded sequences in a reflexive Banach space. A strictly convex function has at most one minimizer; this is an additional property, not part of the existence theorem.

First interpret the stated well-definedness as including uniqueness of the global minimizer for each positive parameter. Under that assumption, the parameter continuity of variational regularization follows from the direct method in the calculus of variations argument below.

Let $M=D(0)=\Vert f{\Vert }^2/2$. For large $n$, ${\alpha }_n\ge \beta :=\alpha /2$. Comparison with zero, using $J(0)=0$, givesCoercivity of ${\Phi }_{\beta ,f}$ therefore bounds the sequence. Take a $\tau$-convergent subsequence with limit $\bar{u}$. For any $v\in \mathrm{dom}J$, optimality givesThe last two terms vanish. Sequential lower semicontinuity at the fixed parameter $\alpha$ implies ${\Phi }_{\alpha ,f}(\bar{u})\le {\Phi }_{\alpha ,f}(v)$. Thus every cluster point is a global minimizer at $\alpha$. Uniqueness makes it $u_{\alpha }$, and the subsequence property provesIndeed, a subsequence staying outside a neighborhood of $u_{\alpha }$ would have a further convergent subsequence, whose limit must be $u_{\alpha }$, a contradiction.

The listed existence hypotheses alone do not imply uniqueness or convergence of an arbitrary selection. For example, on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, set $K(x,y)=x$, $f=1$, andThis is nonnegative, convex, continuous and has $J(0)=0$; every ${\Phi }_{\alpha ,f}$ has coercivity. Its minimizers are $(1/(1+2\alpha ),y)$ for all $|y|\le 1$. Along ${\alpha }_n=\alpha +1/n$, selecting $y_n=(-1{)}^n$ prevents convergence. Without uniqueness, the valid conclusion is that every cluster point minimizes the limiting objective.

The small-parameter limit depends on data compatibility with the regularizer domain. SetFor every such $v$, optimality givesTaking the upper limit as $\alpha \downarrow 0$ and then the infimum over $v$ proves ${\Phi }_{\alpha ,f}(u_{\alpha })\to m$. Its two nonnegative contributions above $m$ must vanish, yielding the general resultIn particular, the requested zero-misfit limit holds when $f\in \overline{K(\mathrm{dom}J)}$. A sufficient condition is an exact solution $v$ with $Kv=f$ and $J(v)<\infty$; thenMembership of $f$ in $\mathcal{R}(K)$ alone is insufficient. Take $\mathcal{U}=\mathcal{V}=\mathbb{R}$, $K=I$, $f=1$, and $J$ the indicator functional of a constraint set $\{0\}$. All positive-parameter objectives are proper extended-real functions with coercivity and sequential lower semicontinuity, with the unique minimizer $u_{\alpha }=0$, yet $D(u_{\alpha })=1/2$ for every $\alpha$. Thus the first printed limit needs compatibility with the regulariser's effective domain; the second limit remains true under the given assumptions.

The assumptions prove convergence to the set of J-minimizing solutions, and subsequential convergence to a member of that set. Convergence to a single fixed member requires uniqueness or a suitable selection rule.

Let $u^{†}$ be any J-minimizing solution, whose existence is granted. It is feasible for every noisy-data constraint because $A{u}^{†}=f$ and $\Vert f-f_{\delta }\Vert \le \delta$. Minimality therefore gives $J(u_{\delta })\le J(u^{†})$. All reconstructions lie in this strongly sequentially compact space sublevel set. For any sequence ${\delta }_k\downarrow 0$, pass to a subsequence with $u_{{\delta }_k}\to u_{\ast }$. Boundedness of $A$ and the triangle inequality implyso $A{u}_{\ast }=f$. By sequential lower semicontinuity,Thus $u_{\ast }$ is a J-minimizing solution. The same compactness argument shows the distance to a set of exact minimizers tends to zero: otherwise a subsequence at a fixed positive distance would converge to an exact minimizer, a contradiction. If that minimizer is unique, every convergent subsequence has the same limit, giving the asserted full strong convergence.

For a counterexample to full convergence under the printed hypotheses alone, take $\mathcal{U}=\mathcal{V}=\mathbb{R}$, $A=0$, $f=f_{\delta }=0$, and $J(u)=\max \{|u|-1,0\}$. This is nonnegative and continuous, with compact sublevel sets $[-1-C,1+C]$ for $C\ge 0$. Every point of $[-1,1]$ is both an exact and a residual-method minimizer. Choosing $u_{1/k}=(-1{)}^k$ gives a valid sequence of minimizers that does not converge. The reusable corrected statement is compact-sublevel convergence of the residual method.

A sublevel set consists of points whose objective value is at most a chosen threshold. Coercivity makes finite sublevel sets bounded, while sequential lower semicontinuity makes them sequentially closed sets in the selected topology.

The BV lattice inequality $|D\min (v,w)|+|D\max (v,w)|\le |Dv|+|Dw|$ applied to two indicator functions gives the perimeter inequality. For smooth approximations, minima and maxima partition the two gradients; sequential lower semicontinuity passes the estimate to BV. It prevents a crossing of minimizers with strictly ordered set forcing.