The Moreau-Yosida Regularization: Difference between revisions

From Optimal Transport Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(added proof to main result)
Line 40: Line 40:
the family <math> \{ h_{k,y} \}_{y \in X} </math> is uniformly Lipschitz and hence equicontinuous. Thus <math>g_k = \inf\limits_{y \in Y} h_{k,y}</math> is Lipschitz continuous.
the family <math> \{ h_{k,y} \}_{y \in X} </math> is uniformly Lipschitz and hence equicontinuous. Thus <math>g_k = \inf\limits_{y \in Y} h_{k,y}</math> is Lipschitz continuous.
* Suppose that <math>g</math> is also lower semicontinuous. Note that for all <math>k_1 \leq k_2</math>, <math>g_{k_1}(x) \leq g_{k_2}(x) \leq g(x)</math>. Thus it suffices to show that <math>\liminf\limits_{k \to \infty} g_k(x) \geq g(x)</math>. This inequality is automatically satisfied when the left hand side is infinite, so without loss of generality assume that <math>\liminf\limits_{k \to \infty} g_k(x) < +\infty</math>. By definition of infimum, for each <math>k \in \mathbb{N}</math> there exists <math>y_k \in X</math> such that  
* Suppose that <math>g</math> is also lower semicontinuous. Note that for all <math>k_1 \leq k_2</math>, <math>g_{k_1}(x) \leq g_{k_2}(x) \leq g(x)</math>. Thus it suffices to show that <math>\liminf\limits_{k \to \infty} g_k(x) \geq g(x)</math>. This inequality is automatically satisfied when the left hand side is infinite, so without loss of generality assume that <math>\liminf\limits_{k \to \infty} g_k(x) < +\infty</math>. By definition of infimum, for each <math>k \in \mathbb{N}</math> there exists <math>y_k \in X</math> such that  
:<math>g(y_k) + k d(x,y_k) \leq g_k(x) + \frac{1}{k}</math>. Then  
 
:<math>g(y_k) + k d(x,y_k) \leq g_k(x) + \frac{1}{k}</math>.  
 
Then  
:<math>+\infty > \liminf\limits_{k \to \infty} g_k(x) \geq \liminf\limits_{k \to \infty} \left[ g(y_k) + k d(x,y_k) \right].</math>
:<math>+\infty > \liminf\limits_{k \to \infty} g_k(x) \geq \liminf\limits_{k \to \infty} \left[ g(y_k) + k d(x,y_k) \right].</math>
<math>g(y_k)</math> is bounded below by assumption, while the only way <math>kd(x,y_k)</math> is finite in the limit is for <math>d(x,y_k)</math> to go to zero. Thus <math>y_k</math> converges to <math>x</math> in <math>X</math>, and by lower semicontinuity of <math>g</math>,  
<math>g(y_k)</math> is bounded below by assumption, while the only way <math>kd(x,y_k)</math> is finite in the limit is for <math>d(x,y_k)</math> to go to zero. Thus <math>y_k</math> converges to <math>x</math> in <math>X</math>, and by lower semicontinuity of <math>g</math>,  
:<math> \liminf\limits_{k \to \infty} g_k(x) \geq \liminf\limits_{k \to \infty} \left[ g(y_k) + k d(x,y_k) \right] \geq g(x) </math>.
:<math> \liminf\limits_{k \to \infty} g_k(x) \geq \liminf\limits_{k \to \infty} \left[ g(y_k) + k d(x,y_k) \right] \geq g(x) </math>.
* By definition, <math>g_k \wedge k \in C_b(X)</math>. Since <math>g_k(x) \nearrow g(x)</math> for all <math>x \in X</math>, <math>g_k(x) \wedge k \nearrow g(x)</math> for all <math>x \in X</math>.
* By definition, <math>g_k \wedge k \in C_b(X)</math>. Since <math>g_k(x) \nearrow g(x)</math> for all <math>x \in X</math>, <math>g_k(x) \wedge k \nearrow g(x)</math> for all <math>x \in X</math>.



Revision as of 04:28, 9 February 2022

(to be filled in)

Motivation

(to be filled in)


Definitions

Let be a metric space. A function is said to be proper if it is not identically equal to , that is, if there exists such that .

For a given function and , its Moreau-Yosida regularization is given by


Note that

.

Examples

  • If , then by definition is constant and .
  • If is not proper, then for all .

Take . If is finite-valued and differentiable, we can explicitly write down . Then for a fixed , the map is continuous everywhere and differentiable everywhere except for when , where the derivative does not exist due to the absolute value. Thus we can apply standard optimization techniques from Calculus to solve for : find the critical points of and take the infimum of evaluated at the critical points. One of these values will always be the original function evaluated at , since this corresponds to the critical point for .

  • Let . Then
Plot of and for .

Results

Proposition. [1][2]

  • If is proper and bounded below, so is . Furthermore, is continuous for all .
  • If, in addition, is lower semicontinuous, then for all .
  • In this case, is continuous and bounded and for all .

Proof.

  • Since is proper, there exists such that . Then for any

Thus is proper and bounded below. Next, for a fixed , let . Then as

,

the family is uniformly Lipschitz and hence equicontinuous. Thus is Lipschitz continuous.

  • Suppose that is also lower semicontinuous. Note that for all , . Thus it suffices to show that . This inequality is automatically satisfied when the left hand side is infinite, so without loss of generality assume that . By definition of infimum, for each there exists such that
.

Then

is bounded below by assumption, while the only way is finite in the limit is for to go to zero. Thus converges to in , and by lower semicontinuity of ,

.
  • By definition, . Since for all , for all .

References

Possible list of references, will fix accordingly

Bauschke-Combette Ch 12.[3]; Santambrogio (6)[2]; Ambrosio-Gigli-Savare (59-61)[4]

  1. Craig, Katy C. Lower Semicontinuity in the Narrow Topology. Math 260J. Univ. of Ca. at Santa Barbara. Winter 2022.
  2. 2.0 2.1 Santambrogio, Filippo. Optimal Transport for Applied Mathematicians: Calculus of Variations, PDEs, and Modeling Ch. 1.1. Birkhäuser, 2015.
  3. Bauschke, Heinz H. and Patrick L. Combettes. Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces, 2nd Ed. Ch. 12. Springer, 2017.
  4. Ambrosio, Luigi, Nicola Gigli, and Giuseppe Savaré. Gradient Flows in Metric Spaces and in the Space of Probability Measures. Ch. 3.1. Birkhäuser, 2005.