On the Convergence Theorem for the Regularized Functional Matching Pursuit (RFMP) Algorithm
Prof. Dr. Volker Michel, Sarah Orzlowski

TL;DR
This paper revises and extends the convergence theorem for the RFMP algorithm, a regularization method for linear inverse problems, including infinite-dimensional spaces and non-injective/non-surjective operators.
Contribution
It reformulates and proves the convergence theorem for RFMP, extending it to infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces and addressing non-injective and non-surjective operators.
Findings
Reformulated the convergence theorem for RFMP.
Extended RFMP to infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces.
Addressed convergence in non-injective and non-surjective cases.
Abstract
The RFMP is an iterative regularization method for a class of linear inverse problems. It has proved to be applicable to problems which occur, for example, in the geosciences. In the early publications [Fischer2011] and [FischerMichel2012], it was shown that the iteration converges in the unregularized case to an exact solution. In [Michel2015] and [MichelTelschow2016], it was later shown (for two different scenarios) that the iteration also converges in the regularized case, where the limit of the iteration is the solution of the Tikhonov-regularized normal equation. However, the condition of these convergence proofs cannot be satisfied and, therefore, has to be weakened, as it was pointed out for the convergence theorem of the related iterated Regularized Orthogonal Functional Matching Pursuit (ROFMP) algorithm in [MichelTelschow2016]. Moreover, the convergence proof in [Michel2015]…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsNumerical methods in inverse problems · Sparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques · Microwave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
On the Convergence Theorem for the Regularized Functional Matching Pursuit (RFMP) Algorithm
Volker Michel
Geomathematics Group
Department of Mathematics
University of Siegen
Germany
Sarah Orzlowski
Geomathematics Group
Department of Mathematics
University of Siegen
Germany
(March 9, 2024)
Abstract
The RFMP is an iterative regularization method for a class of linear inverse problems. It has proved to be applicable to problems which occur, for example, in the geosciences. In the early publications [1, 2], it was shown that the iteration converges in the unregularized case to an exact solution. In [4] and [5], it was later shown (for two different scenarios) that the iteration also converges in the regularized case, where the limit of the iteration is the solution of the Tikhonov-regularized normal equation. However, the condition of these convergence proofs cannot be satisfied and, therefore, has to be weakened, as it was pointed out for the convergence theorem of the related iterated Regularized Orthogonal Functional Matching Pursuit (ROFMP) algorithm in [6]. Moreover, the convergence proof in [4] contained a minor error. For these reasons, we reformulate here the convergence theorem for the RFMP and its proof. We also use this opportunity to extend the algorithm for an arbitrary infinite-dimensional separable Hilbert space setting. In addition, we particularly elaborate the cases of non-injective and non-surjective operators.
1 Summary of the RFMP
The RFMP is an algorithm for the regularization of inverse problems of the following type.
Problem 1**.**
Let be a separable and infinite-dimensional Hilbert space (of functions), be the dimension of the data space, be a given (data) vector and be a given linear and continuous operator. The problem is to find (a function) such that
[TABLE]
The RFMP tries to iteratively construct a sequence of approximations to the solution .
Algorithm 2** (Regularized Functional Matching Pursuit, RFMP).**
Let an initial approximation (e.g. ) be given. Moreover, choose a dictionary of (possibly useful) trial functions.
Initialize the step number to and the residual to and choose a regularization parameter . 2. 2.
Determine
[TABLE]
and set and . 3. 3.
Increase by 1 and go to step 2.
In practice, the algorithm will be stopped by an appropriate criterion (see e.g. [4]). Since we are interested in a convergence theorem, we neglect this aspect here.
2 The Convergence Theorem
Several properties can be proved for the RFMP. We summarize here only one result which we will need (see [4, Eq. (2) and Theorem 1]) for the convergence proof. Note that we used an -space in the earlier publications instead of a general Hilbert space . The proofs are, however, easily transferable to the general case.
Lemma 3**.**
The sequences and of the RFMP satisfy
[TABLE]
, such that the sequence is monotonically decreasing and convergent.
The following theorem improves [1, Theorem 3.5], [2, Theorem 4.5], [4, Theorem 2] and [5, Theorem 6.3].
Theorem 4** (Convergence Theorem).**
Let the setting of Problem 1 be given and let the dictionary satisfy the following properties:
‘semi-frame condition’: There exists a constant and an integer such that, for all expansions with and , where the are not necessarily pairwise distinct but for each , the following inequality is valid:
[TABLE] 2. 2.
.
If the sequence is produced by the RFMP and no dictionary element is chosen more than times, then converges in to . Moreover, the following holds true:
- (a)
If is a spanning set for (i.e. ), is bounded (i.e. ), and is an arbitrary parameter, then solves the Tikhonov-regularized normal equation
[TABLE]
where is the adjoint operator corresponding to and is the identity operator on . This also yields that
[TABLE]
where the minimizer is unique, if . 2. (b)
If is a spanning set for (i.e. ) and (no regularization), then solves , where is the orthogonal projection onto .
Proof.
With (2), (3), condition 2 of the current theorem and Lemma 3, we obtain
[TABLE]
Consequently, and, hence, . We can define , which is an element of due to the semi-frame condition and the previous estimate. Indeed, converges to in (in the strong sense), also due to the semi-frame condition, which we can see as follows:
[TABLE]
Since is continuous, also , and must converge (strongly).
Due to the continuity of , the operator norm is finite. We use this together with the boundedness of the dictionary and (1) and get, for all , the estimate
[TABLE]
Let us now concentrate on case (a). Since , an immediate consequence of the estimate in (2) is
[TABLE]
for all . Due to the bilinearity of the inner product and the algebraic limit theorem, we also have
[TABLE]
for all . As we derived above, is a strongly convergent and, thus, bounded, sequence. Now let be arbitrary. Due to the first condition in part (a), there exists a sequence such that as . Then the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality yields
[TABLE]
Since this convergence for is uniform with respect to , we get, by applying the Moore-Osgood double limit theorem, the identity
[TABLE]
This shows that weakly converges to (and, due to the considerations above, also strongly). Consequently, since , we obtain, using again the continuity of , that
[TABLE]
which is equivalent to
[TABLE]
It is a basic result of Tikhonov regularization (see e.g. [3, p. 89]) that every solution of (6) minimizes
[TABLE]
If , then (6) and the minimization of (7) both are uniquely solvable by
[TABLE]
For the remaining proof of part (b) of the theorem, we observe again the estimate in (2) with
[TABLE]
With the sandwich theorem, we directly obtain for all . Since is a spanning set for , which is closed since is a finite rank operator, we obtain for all
[TABLE]
note that the orthogonal projection is continuous. Thus, converges weakly to zero. In addition, due to the continuity of , the sequence converges strongly, that is, . Due to the uniqueness of the limit and the continuity of the orthogonal projection, we obtain . Eventually, we get
[TABLE]
Note that in the case of a surjective operator , the statement in part (b) of the latter theorem coincides with the previous versions in [1, Theorem 3.5], [2, Theorem 4.5], [4, Theorem 2] and [5, Theorem 6.3].
Corollary 5**.**
If the condition in item (b) from the previous theorem is replaced by
- (b)
If is a spanning set for the closed set and ,
then solves , where is the orthogonal projection onto .
Proof.
In analogy to the previous proof, we directly obtain for all . Since is closed and is a spanning set for , we get for all
[TABLE]
Thus, converges weakly to zero. Hence the continuity of and the uniqueness of the limits yields
[TABLE]
since is closed and spans . ∎
In [7, Lem. 4.2.5], it was proved that . Hence, the condition in the convergence theorem is unnecessarily strong. If more knowledge of the operator is available, for instance, the singular value decomposition , the condition for the dictionary in case (a) of Theorem 4 can be weakened.
Theorem 6**.**
Let denote the unique solution of the Tikhonov-regularized normal equation , where . Let denote the singular system of and let the set be defined by , where is a countable index set. If the conditions of Theorem 4 with the case (a) are satisfied, except that is (only) a spanning set for , then the solution produced by the RFMP solves
[TABLE]
where is the orthogonal projection onto .
Proof.
is a Hilbert space, since is closed. The operator is a bounded operator , and hence, its restriction is also bounded, where . We can apply Theorem 4 to this setting and obtain the solution produced by the RFMP, which solves the Tikhonov-regularized normal equation in , that is,
[TABLE]
In order to prove that is the best approximation of in , it remains to show that . For this purpose, we study the singular system of , which exists due to the compactness of . Due to the construction of , we obtain, for each , that is either in or in . Hence, and commute, that is,
[TABLE]
Due to , we directly obtain . For , we get
[TABLE]
Since is one-to-one, we eventually get . ∎
In the case of a non-injective operator , we can choose, for example, and obtain .
Remark 7**.**
The corrections of the previous versions of the convergence theorem and its proof are as follows:
- •
In the semi-frame condition, it is now required that there is a maximum number of recurring choices of the same dictionary element. This maximum number can be arbitrarily large as long as it is finite and universal for all considered expansions. The reason for this limitation, which then also has to be required for the solution generated by the RFMP (see the proof of the existence of the limit above), is that the semi-frame condition could not be satisfied otherwise, as we pointed out for the convergence proof of the ROFMP in **[6]**: if is the constant of the semi-frame condition, then an unlimited number of recurring choices of dictionary elements could yield (with arbitrary)
[TABLE]
which cannot be satisfied for any . Certainly, the semi-frame condition now has to be seen even more critically, since it implies limitations for the algorithmic choice of the dictionary elements. There is still a gap between the theory of the method, which uses limits to infinity as justifications for the results, and the practical implementation where, certainly, only finite dictionaries and stopped iterations are used.
- •
The conclusions after (5) were previously erroneous and were corrected here. As we showed here, the strong convergence of is used to obtain the weak convergence to [math] in out of (5). However, in **[4]**, it was only after this corresponding part that the strong convergence was proved.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the support by the German Research Foundation (DFG), project MI 655/10-1.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] D. Fischer: Sparse Regularization of a Joint Inversion of Gravitational Data and Normal Mode Anomalies, Ph D thesis, Geomathematics Group, Department of Mathematics, University of Siegen, Verlag Dr. Hut, Munich, 2011.
- 2[2] D. Fischer, V. Michel: Sparse regularization of inverse gravimetry — case study: spatial and temporal mass variations in South America, Inverse Problems, 28 (2012), 065012 (34pp).
- 3[3] A.K. Louis: Inverse und schlecht gestellte Probleme, Teubner, Stuttgart, 1989.
- 4[4] V. Michel: RFMP — An iterative best basis algorithm for inverse problems in the geosciences, in: Handbook of Geomathematics (W. Freeden, M.Z. Nashed, and T. Sonar, eds.), 2nd edition, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2015, pp. 2121-2147.
- 5[5] V. Michel, R. Telschow: A non-linear approximation method on the sphere, International Journal on Geomathematics, 5 (2014), 195-224.
- 6[6] V. Michel, R. Telschow: The regularized orthogonal functional matching pursuit for ill-posed inverse problems, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 54 (2016), 262-287.
- 7[7] R. Telschow: An Orthogonal Matching Pursuit for the Regularization of Spherical Inverse Problems, Ph D thesis, Geomathematics Group, Department of Mathematics, University of Siegen, Verlag Dr. Hut, Munich, 2014.
