L1-Regularized Inverse Problems for Image Deblurring via Bound- and Equality-Constrained Optimization

  • Johnathan M. Bardsley
  • Marylesa Howard
Part of the Association for Women in Mathematics Series book series (AWMS, volume 12)


Image deblurring is typically modeled as an ill-posed, linear inverse problem. By adding an L1-penalty to the negative-log likelihood function, the resulting minimization problem becomes well-posed. Moreover, the penalty enforces sparsity. The difficulty with L1-penalties, however, is that they are non-differentiable. Here we replace the L1-penalty by a linear penalty together with bound and equality constraints. We consider two statistical models for measurement error: Gaussian and Poisson. In either case, we obtain a bound- and equality-constrained minimization problem, which we solve using an iterative augmented Lagrangian (AL) method. Each iteration of the AL method requires the solution of a bound-constrained minimization problem, which is convex-quadratic in the Gaussian case and convex in the Poisson case. We recommend two highly efficient methods for the solution of these subproblems that allows us to apply the AL method to large-scale imaging examples. Results are shown on synthetic data in one and two dimensions, as well as on a radiograph used to calibrate the transmission curve of a pulsed-power X-ray source at a US Department of Energy radiography facility.



This work was done in part by National Security Technologies, LLC, under Contract No. DE-AC52-06NA25946 with the US Department of Energy and supported by the Site Directed Research and Development program. The US government retains, and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the US government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for US government purposes. The US Department of Energy will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan ( DOE/NV/25946--2476.


  1. 1.
    Bardsley, J.M.: An efficient computational method for total variation-penalized poisson likelihood estimation. Inverse Probl. Imaging 2, 167–185 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bardsley, J.M.: Laplace-distributed increments, the Laplace prior, and edge-preserving regularization. J. Inverse Ill-Posed Probl. 20, 271–285 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bardsley, J.M., Vogel, C.R.: A nonnnegatively constrained convex programming method for image reconstruction. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 25, 1326–1343 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barnea, G.: Penumbral imaging made easy. AIP Rev. Sci. Instrum. 65, 1949–1953 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beck, A., Teboulle, M.: Fast gradient-based algorithms for constrained total variation image denoising and deblurring problems. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 18, 2419–2434 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bertsekas, D.P.: Nonlinear Programming. Athena Scientific, Belmont (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chan, R.H., Tao, M., Yuan, X.: Constrained total variation deblurring models and fast algorithms based on alternating direction method of multipliers. SIAM J. Imaging Sci. 6, 680–697 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Howard, M., Luttman, A., Fowler, M.: Sampling-based uncertainty quantification in deconvolution of x-ray radiographs. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 270, 43–51 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kelley, T.A., Stupin, D.M.: Radiographic least squares fitting technique accurately measures dimensions and x-ray attenuation. Rev. Prog. Quant. Nondestruct. Eval. 17A, 371–377 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moré, J.J., Toraldo, G.: On the solution of large quadratic programming problems with bound constraints. SIAM J. Optim. 1, 93–113 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mueller, J., Siltanen, S.: Linear and Nonlinear Inverse Problems with Practical Applications. SIAM, Philadelphia (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nocedal, J., Wright, S.J.: Numerical Optimization, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oliver, B.V., Berninger, M., Cooperstein, G., Cordova, S., Crain, D., Droemer, D., Haines, T., Hinshelwood, D., King, N., Lutz, S., Miller, C.L., Molina, I. , Mosher, D., Nelson, D., Ormond, E., Portillo, S., Smith, J., Webb, T., Welch, D.R., Wood, W., Ziska, D.: Characterization of the rod-pinch diode x-ray source on Cygnus. In: IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, pp. 11–16 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith, J., Carlson, R., Fulton, R., Chavez, J., Ortega, P., O’Rear, R., Quicksilver, R., Anderson, B., Henderson, D., Mitton, C., Owens, R., Cordova, S., Maenchen, J., Molina, I., Nelson, D., Ormond, E.: Cygnus dual beam radiography source. In: IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, pp. 334–337 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tikhonov, A.N., Goncharsky, A. , Stepanov, V.V. , Yagola, A.G.: Numerical Methods for the Solution of Ill-Posed Problems. Springer, Berlin (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vogel, C.R.: Computational Methods for Inverse Problems. SIAM, Philadelphia (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Whitman, R.L., Hanson, H.M., Mueller, K.A.: Image analysis for dynamic weapons systems. Los Alamos, Report LALP-85-15 (1985)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) and the Association for Women in Mathematics 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsThe University of MontanaMissoulaUSA
  2. 2.Nevada National Security SiteLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations