Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Inner-Loop-Free Total-Variation-Constrained Full-Waveform Inversion

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A primal-dual splitting algorithm solves the TV- and box-constrained full-waveform inversion problem accurately by reducing the TV-constraint update to a single projection per iteration, eliminating inner loops and approximations.

desk verdict A correct and useful PDS wrapper for TV-constrained FWI, but the 'accurately solves' claim is not backed by convergence theory or by baseline experiments. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08210 v2 pith:TWIASZDF submitted 2025-01-14 eess.SP

Shingo Takemoto , Shunsuke Ono This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP MSC 65K1090C2586A22
keywords full-waveforminversiontotalvariationconstraintprimal-dualsplittingboxseismicvelocityreconstructionconstrainedoptimizationinverseproblems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper presents an algorithm for full-waveform inversion (FWI) that enforces a total-variation (TV) constraint on the reconstructed subsurface velocity model as a hard constraint rather than as a penalty term. The authors' claim is that a direct application of the primal-dual splitting method (PDS) to the TV- and box-constrained FWI problem yields an update that needs no inner loop for the constraint and no linear or quadratic approximation of the nonsmooth term. If that claim holds, the main computational bottleneck of earlier constrained-FWI solvers disappears: the per-iteration cost is dominated by the wave-equation gradient evaluation, and the TV projection itself costs $O(N \log N)$. Experiments on standard salt and overthrust benchmark models show the method suppressing the wave-like artifacts and noise sensitivity of standard FWI, with better RMSE and SSIM over the tested range of the TV bound $\alpha$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the primal-dual splitting update applied to the constrained problem (12), with the TV constraint encoded as the indicator function of the $\ell_{1,2}$-ball composed with the discrete difference operator D. The key identity is the conjugate-prox relation $\operatorname{prox}_{\gamma h^*}(y) = y - \gamma \operatorname{prox}_{h/\gamma}(y/\gamma)$, which turns the dual update into one metric projection onto the TV ball; that projection is itself computed by projecting the per-pixel gradient magnitudes onto the one-dimensional $\ell_1$-ball. This construction is what removes inner loops and keeps the TV-constraint cost at $O(N \log N)$ per iteration, leaving the wave-equation gradient evaluation as the dominant step.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 1 on a velocity model where standard FWI is known to stall in a local minimum, and record the constraint violation $\|Dm^{(k)}\|_{1,2} - \alpha$ together with the misfit $E(m^{(k)})$ over iterations; if the iterates fail to converge to a feasible point, or oscillate, for step sizes within the PDS-admissible range, the claim that the algorithm solves (12) is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that problem (12) — the FWI misfit minimized subject to the TV-ball constraint $\|Dm\|_{1,2} \le \alpha$ and a box constraint $m \in [l,u]^N$ — can be solved accurately by the primal-dual splitting iteration written out in Algorithm 1. Identifying the misfit E with the differentiable function f of the PDS template, the box indicator with g, the TV-ball indicator with h, and the discrete difference operator D with the linear operator L, the authors obtain a closed-form update: one gradient step, one projection onto the box, and one projection onto the $\ell_{1,2}$-ball for the dual variable. They argue that because the iteration strictly follows the PDS framework, it solves the constrained problem without approximations, and because the constraint handling is a single projection per iteration, there is no inner loop. On the standard salt and overthrust velocity benchmarks, the claim is supported by reconstructions whose RMSE and SSIM beat standard FWI for the tested $\alpha$ values, with the best result near $\alpha = 350$, and by SSIM-versus-iteration curves that stay high even after many iterations with noisy data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the nonconvex FWI misfit $E(m)$ can be treated as the convex differentiable term required by the primal-dual splitting convergence theorem; the paper gives no convergence proof and no step-size condition showing that this requirement holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Per-iteration cost of enforcing the TV constraint is $O(N \log N)$, so the wave-equation gradient evaluation $O(S T N)$ becomes the dominant cost, making constrained FWI practical at larger scales.
  • The TV bound $\|Dm\|_{1,2} \le \alpha$ is enforced exactly, not approximately, at every iteration, so every reconstructed model satisfies the stated prior.
  • With noisy data, the method keeps SSIM high at large iteration counts, unlike standard FWI whose SSIM degrades, indicating reduced overfitting to noise.
  • The parameter $\alpha$ acts as a predictable smoothness dial: smaller $\alpha$ over-smooths the model and larger $\alpha$ approaches standard FWI, so $\alpha$ can be chosen from prior knowledge of subsurface structure rather than tuned against the misfit.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not compare against earlier TV-regularized or TV-constrained FWI solvers directly; a head-to-head test would separate the benefit of the constraint formulation from the benefit of the inner-loop-free solver.
  • Because the convergence argument is inherited from PDS and no step-size rule is derived for the nonconvex misfit, the step sizes $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ in the experiments are heuristic; line-search or adaptive step-size variants are a natural testable extension.
  • The same splitting structure would survive replacing the isotropic $\ell_{1,2}$ TV ball with a weighted or direction-dependent TV ball, which could encode geological dip information without changing the one-projection-per-step architecture.
  • The empirical claims are demonstrated on 50×100 two-dimensional models; scaling to three-dimensional surveys would stress both the $O(S T N)$ gradient cost and the memory of the dual variable, and this scaling is not addressed in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to solve TV- and box-constrained full-waveform inversion by applying Condat's primal-dual splitting (PDS) directly to problem (12), where the objective is the least-squares FWI misfit E(m) and the constraints are a TV-ball constraint and a box constraint. Algorithm 1 is presented as an inner-loop-free, approximation-free solver, with the claimed advantage that the TV constraint is enforced through a single proximal projection per iteration (Remark 1). The paper reports experiments on the SEG/EAGE Salt model, comparing the proposed method with standard gradient-descent FWI over a range of TV bound values α, and concludes that the method removes wave-like artifacts, improves RMSE/SSIM, and is robust to noise.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would offer a practically valuable simplification of TV-constrained FWI: eliminating inner loops in constraint enforcement is attractive for large-scale seismic inversion, and the proximal operators for the TV ball and box are correctly derived. The problem formulation is clear, the algorithm is simple and reproducible, and the experiments show a qualitative improvement over unconstrained gradient descent on a standard benchmark. However, the main mathematical claim—that Algorithm 1 'accurately solves' problem (12) by strictly following the PDS framework—is not supported, because the PDS convergence theorem invoked is for convex objectives and the FWI misfit is nonconvex. The experimental section is also too narrow to substantiate the efficiency and accuracy claims. No circular reasoning was found; the self-citations are motivational rather than load-bearing.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (12) and Algorithm 1] The identification of problem (12) with the PDS template (8) requires f = E to be convex with a Lipschitz-continuous gradient. Here E(m) = (1/2)||u_obs - u_cal(m)||^2, where u_cal is a nonlinear wave-propagation map; E is nonconvex in m, and no Lipschitz constant for its gradient is provided. Condat's theorem [31] therefore does not apply, and the assertion that the algorithm 'accurately solves the optimization problem without relying on approximations or relaxations' is unsupported. The paper needs either a convergence analysis for the nonconvex setting (e.g., local convergence, subsequential stationarity, or a monotone-operator argument) or an explicit reframing of Algorithm 1 as a heuristic with correspondingly weakened claims.
  2. [Section IV-A, Algorithm 1 step sizes] The step sizes γ1 = 1e-4 and γ2 = 1e2 are set without any relation to the Lipschitz constant of ∇E or the norm of D, and no step-size condition is derived. Since no convergence theorem is established for the nonconvex objective, there is no guarantee that the iterates approach a solution of (12). The paper should report how these step sizes were selected, provide a step-size sensitivity study, and, if possible, state a valid range based on the problem data.
  3. [Section IV-B, Figs. 6-7] The optimal value α = 350 is selected post-hoc on the test model: the paper varies α and reports the best RMSE/SSIM, so the quantitative advantage of the proposed method includes oracle parameter choice. This does not demonstrate that the method can be applied without access to the true model. Please add a validation or model-selection procedure, report performance across an interval of α values, or explicitly restrict the claim to the tuned setting.
  4. [Section IV, experimental comparison] The experiments compare only against standard gradient-descent FWI. There is no comparison with existing TV-regularized or TV-constrained FWI methods [21]-[24], and no wall-clock time or iteration-count comparison against an inner-loop method, so the efficiency claim in Remark 1 is not empirically validated. Additionally, the paper never reports whether the final iterates satisfy ||Dm||_{1,2} ≤ α or whether the PDS fixed-point residual decreases. Without such feasibility and convergence diagnostics, the figures do not establish that Algorithm 1 actually solves problem (12) rather than merely producing a useful reconstruction.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section I] The abstract and introduction mention the SEG/EAGE Salt and Overthrust Models, but the experiments in Section IV describe only the Salt model; clarify which benchmarks were actually run.
  2. [Algorithm 1] The input line lists γ0 and γ1, but the iteration uses γ1 and γ2; correct the pseudo-code to match the text.
  3. [Eq. (16)] The notation P_{||·||_1≤α} is used without a formal definition; define the projection onto the ℓ1 ball and specify the zero-norm case in Eq. (15) explicitly.
  4. [Section IV-B] There are typos in the text and figure captions, including 'sinthesized' in the Fig. 2 caption and 'archive accurate' in Section IV-B; both should be corrected.
  5. [Remark 1] The phrase 'iteration-dependent factor is eliminated' is misleading because each PDS iteration still requires the gradient computation ∇E, which is the dominant cost; rephrase to say that no inner loop is used within the constraint-enforcement step.
  6. [Figs. 5-7] The figures would benefit from clearer axis labels and error bars or multiple noise realizations; as written, the results appear to come from a single synthetic realization, which limits the strength of the robustness claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Algorithm 1 is a direct PDS template application; the 'accurately solves' gap is an unverified hypothesis, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a straightforward identification of the TV- and box-constrained FWI problem (12) with the primal-dual splitting template (8): f = E, g = ι_Bbox, h = ι_Bℓ1,2, and L = D. The proximal operations used in Algorithm 1 are the standard metric projections onto the box and the ℓ1,2 ball, given by (14)-(16), and no parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The TV bound α is a user-supplied constraint parameter that the experiments sweep over; this is a hyperparameter study, not a fitted input disguised as a prediction. The self-citations (Ono et al. [27]-[29]) are motivational references on constrained formulations and do not carry the algorithm's correctness; the load-bearing convergence result is Condat's PDS theorem [31], an external machine-checkable result. The paper's central claim that the algorithm 'accurately solves' (12) does depend on PDS convergence hypotheses—convexity and Lipschitz-continuous gradient of E—that are not verified for the non-convex FWI misfit, and no convergence or step-size analysis is supplied. That is a soundness/correctness gap, not a circularity: the claimed result is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. No circular step can be exhibited from the text, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central algorithm rests on the unproved assumption that PDS converges for the non-convex FWI objective, plus domain priors about the velocity model. The three free parameters (α, γ1, γ2) are chosen by hand or by post-hoc tuning on the test model.

free parameters (3)
  • α (TV constraint bound) = 350 (best on test model)
    The bound α is selected as the value that gives the best RMSE/SSIM on the SEG/EAGE Salt test model (Section IV.B, Figs. 6, 7). It is a free parameter tuned to the evaluation data.
  • γ1 (PDS step size for primal update) = 1.0e-4
    Chosen by hand without checking the PDS convergence condition involving the norm of D and the Lipschitz constant of ∇E (Section IV.A).
  • γ2 (PDS step size for dual update) = 1.0e2
    Chosen by hand, same lack of justification as γ1 (Section IV.A).
assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper PDS converges to a solution of (12) even though E(m) is non-convex
    The paper applies Condat's PDS (which assumes convex f with Lipschitz gradient) to the FWI misfit E(m), which is nonlinear and non-convex, and provides no convergence analysis (Section III, Algorithm 1).
  • domain assumption The adjoint-state gradient ∇E(m) is an accurate and sufficiently regular model of the true gradient
    The gradient is computed numerically by simulating the wave equation (Section II-D); the paper treats it as the gradient of a smooth function without quantifying discretization error or Lipschitz constant.
  • domain assumption The TV and box constraints are sufficient regularization for the ill-posed FWI problem
    The paper relies on the prior that piecewise-smooth velocity models with known bounds are the correct solution class (Section III, Fig. 1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inner-Loop-Free Total-Variation-Constrained Full-Waveform Inversion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TWIASZDF

@misc{pith2026250108210,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inner-Loop-Free Total-Variation-Constrained Full-Waveform Inversion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TWIASZDF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08210}
}
read the original abstract

This paper proposes a computationally efficient algorithm to address the Full-Waveform Inversion (FWI) problem with a Total Variation (TV) constraint, designed to accurately reconstruct subsurface properties from seismic signal. FWI, as an ill-posed inverse problem, requires effective regularizations or constraints to ensure accurate and stable solutions. Among these, the TV constraint is widely known as a powerful prior for modeling the piecewise smooth structure of subsurface properties. However, solving the optimization problem is challenging because of the nonlinear observation process combined with the non-smoothness of the TV constraint. Conventional methods rely on inner loops and/or approximations, which lead to high computational cost and/or inappropriate solutions. To address these limitations, we develop a novel algorithm based on a primal-dual splitting method, achieving computational efficiency by eliminating inner loops and ensuring high accuracy by avoiding approximations. We also demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method through experiments using the SEG/EAGE Salt Models. The source code will be available at https://www.mdi.comp.isct.ac.jp/publications/fwiwtv.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08210 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The velocity models for experiments. Seismic Data Noisy Seismic Data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The sinthesized seismic data corresponding to a single source waveform. of 10 Hz. The number of waveform sources and receivers is 20 and 101, respectively, and they are placed on the surface at equal intervals. The gradient ∇E is computed numerically using the Devito framework [35]. The number of iterations is set to 5000. Experiments are conducted with and without noise in the observed data, as shown in [PITH_FULL… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Velocity models [km/s] and their corresponding reconstructions. (c) is the best reconstruction result. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Velocity models [km/s] and their corresponding reconstructions (with the noisy data). Similar to Fig. 3, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SSIM against iters (α = 350) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    A primal–dual splitting method for convex opti- mization involving lipschitzian, proximable and linear compos- ite terms,

    L. Condat, “A primal–dual splitting method for convex opti- mization involving lipschitzian, proximable and linear compos- ite terms,” J. Optim. Theory Appl., vol. 158, no. 2, pp. 460–479, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [21]

    Total variation regularization strategies in full- waveform inversion,

    E. Esser, L. Guasch, T. van Leeuwen, A. Y . Aravkin, and F. J. Herrmann, “Total variation regularization strategies in full- waveform inversion,” SIAM J. Imag. Sci. , vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 376–406, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [24]

    Projection methods and applications for seismic nonlinear inverse problems with multiple constraints,

    B. Peters, B. R. Smithyman, and F. J. Herrmann, “Projection methods and applications for seismic nonlinear inverse problems with multiple constraints,” Geophysics, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. R251– R269, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [1]

    Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation,

    A. Tarantola, “Inversion of seismic reflection data in the acoustic approximation,” Geophysics, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 1259–1266, 1984

    work page 1984

  5. [2]

    An overview of full-waveform inversion in exploration geophysics,

    J. Virieux and S. Operto, “An overview of full-waveform inversion in exploration geophysics,” Geophysics, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. WCC1–WCC26, 2009

    2009

  6. [3]

    Full-waveform inversion of cross- hole ground-penetrating radar data to characterize a gravel aquifer close to the thur river, switzerland,

    A. Klotzsche, J. van der Kruk, G. A. Meles, J. Doetsch, H. Maurer, and N. Linde, “Full-waveform inversion of cross- hole ground-penetrating radar data to characterize a gravel aquifer close to the thur river, switzerland,” Near surface geophysics, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 635–649, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [4]

    Gpr full- waveform inversion of a variably saturated soil-aquifer system,

    A. Klotzsche, H. Vereecken, and J. van der Kruk, “Gpr full- waveform inversion of a variably saturated soil-aquifer system,” J. Appl. Geophysics , vol. 170, p. 103823, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [5]

    Full-waveform inversion imaging of the human brain,

    L. Guasch, O. Calder ´on Agudo, M.-X. Tang, P. Nachev, and M. Warner, “Full-waveform inversion imaging of the human brain,” NPJ Digit. Med. , vol. 3, no. 1, p. 28, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 35 references
  1. [6]

    Multi-parameter reconstruction of velocity and density using ultrasonic tomog- raphy based on full waveform inversion,

    J. Rao, J. Yang, M. Ratassepp, and Z. Fan, “Multi-parameter reconstruction of velocity and density using ultrasonic tomog- raphy based on full waveform inversion,” Ultrasonics, vol. 101, p. 106004, 2020

    2020

  2. [7]

    Waveform inversion using a logarithmic wavefield,

    C. Shin and D.-J. Min, “Waveform inversion using a logarithmic wavefield,” Geophysics, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. R31–R42, 2006

    2006

  3. [8]

    Misfit functions for full waveform inversion based on instantaneous phase and envelope measurements,

    E. Bozda ˘g, J. Trampert, and J. Tromp, “Misfit functions for full waveform inversion based on instantaneous phase and envelope measurements,” Geophys. J. Int. , vol. 185, no. 2, pp. 845–870, 2011

    2011

  4. [9]

    Seismic envelope inversion: reduction of local minima and noise resistance,

    J. Luo and R.-S. Wu, “Seismic envelope inversion: reduction of local minima and noise resistance,” Geophys. Prospecting , vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 597–614, 2015

    2015

  5. [10]

    Application of the wasserstein metric to seismic signals,

    B. Engquist and B. D. Froese, “Application of the wasserstein metric to seismic signals,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.4581 , 2013

    2013 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Measuring the misfit between seismograms using an optimal transport distance: application to full waveform inversion,

    L. Metivier, R. Brossier, Q. M ´erigot, E. Oudet, and J. Virieux, “Measuring the misfit between seismograms using an optimal transport distance: application to full waveform inversion,” Geophys. J. Int. , vol. 205, no. 1, pp. 345–377, 2016

    2016

  7. [12]

    Adaptive waveform inversion: Theory,

    M. Warner and L. Guasch, “Adaptive waveform inversion: Theory,” Geophysics, vol. 81, no. 6, pp. R429–R445, 2016

    2016

  8. [13]

    Numerical methods for the approximate solution of ill-posed problems on compact sets,

    A. Tikhonov, A. Goncharsky, V . Stepanov, and A. Yagola, “Numerical methods for the approximate solution of ill-posed problems on compact sets,” 1995

    1995

  9. [14]

    Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms,

    L. I. Rudin, S. Osher, and E. Fatemi, “Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms,” Phys. D, Nonlinear Phenom- ena, vol. 60, no. 1-4, pp. 259–268, 1992

    1992

  10. [15]

    Total generalized varia- tion,

    K. Bredies, K. Kunisch, and T. Pock, “Total generalized varia- tion,” SIAM J. Imag. Sci. , vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 492–526, 2010

    2010

  11. [16]

    Regularized seismic full waveform inversion with prior model information,

    A. Asnaashari, R. Brossier, S. Garambois, F. Audebert, P. Thore, and J. Virieux, “Regularized seismic full waveform inversion with prior model information,” Geophysics, vol. 78, no. 2, pp. R25–R36, 2013

    2013

  12. [17]

    Full waveform inversion with total variation regularization,

    A. Y . Anagaw and M. D. Sacchi, “Full waveform inversion with total variation regularization,” in Recovery-CSPG CSEG CWLS Convention, 2011, pp. 1–4

    2011

  13. [18]

    Full-waveform inversion and joint migration inversion with an automatic directional total variation constraint,

    S. Qu, E. Verschuur, and Y . Chen, “Full-waveform inversion and joint migration inversion with an automatic directional total variation constraint,” Geophysics, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. R175– R183, 2019

    2019

  14. [19]

    A high- order total-variation regularisation method for full-waveform inversion,

    Z. Du, D. Liu, G. Wu, J. Cai, X. Yu, and G. Hu, “A high- order total-variation regularisation method for full-waveform inversion,” J. Geophysics and Eng. , vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 241– 252, 2021

    2021

  15. [20]

    Acoustic-and elastic-waveform inversion with total generalized p-variation regularization,

    K. Gao and L. Huang, “Acoustic-and elastic-waveform inversion with total generalized p-variation regularization,” Geophys. J. Int., vol. 218, no. 2, pp. 933–957, 2019

    2019

  16. [22]

    Con- strained waveform inversion for automatic salt flooding,

    E. Esser, L. Guasch, F. J. Herrmann, and M. Warner, “Con- strained waveform inversion for automatic salt flooding,” Lead. Edge, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 235–239, 2016

    2016

  17. [23]

    Total variation regular- ization for seismic waveform inversion using an adaptive primal dual hybrid gradient method,

    P. Yong, W. Liao, J. Huang, and Z. Li, “Total variation regular- ization for seismic waveform inversion using an adaptive primal dual hybrid gradient method,” Inverse Problems, vol. 34, no. 4, p. 045006, 2018

    2018

  18. [25]

    An augmented lagrangian approach to the constrained optimization formulation of imaging inverse problems,

    M. V . Afonso, J. M. Bioucas-Dias, and M. Figueiredo, “An augmented lagrangian approach to the constrained optimization formulation of imaging inverse problems,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 681–695, 2011

    2011

  19. [26]

    Epigraphical projection and proximal tools for solv- ing constrained convex optimization problems,

    G. Chierchia, N. Pustelnik, J.-C. Pesquet, and B. Pesquet- Popescu, “Epigraphical projection and proximal tools for solv- ing constrained convex optimization problems,” Signal Image Video Process., vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1737–1749, 2015

    2015

  20. [27]

    Signal recovery with certain involved convex data-fidelity constraints,

    S. Ono and I. Yamada, “Signal recovery with certain involved convex data-fidelity constraints,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 63, no. 22, pp. 6149–6163, 2015

    2015

  21. [28]

    Primal-dual plug-and-play image restoration,

    S. Ono, “Primal-dual plug-and-play image restoration,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett. , vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1108–1112, 2017

    2017

  22. [29]

    Efficient constrained signal reconstruction by random- ized epigraphical projection,

    S. Ono, “Efficient constrained signal reconstruction by random- ized epigraphical projection,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., (ICASSP) , 2019, pp. 4993–4997

    2019

  23. [30]

    Constraints versus penalties for edge-preserving full-waveform inversion,

    B. Peters and F. J. Herrmann, “Constraints versus penalties for edge-preserving full-waveform inversion,” Lead. Edge, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 94–100, 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Moreau’s decomposition in banach spaces,

    P. L. Combettes and N. N. Reyes, “Moreau’s decomposition in banach spaces,” Math. Program., vol. 139, no. 1, pp. 103–114, 2013

    2013

  25. [33]

    A review of the adjoint-state method for comput- ing the gradient of a functional with geophysical applications,

    R.-E. Plessix, “A review of the adjoint-state method for comput- ing the gradient of a functional with geophysical applications,” Geophys. J. Int. , vol. 167, no. 2, pp. 495–503, 2006

    2006

  26. [34]

    Effi- cient projections onto the l 1-ball for learning in high dimen- sions,

    J. Duchi, S. Shalev-Shwartz, Y . Singer, and T. Chandra, “Effi- cient projections onto the l 1-ball for learning in high dimen- sions,” in Proc. ICML, vol. 25, 2008, pp. 272–279

    2008

  27. [35]

    Devito (v3. 1.0): an embedded domain-specific language for finite differences and geophysical exploration,

    M. Louboutin, M. Lange, F. Luporini, N. Kukreja, P. A. Witte, F. J. Herrmann, P. Velesko, and G. J. Gorman, “Devito (v3. 1.0): an embedded domain-specific language for finite differences and geophysical exploration,” Geoscientific Model Develop., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1165–1187, 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.