Why the noise model matters: A performance gap in learned regularization
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This article addresses the challenge of learning effective regularizers for linear inverse problems. We analyze and compare several types of learned variational regularization against the theoretical benchmark of the optimal affine reconstruction, i.e. the best possible affine linear map for minimizing the mean squared error. It is known that this optimal reconstruction can be achieved using Tikhonov regularization, but this requires precise knowledge of the noise covariance to properly weight the data fidelity term. However, in many practical applications, noise statistics are unknown. We therefore investigate the performance of regularization methods learned without access to this noise information, focusing on Tikhonov, Lavrentiev, and quadratic regularization. Our theoretical analysis and numerical experiments demonstrate that for non-white noise, a performance gap emerges between these methods and the optimal affine reconstruction. Furthermore, we show that these different types of regularization yield distinct results, highlighting that the choice of regularizer structure is critical when the noise model is not explicitly learned. Our findings underscore the significant value of accurately modeling or co-learning noise statistics in data-driven regularization.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Oct 2025.
Builds on
17 of 35 references.
References · 17
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
- 2017Learning a Variational Network for Reconstruction of Accelerated MRI Datacited by 340
- 2020Benign overfitting in ridge regressioncited by 152
- 2017Solving ill-posed inverse problems using iterative deep neural networkscited by 145
- 2018Adversarial Regularizers in Inverse Problemscited by 102
- 2018NETT: Solving Inverse Problems with Deep Neural Networkscited by 89
- 2020Learned convex regularizers for inverse problemscited by 54
- 2018Optimal ridge penalty for real-world high-dimensional data can be zero or negative due to the implicit ridge regularizationcited by 52
- 2017Model based learning for accelerated, limited-view 3D photoacoustic tomographycited by 45
- 2022A Neural-Network-Based Convex Regularizer for Inverse Problemscited by 40
- 2021End-to-end reconstruction meets data-driven regularization for inverse problemscited by 32
- 2021Learning the optimal Tikhonov regularizer for inverse problemscited by 26
5 more
- 2021Learning convex regularizers satisfying the variational source condition for inverse problemscited by 8
- 2025Learning Difference-of-Convex Regularizers for Inverse Problems: A Flexible Framework with Theoretical Guaranteescited by 5
- 2022Learning Variational Models with Unrolling and Bilevel Optimizationcited by 3
- 2024Learning a Gaussian Mixture for Sparsity Regularization in Inverse Problemscited by 3
- 2018Primal-dual residual networkscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.