MHB Is This a Valid Soft-Thresholding Function?

  • Thread starter Thread starter OhMyMarkov
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
OhMyMarkov
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone!

The soft-thresholding function often arrises when trying to find the MAP estimate with a Laplacian model of the parameter to be estimated. It is defined as:

\[
w(y) = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
y+T & \text{y < -T}\\
y-T, & \text{y > T}\\
0, & \text{otherwise}\\
\end{array} \right.
\]

Now, in a different context, could this be described as a soft thresholding function?

\[
w(y) = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
T-y & \quad \text{if $0 < y < T$}\\
0, & \quad \text{otherwise}\\
\end{array} \right.
\]

Thanks for the help!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
OhMyMarkov said:
Hello everyone!

The soft-thresholding function often arrises when trying to find the MAP estimate with a Laplacian model of the parameter to be estimated. It is defined as:

\[
w(y) = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
y+T & \text{y < -T}\\
y-T, & \text{y > T}\\
0, & \text{otherwise}\\
\end{array} \right.
\]

Now, in a different context, could this be described as a soft thresholding function?

\[
w(y) = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
T-y & \quad \text{if $0 < y < T$}\\
0, & \quad \text{otherwise}\\
\end{array} \right.
\]

Thanks for the help!

Hi OhMyMarkov, :)

No, I don't think so. According to the first definition \(w(y)=0\) when \(0<y<T\). However according to the second definition \(w(y)=T-y\) when \(0<y<T\).

Kind Regards,
Sudharaka.
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top