MHB Is This a Valid Soft-Thresholding Function?

  • Thread starter Thread starter OhMyMarkov
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the validity of a proposed soft-thresholding function in relation to its definition. The original soft-thresholding function is defined to output zero when the input is between zero and a threshold T. In contrast, the alternative function suggests a non-zero output of T minus y for inputs within the same range. A participant argues that this discrepancy in outputs disqualifies the second function from being considered a valid soft-thresholding function. The conversation highlights the importance of precise definitions in mathematical contexts.
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.
 
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K