How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
The proximal map of the l1 norm is soft thresholding
Statement
For and , the function is proper, closed and convex in the convention of Proper closed convex extended-real functions on . For every and , where is the soft-thresholding map of Soft-thresholding map.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: , , and .
The -norms for rational , and : and .
Proximal mapping: the proximal point minimizes over .
Soft-thresholding map: if , if , and if .
The finite and reverse triangle inequalities for a norm; and for every norm on satisfies and is Lipschitz, hence continuous, for : for , every norm on is continuous in the Euclidean metric.
Proper closed convex extended-real functions on : properness is nonempty effective domain, convexity is the Jensen inequality, and closedness means closed epigraph.
Proof
Set . It is finite everywhere and , so its effective domain is nonempty. By [F4] and , the norm triangle and homogeneity inequalities give so is convex. It is continuous by [F5]. To see its epigraph is closed, take any with , set , and choose so implies . If in , then , so this neighborhood misses the epigraph. Thus the complement is open and the epigraph is closed. By [F6], is proper, closed and convex, as required by the proximal definition.
Fix a scalar . On , completing the square shows the minimum is at ; on it is at . If , the first candidate is and has value strictly below the common boundary value at , while the second candidate is . If , the symmetric argument gives the unique minimizer . If , both half-line minima are . Thus the unique scalar minimizer is in all three cases.
By [F1], the objective in [F2] is the finite sum , where . It is enough to find the unique minimizer of each scalar function: the sum is minimized exactly when every coordinate is at its scalar minimum, and the positive quadratic term makes each scalar function strictly convex.
Applying step 1.2 to each of the finitely many coordinates gives the unique vector minimizer , which is the proximal point by [F2].
Depends on
- Proper closed convex extended-real functions on $\mathbb R^n$
- Proximal mapping
- Existence, resolvent characterization, and firm nonexpansiveness of the proximal map
- The $p$-norms $\lVert x\rVert_p$ for rational $p \ge 1$, and $\lVert x\rVert_\infty$
- Each $\lVert\cdot\rVert_p$ is a norm on $\mathbb{R}^n$, and the induced metrics are exactly $d_1$, $d_2$ and $d_\infty$ of the published metric-spaces page
- The finite and reverse triangle inequalities for a norm; and for $n \ge 1$ every norm $N$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$ satisfies $N(x) \le C\lVert x\rVert_1$ and is Lipschitz, hence continuous, for $d_2$
- Soft-thresholding map
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
54 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Neal Parikh and Stephen Boyd, Proximal Algorithms, §6.5.2 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Amir Beck, First-Order Methods in Optimization, SIAM, 2017, Chapter 6 (standard reference, not scraped)