Approximal operator with application to audio inpainting

Abstract

In their recent evaluation of time-frequency representations and structured sparsity approaches to audio inpainting, Lieb and Stark (2018) have used a particular mapping as a proximal operator. This operator serves as the fundamental part of an iterative numerical solver. However, their mapping is improperly justified. The present article proves that their mapping is indeed a proximal operator, and also derives its proper counterpart. Furthermore, it is rationalized that Lieb and Stark's operator can be understood as an approximation of the proper mapping. Surprisingly, in most cases, such an approximation (referred to as the approximal operator) is shown to provide even better numerical results in audio inpainting compared to its proper counterpart, while being computationally much more effective.In their recent evaluation of time-frequency representations and structured sparsity approaches to audio inpainting, Lieb and Stark (2018) have used a particular mapping as a proximal operator. This operator serves as the fundamental part of an iterative numerical solver. However, their mapping is improperly justified. The present article proves that their mapping is indeed a proximal operator, and also derives its proper counterpart. Furthermore, it is rationalized that Lieb and Stark's operator can be understood as an approximation of the proper mapping. Surprisingly, in most cases, such an approximation (referred to as the approximal operator) is shown to provide even better numerical results in audio inpainting compared to its proper counterpart, while being computationally much more effective.