In itself, partitocracy can be simply defined as a political regime where power is – in an excessive degree – in the hands of political parties. In Belgium, partitocracy has reached its highest level of elaboration, with complex interactions between citizens, candidates and elected representatives, parties as well as parliaments and governments... Lire la suite
In itself, partitocracy can be simply defined as a political regime where power is – in an excessive degree – in the hands of political parties. In Belgium, partitocracy has perhaps reached its highest level of elaboration, with complex interactions between citizens, candidates and elected representatives, parties as well as parliaments and governments.
The Winter of Democracy: Partitocracy in Belgium aligns a dozen of scientific contributions that tackle the mutltifaceted concept of partitocracy from multiple perspectives. The book also celebrates the academic career of Lieven De Winter, almost five decades of a rich research commitment that spanned both at Université catholique de Louvain and at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, as well as across numerous institutions, projects and networks all around Europe. Lieven De Winter has significantly contributed to the study of all dimensions that constitute the core object of this book: Partitocracy in Belgium.
Nomenclature xxi
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Outline and contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Preliminaries 7
2.1 Regularized inverse problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.1 Forward model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.2 Low complexity priors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.3 Sensing model and embedding . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2 Recovery methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.2.1 General optimization formulation . . . . . . . . . 33
2.2.2 Non-convex recovery methods . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2.3 Convex recovery methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.2.4 Algorithms for convex optimization . . . . . . . . 46
2.2.5 Dictionary Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3 Sparse Support Recovery with Convex Fidelity Constraint 57
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.1.1 Sparse regularization with convex fidelity constraint 58
3.1.2 Dual Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.1.3 Main result for sparse support recovery . . . . . . 62
3.1.4 Relation to PriorWorks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
x Table of contents
3.2 Preliminaries and main result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.2.1 Noiseless support stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.2.2 Model subspace and restricted injectivity conditions 66
3.2.3 Formal statement of the main result . . . . . . . . 71
3.3 Proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.3.1 Proofs of the lemmas and subdifferential decomposability
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.3.2 Proof of Theorem 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.4 Numerical experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
4 Online Convolutional Dictionary Learning for
Multimodal Imaging 95
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4.1.1 Main Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.1.2 RelatedWork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.2 Proposed Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
4.2.1 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
4.2.2 Online Convolutional Dictionary Learning
Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
4.2.3 Dictionary update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.2.4 Implementation details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
4.3 Experimental Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
4.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5 Multispectral Compressive Imaging Strategies using
Fabry-Pérot Filtered Sensors 119
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.1.1 Main Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.1.2 RelatedWork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
5.2 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5.2.1 Fabry-Pérot Filtered Sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5.2.2 Forward model and analysis prior . . . . . . . . . 127
Table of contents xi
5.2.3 Recovery Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
5.3 Multispectral Compressive Imaging by Generalized Inpainting
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
5.3.1 Image Formation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
5.3.2 Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
5.3.3 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
5.4 Multispectral Compressive Imaging by Out-of-Focus
Random Convolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.4.1 Image Formation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.4.2 Non-idealities and practical considerations . . . . 145
5.4.3 Sensing matrix implementation . . . . . . . . . . . 151
5.4.4 Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
5.5 Final Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
5.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
6 Conclusions 163
6.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
6.2 Perspectives and open questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
References 173
Appendix A Elements of Convex Optimization 195