Lifting Layers: Analysis and Applications
Peter Ochs* † , Tim Meinhardt‡ , Laura Leal-Taixe‡ , Michael Moeller*] ,

arXiv:1803.08660v1 [cs.CV] 23 Mar 2018

]

†

University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany
Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany
‡ TU Munich, Munich, Germany

Abstract
The great advances of learning-based approaches in image processing and computer vision are largely based on deeply nested networks that compose linear transfer
functions with suitable non-linearities. Interestingly, the most frequently used nonlinearities in imaging applications (variants of the rectified linear unit) are uncommon
in low dimensional approximation problems. In this paper we propose a novel nonlinear transfer function, called lifting, which is motivated from a related technique in
convex optimization. A lifting layer increases the dimensionality of the input, naturally
yields a linear spline when combined with a fully connected layer, and therefore closes
the gap between low and high dimensional approximation problems. Moreover, applying the lifting operation to the loss layer of the network allows us to handle non-convex
and flat (zero-gradient) cost functions. We analyze the proposed lifting theoretically,
exemplify interesting properties in synthetic experiments and demonstrate its effectiveness in deep learning approaches to image classification and denoising.
Keywords — Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Interpolation, Approximation Theory, Convex
Relaxation, Lifting

1

Introduction

Deep Learning has seen a tremendous success within the last 10 years improving the stateof-the-art in almost all computer vision and image processing tasks significantly. While
one of the main explanations for this success is the replacement of handcrafted methods
and features with data-driven approaches, the architectures of successful networks remain
handcrafted and difficult to interpret.
The use of some common building blocks, such as convolutions, in imaging tasks is intuitive as they establish translational invariance. The composition of linear transfer functions
with non-linearities is a natural way to achieve a simple but expressive representation, but
*

These authors have equally contributed.

Introduction

Scalar representation

Lifting the input naturally
yields linear splines

Lifted representation
Lifting the output allows
us to convexify the loss

(a) Change of representation

(b) Fitting via lifting

(c) Lifting image data

Figure 1: The proposed lifting identifies predefined labels ti ∈ R with the unit vectors ei in RL , L ≥ 2.
As illustrated in (a), a number x that is represented as a convex combination of ti and ti+1 has a natural
representation in a higher dimensional lifted space, see (3). When a lifting layer is combined with a fully
connected layer it corresponds to a linear spline, and when both the input as well as the desired output are
lifted it allows non-convex cost functions to be represented as a convex minimization problem (b). Finally, as
illustrated in (c), coordinate-wise lifting yields an interesting representation of images, which allows textures
of different intensities to be filtered differently.

the choice of non-linearity is less intuitive: Starting from biologically motivated step functions or their smooth approximations by sigmoids, researchers have turned to rectified linear
units (ReLUs),
σ(x) = max(x, 0)

(1)

to avoid the optimization-based problem of a vanishing gradient. The derivative of a ReLU
is σ 0 (x) = 1 for all x > 0. Nonetheless, the derivative remains zero for x < 0, which does not
seem to make it a natural choice for an activation function, and often leads to “dead” ReLUs.
This problem has been partially addressed with ReLU variants, such as leaky ReLUs [16],
parameterized ReLUs [10], or maxout units [8]. These remain amongst the most popular
choice of non-linearities as they allow for fast network training in practice.
In this paper we propose a novel type of non-linear layer, which we call lifting layer `.
In contrast to ReLUs (1), it does not discard large parts of the input data, but rather lifts
it to different channels that allow the input x to be processed independently on different
intervals. As we discuss in more detail in Section 3.4, the simplest form of the proposed
lifting non-linearity is the mapping
!
max(x, 0)
σ(x) =
,
(2)
min(x, 0)
—2—

Related Work
which essentially consists of two complementary ReLUs and therefore neither discards half
of the incoming inputs nor has intervals of zero gradients.
More generally, the proposed non-linearity depends on labels t1 < . . . < tL ∈ R (typically
linearly spaced) and is defined as a function ` : R → RL that maps a scalar input x ∈ R to
a vector `(x) ∈ RL via

T
x − tl
tl+1 − x
,
`(x) = 0, . . . , 0, l+1
,
0,
.
.
.
,
0
for x ∈ [tl , tl+1 ].
(3)
t| {z− t}l tl+1 − tl
l-th coordinate

The motivation of the proposed lifting non-linearity is illustrated in Figure 1. In particular, we highlight the following contributions:
(i) The concept of representing a low dimensional variable in a higher dimensional space
is a well-known optimization technique called functional lifting, see [19]. Non-convex
problems are reformulated as the minimization of a convex energy in the higher dimensional ’lifted’ space. While the introduction of lifting layers does not directly
correspond to the optimization technique, some of the advantageous properties carry
over as we detail in Section 3.
(ii) ReLUs are commonly used in deep learning for imaging applications, however their
low dimensional relatives of interpolation or regression problems are typically tackled
differently, e.g. by fitting (piecewise) polynomials. We show that a lifting layer followed
by a fully connected layer yields a linear spline, which closes the gap between low
and high dimensional interpolation problems. In particular, the aforementioned
architecture can approximate any continuous function f : R → R to arbitrary
precision and can still be trained by solving a convex optimization problem
whenever the loss function is convex, a favorable property that is, for example, not
shared even by the simplest ReLU-based architecture.
(iii) By additionally lifting the desired output of the network, one can represent nonconvex cost functions in a convex fashion. Besides handling the non-convexity,
such an approach allows for the minimization of cost functions with large areas of zero
gradients such as truncated linear costs.
(iv) We demonstrate that the proposed lifting improves the test accuracy in comparison to similar ReLU-based architectures in several experiments on image
classification and produces state-of-the-art image denoising results, making it an attractive universal tool in the design of neural networks.

2

Related Work

Lifting in Convex Optimization. One motivation for the proposed non-linearity comes
from a technique called functional lifting which allows particular types of non-convex optimization problems to be reformulated as convex problems in a higher dimensional space, see
—3—

Related Work
[19] for details. The recent advances in functional lifting [17] have shown that (3) is a particularly well-suited discretization of the continuous model from [19]. Although, the techniques
differ significantly, we hope for the general idea of an easier optimization in higher dimensions to carry over. Indeed, for simple instances of neural network architecture, we prove
several favorable properties for our lifting layer that are related to properties of functional
lifting. Details are provided in Sections 3 and 4.
Non-linearities in Neural Networks. While many non-linear transfer functions have
been studied in the literature (see [7, Section 6.3] for an overview), the ReLU in (1) remains
the most popular choice. Unfortunately, it has the drawback that its gradient is zero for
all x < 0, thus preventing gradient based optimization techniques to advance if the activation is zero (dead ReLU problem). Several variants of the ReLU avoid this problem by
either utilizing smoother activations such as softplus [6] or exponential linear units [3], or by
considering
σ(x; α) = max(x, 0) + α min(x, 0),

(4)

e.g. the absolute value rectification α = −1 [12], leaky ReLUs with a small α > 0 [16],
randomized leaky ReLUs with randomly choosen α [21], parametric ReLUs in which α is a
learnable parameter [10]. Self-normalizing neural networks [13] use scaled exponential LUs
(SELUs) which have further normalizing properties and therefore replace the use of batch
normalization techniques [11]. While the activation (4) seems closely related to the simplest
case (2) of our lifting, the latter allows to process max(x, 0) and min(x, 0) separately, avoiding
the problem of predefining α in (4) and leading to more freedom in the resulting function.
Another related non-linear transfer function are maxout units [8], which (in the 1-D case
we are currently considering) are defined as
σ(x) = max(θj x + bj ).
j

(5)

They can represent any piecewise linear convex function. However, as we show in Proposition 2, a combination of the proposed lifting layer with a fully connected layer drops the
restriction to convex activation functions, and allows us to learn any piecewise linear function. This special architecture shows also similarities to learning the non-linear activation
function in terms of basis functions [2].
Universal Approximation Theorem. As an extension of the universal approximation
theorem in [4], it has been shown in [15] that the set of feedforward networks with one hidden
layer, i.e., all functions N of the form
N (x) =

N
X

θj1 σ(hθj2 , xi + bj )

(6)

j=1

for some integer N , and weights θj1 ∈ R, θj2 ∈ Rn , bj ∈ R are dense in the set of continuous
functions f : [0, 1]n → R if and only if σ is not a polynomial. While this result demonstrates
—4—

Lifting Layers
the expressive power of all common activation functions, the approximation of some given
function f with a network N of the form (6) requires optimization for the parameters θ1
and (θ2 , b) which inevitably leads to a non-convex problem. We prove the same expressive
power of a lifting based architecture (see Corollary 3), while, remarkably, our corresponding
learning problem is a convex optimization problem. Moreover, beyond the qualitative density
result for (6), we may quantify the approximation quality depending on a simple measure
for the “complexity” of the continuous function to be approximated (see Corollary 3 and the
Appendix A).

3

Lifting Layers

In this section, we introduce the proposed lifting layers (Section 3.1) and study their favorable
properties in a simple 1-D setting (Section 3.2). The restriction to 1-D functions is mainly for
illustrative purposes and simplicity. All results can be transferred to higher dimensions via
a vector-valued lifting (Section 3.3). The analysis provided in this section does not directly
apply to deep networks, however it provides an intuition for this setting. Section 3.4 discusses
some practical aspects and reveals a connection to ReLUs. All proofs and the details of the
vector-valued lifting are provided in Appendix A and B.

3.1

Definition

The following definition formalizes the lifting layer from the introduction.
Definition 1 (Lifting). 
We define the lifting of a variable x ∈ [t, t], t, t ∈ R, with respect to
the Euclidean basis E := e1 , . . . , eL of RL and a knot sequence t = t1 < t2 < . . . < tL = t,
for some L ∈ N, as a mapping ` : [t, t] → RL given by
`(x) = (1 − λl (x))el + λl (x)el+1

with l such that x ∈ [tl , tl+1 ] ,

(7)

l

x−t
where λl (x) := tl+1
∈ R. The inverse mapping `† : RL → R of `, which satisfies `† (`(x)) =
−tl
x, is defined by
L
X
†
zl tl .
(8)
` (z) =
l=1

Note that while liftings could be defined with respect to an arbitrary basis E of RL (with
a slight modification of the inverse mapping), we decided to limit ourselves to the Euclidean
basis for the sake of simplicity. Furthermore, we limit ourselves to inputs x that lie in
the predefined interval [t, t]. Although, the idea extends to the entire real line by linear
extrapolation, it requires more technical details. For the sake of a clean presentation, we
omit these details.

—5—

Analysis in 1D

3.2

Analysis in 1D

Although, here we are concerned with 1-D functions, these properties and examples provide
some intuition for the implementation of the lifting layer into a deep architecture. Moreover,
analogue results can be stated for the lifting of higher dimensional spaces.
Proposition 2 (Prediction of a Linear Spline). The composition of a fully connected
layer z 7→ hθ, zi with θ ∈ RL , and a lifting layer, i.e.,
Nθ (x) := hθ, `(x)i ,

(9)

yields a linear spline (continuous piecewise linear function). Conversely, any linear spline
can be expressed in the form of (9).
Although the architecture in (9) does not fall into the class of functions covered by
the universal approximation theorem, well-known results of linear spline interpolation still
guarantee the same results.
Corollary 3 (Prediction of Continuous Functions). Any continuous function f : [t, t] →
R can be represented arbitrarily accurate with a network architecture Nθ (x) := hθ, `(x)i for
sufficiently large L, θ ∈ RL .
Furthermore, as linear splines can of course fit any (spatially distinct) data points exactly,
our simple network architecture has the same property for a particular choice of labels ti . On
the other hand, this result suggests that using a small number of labels acts as regularization
of the type of linear interpolation.
Corollary 4 (Overfitting). Let (xi , yi ) be training data, i = 1, . . . , N with xi 6= xj for
i 6= j. If L = N and ti = xi , there exists θ such that Nθ (x) := hθ, `(x)i is exact at all data
points x = xi , i.e. Nθ (xi ) = yi for all i = 1, . . . , N .
Note that Proposition 2 highlights two crucial differences of the proposed non-linearity to
the maxout function in (5): (i) maxout functions can only represent convex piecewise linear
functions, while liftings can represent arbitrary piecewise linear functions; (ii) The maxout
function is non-linear w.r.t. its parameters (θj , bj ), while the simple architecture in (9) (with
lifting) is linear w.r.t. its parameters (θ, b). The advantage of a lifting layer compared to
a ReLU, which is less expressive and also non-linear w.r.t. its parameters, is even more
significant.
Remarkably, the optimal approximation of a continuous function by a linear spline (for
any choice of ti ), yields a convex minimization problem.
Proposition 5 (Convexity of a simple Regression Problem). Let (xi , yi ) ∈ [t, t] × R
be training data, i = 1, . . . , N . Then, the solution of the problem
min
θ

N
X

L(hθ, `(xi )i ; yi )

i=1

—6—

(10)

Vector-Valued Lifting Layers

V 11

V
TV129 13
T

12

11
T 10 T
V
V 10
7
8
8
T
T
x
TV5 6
T
T9
5
V 4 T2 V T4
V6
3
T
1
T
7

V1

V2 S V3
l
Ω = 13
l=1 T

0
0
0
0.3
0.5
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0

`(x) ∈ R12

Figure 2: Intuition and notation of the vector-valued lifting.

yields the best linear spline fit of the training data with respect to the loss function L. In
particular, if L is convex, then (10) is a convex optimization problem.
As the following example shows, this is not true for ReLUs and maxout functions.
Example 6. The convex loss L(z; 1) = (z − 1)2 composed with a ReLU applied to a linear
transfer function, i.e., θ 7→ max(θxi , 0) with θ ∈ R, leads to a non-convex objective function,
e.g. for xi = 1, θ 7→ (max(θ, 0) − 1)2 is non-convex.
Therefore, in the light of Proposition 5, the proposed lifting closes the gap between
low dimensional approximation and regression problems (where linear splines are extremely
common), and high dimensional approximation/learning problems, where ReLUs have been
used instead of linear spline type of functions.

3.3

Vector-Valued Lifting Layers

A vector-valued construction of the lifting similar to [14] allows us to naturally extend all
our previous results for functions f : [t, t] → R to functions f : Ω ⊂ Rd → R. Definition 1
is generalized to d dimensions by triangulating the compact domain Ω, and identifying each
vertex of the resulting mesh with a unit vector in a space RN , where N is the total number
of vertices. The lifted vector contains the barycentric coordinates of a point x ∈ Rd with
respect its surrounding vertices. The resulting lifting remains a continuous piecewise linear
function when combined with a fully connected layer (cf. Proposition 2), and yields a
convex problem when looking for the best piecewise linear fit on a given triangular mesh (cf.
Proposition 5). Intuition is provided in Figure 2 and the details are provided in Appendix A.
Unfortunately, discretizing a domain Ω ⊂ Rd with L labels per dimension leads to N = Ld
vertices, which makes a vector-valued lifting prohibitively expensive for large d. Therefore,
in high dimensional applications, we turn to narrower and deeper network architectures, in
which the scalar-valued lifting is applied to each component separately. The latter sacrifices
—7—

Scaled Lifting
the convexity of the overall problem for the sake of a high expressiveness with comparably
few parameters. Intuitively, the increasing expressiveness is explained by an exponentially
growing number of kinks for the composition of layers that represent linear splines. A similar
reasoning can be found in [18].

3.4

Scaled Lifting

We are free to scale the lifted representation defined in (7), when the inversion formula in
(8) compensates for this scaling. For practical purposes, we found it to be advantageous to
also introduce a scaled lifting by replacing (7) in Definition 1 by
`s (x) = (1 − λl (x))tl el + λl (x)tl+1 el+1

with l such that x ∈ [tl , tl+1 ] ,

(11)

l

x−t
∈ R. The inversion formula reduces to the sum over all components of
where λl (x) := tl+1
−tl
the vector in this case. We believe that such a scaled lifting is often advantageous: (i) The
magnitude/meaning of the components of the lifted vector is preserved and does not have
to be learned; (ii) For an uneven number of equally distributed labels in [−t, t], one of the
labels tl will be zero, which allows us to omit it and represent a scaled lifting into RL with
L − 1 many entries. For L = 3 for example, we find that t1 = −t, t2 = 0, and t3 = t such
that

x + t


 1−
(−t)e1 = xe1 if x ≤ 0,
0+t
`s (x) =
(12)
x
−0

3
3


t e = xe if x > 0.
t−0
As the second component remains zero, we can introduce an equivalent more memory efficient
variant of the scaled lifting which we already stated in (2).

4

Lifting the Output

So far, we considered liftings as a non-linear layer in a neural network. However, motivated by lifting-based optimization techniques, which seek a tight convex approximation to
problems involving non-convex loss functions, this section presents a convexification of nonconvex loss functions by lifting in the context of neural networks. This goal is achieved by
approximating the loss by a linear spline and predicting the output of the network in a lifted
representation. The advantages of this approach are demonstrated at the end of this section
in Example 10 for a robust regression problem with a vast number of outliers.
Consider a loss function Ly : R → R defined for a certain given output y (the total loss for
P
samples (xi , yi ), i = 1, . . . , N , may be given by N
i=1 Lyi (xi )). We achieve the tight convex
approximation by a lifting function `y : [ty , ty ] → RLy for the range of the loss function
L
im(Ly ) ⊂ R with respect to the standard basis Ey = {e1y , . . . , ey y } and a knot sequence
L
ty = t1y < . . . < ty y < ty following Definition 1.
—8—

Lifting the Output
1

1

0.5

0.5

0

0

-0.5

-0.5

-1

-1
0

(a) Cost matrix c
1

(b) Optimal θ

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1.5

1

1

0.5

1

0.5

0.5

0

0

0

-0.5

-0.5

2

3

4

5

6

(d) Best `1 fit

(c) Resulting fit

1.5

0.5

1

0
-0.5

-0.5
-1

-1
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

(e) Non-convex fit 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

6

(f) Non-convex fit 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

(g) Non-convex fit 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

(h) Non-convex fit 4

Figure 3: Visualization of Example 10 for a regression problem with 40% outliers. Our lifting of a (nonconvex) truncated linear loss to a convex optimization problem robustly fits the function nearly optimally
(see (c)), whereas the most robust convex formulation (without lifting) is severely perturbed by the outliers
(see (d)). Trying to optimize the non-convex cost function directly yields different results based on the
initialization of the weights and is prone to getting stuck in suboptimal local minima, see (e)-(h).

The goal of the convex approximation is to predict the lifted representation of the loss,
i.e. a vector z ∈ RLy . However, in order to assign the correct loss to the lifted variable, it
needs to lie in im(`y ). In this case, we have a one-to-one representation of the loss between
[ty , ty ] and im(`y ), which is shown by the following lemma.
Lemma 7 (Characterization of the Range of `). The range of the lifting ` : [t, t] → RL
is given by

im(`) = z ∈ [0, 1]L : ∃l : zl + zl+1 = 1 and ∀k 6∈ {l, l + 1} : zk = 0
(13)
and the mapping ` is a bijection between [t, t] and im(`) with inverse `† .
Since the image of the range of `y is not convex, we relax it to a convex set, actually to
the smallest convex set that contains im(`y ), the convex hull of im(`y ).
Lemma 8 (Convex Hull of the Range of `). The convex hull conv(im(`)) of im(`) is
the unit simplex in RL .
Putting the results together, we obtain a tight convex approximation of the (possibly
non-convex) loss function Ly (x) by `†y (z) with z ∈ im(`y ), i.e. instead of considering a
eθ (x) that predicts a point
network Nθ (x) and evaluate Ly (Nθ (x)), we consider a network N
eθ (x)). As it is hard to incorporate rangein conv(im(`y )) ⊂ RLy and evaluate the loss `†y (N
constraints into the network’s prediction, we compose the network with a lifting layer `x , i.e.
—9—

Numerical Experiments
eθ (x))) with θ̃ ∈ RLy ×Lx , for which simpler constraints may be derived
we consider `†y (θ̃`x (N
that can be handled easily. The following proposition states the convexity of the relaxed
problem w.r.t. the parameters of the loss layer θ̃ for a non-convex loss function Ly .
Proposition 9 (Convex Relaxation of a simple non-convex Regression Problem).
Let (xi , yi ) ∈ [t, t] × [ty , ty ] be training data, i = 1, . . . , N . Moreover, let `y be a lifting of
the common image [ty , ty ] of the loss functions Lyi , i = 1, . . . , N , and `x is the lifting of the
domain of Ly . Then
(
Ly
N
X
X
∀p = 1, . . . , Ly ,
min
θp,q = 1,
`†y (θ`x (xi )) s.t. θp,q ≥ 0,
(14)
θ
∀q = 1, . . . , Lx .
p=1
i=1
is a convex relaxation of the (non-convex) loss function, and the constraints guarantee that
θ`x (xi ) ∈ conv(im(`y )).
The objective in (14) is linear (w.r.t. θ) and can be written as
N
X
i=1

`†y (θ`x (xi ))

=

Ly Lx
N X
X
X

θp,q `x (xi )q tpy

=:

Ly Lx
X
X

cp,q θp,q

(15)

p=1 q=1

i=1 p=1 q=1
L

PN

where c := i=1 ty `x (xi )> , with ty := (t1y , . . . , ty y )> , is the cost matrix for assigning the loss
value tpy to the inputs xi .
Moreover, the closed-form solution of (14) is given for all q = 1, . . . , Lx by θp,q = 1, if the
index p minimizes cp,q , and θp,q = 0 otherwise.
Example 10 (Robust fitting). For illustrative purposes of the advantages of this section,
we consider a regression problem with 40% outliers as visualized in Figure 3(c) and (d).
Statistics motivates us to use a robust non-convex loss function. Our lifting allows us to use
a robust (non-convex) truncated linear loss in a convex optimization problem (Proposition 9),
which can easily ignore the outliers and achieve a nearly optimal fit (see Figure 3(c)), whereas
the most robust convex loss (without lifting), the `1 -loss, yields a solution that is severely
perturbed by the outliers (see Figure 3(d)). The cost matrix c from (15) that represents
the non-convex loss (of this example) is shown in Figure 3(a) and the computed optimal θ
is visualized in Figure 3(b). For comparison purposes we also show the results of a direct
(gradient descent + momentum) optimization of the truncated linear costs with four different
initial weights chosen from a zero mean Gaussian distribution. As we can see the results
greatly differ for different initializations and always got stuck in suboptimal local minima.

5

Numerical Experiments

In this section we provide synthetic numerical experiments to illustrate the behavior of
lifting layers on simple examples, before moving to real-world imaging applications. We
implemented lifting layers in MATLAB as well as in PyTorch and will make all code for
reproducing the experiments available upon acceptance of this manuscript.
— 10 —

Synthetic Examples

5.1

Synthetic Examples

The following results were obtained using a stochastic gradient descent (SGD) algorithm with
a momentum of 0.9, using minibatches of size 128, and a learning rate of 0.1. Furthermore,
we use weight decay with a parameter of 10−4 .
5.1.1

1-D Fitting

To illustrate our results of Proposition 5, we first consider the example of fitting values
yi = sin(xi ) from input data xi sampled uniformly in [0, 2π]. We compare the lifting-based
architecture Nθ (x) = hθ, `(x)i (Lift-Net) with the standard design architecture fc1 (σ(fc9 (x)))
(Std-Net), where σ(x) = max(x, 0) applies coordinate-wise and fcn denotes a fully connected
layer with n output neurons. Figure 4 shows the resulting functions after 25, 75, 200, and
2000 epochs of training.
Lift-Net approximation, 75 epochs

Lift-Net approximation, 25 epochs

Lift-Net approximation, 4000 epochs

Lift-Net approximation, 200 epochs

1

1

1

0.5

0.5

0.5

0

0

0

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

1

0.5

0

-0.5

-1
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-1
0

Std-Net approximation, 25 epochs

1

2

3

4

5

-1
0

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

Std-Net approximation, 200 epochs

Std-Net approximation, 75 epochs

1

2

3

4

5

6

Std-Net approximation, 4000 epochs
1

1
0.5

0.5

0

0

0

-0.5

-0.5

0.5

0.5
0
-0.5

-0.5

-1

-1

-1
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Figure 4: Illustrating the results of approximating a sine function on [0, 2π] with 50 training examples after
different number of epochs. While the proposed architecture with lifting yields a convex problem for which
SGD converges quickly (upper row), the standard architecture based on ReLUs yields an (ambiguous) nonconvex problem which leads to slower convergence and a suboptimal local minimum after 4000 epochs (lower
row).

5.1.2

2-D Fitting

While the above results were expected based on the favorable theoretical properties, we now
consider a more difficult test case of fitting the function
f (x1 , x2 ) = cos(x2 sin(x1 ))

(16)

on [0, 2π]2 . Note that although a 2-D input still allows for a vector-valued lifting, our goal is
to illustrate that even a coordinate-wise lifting has favorable properties (beyond being able
to approximate any separable function with a single layer, which is a simple extension of

— 11 —

Synthetic Examples

Figure 5: Illustrating the results of approximating the function in (16) with the standard network in (Std-Net)
(middle row) and the architecture in (Lift-Net) based on lifting the input data (upper row). The red markers
illustrate the training data, the surface represents the overall network function, and the RMSE measures its
difference to the true underlying function (16), which is shown in the bottom row on the left. Similar to the
results of Figure 4, our lifting based architecture converges more quickly and yields a better approximation
of the true underlying function (lower left) after 2000 epochs. The middle and right approximations in the
bottom row illustrate a vector-valued lifting (see Section 3.3) into 42 (middle) and 112 (right) dimensions.
The latter can be trained by solving a linear system. We illustrate the triangular mesh used for the lifting
below the graph of the function to illustrate that the approximation is indeed piecewise linear (as stated in
Proposition 2).

Corollary 3). We therefore compare the two networks
fLift-Net (x1 , x2 ) = fc1 (σ(fc20 ([`20 (x1 ), `20 (x2 )]))),
fStd-Net (x1 , x2 ) = fc1 (σ(fc20 (fc40 ([x1 , x2 ])))),

(Lift-Net)
(Std-Net)

where the notation [u, v] in the above formula denotes the concatenation of the two vectors
u and v. The corresponding training now yields a non-convex optimization problem in both
cases. As we can see in Figure 5 the general behavior is similar to the 1-D case: Increasing
the dimensionality via lifting the input data yields faster convergence and a more precise
approximation than increasing the dimensionality with a parameterized filtering. For the
sake of completeness, we have included a vector-valued lifting with an illustration of the
— 12 —

50

2

40

1.5

30

ME-model
ME-model+BN
Large ME-model+BN
Proposed

1

4.5

ME-model
ME-model+BN
Large ME-model+BN
Proposed

90
80
70
60

0

0.5

1

Iteration

1.5

2

0

0.5

104

1

1.5

(a) CIFAR-10 Test Error

2

0.5

1

1.5

Iteration

(b) CIFAR-10 Test Loss

3

2
0

104

Iteration

3.5

2.5

50

20

ME-model
ME-model+BN
Large ME-model+BN
Proposed

4

Test Loss

ME-model
ME-model+BN
Large ME-model+BN
Proposed

Test Error in %

80
70
60

Test Loss

Test Error in %

Image Classification

2

0

104

0.5

1

1.5

Iteration

(c) CIFAR-100 Test Error

(d) CIFAR-100 Test Loss

Figure 6: Comparing different approaches for image classification on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100. The proposed architecture with lifting layers shows a superior performance in comparison to its ReLU-based relatives
in both cases.

underlying 2-D triangulation in the bottom row of Figure 5.

5.2

Image Classification

As a real-world imaging example we consider the problem of image classification. To illustrate
the behavior of our lifting layer, we use the “Deep MNIST for expert model” (ME-model )
by TensorFlow1 as a simple standard architecture:
Conv
(5×5×32)

ReLU

→

Pool →
(2×2)

Conv

ReLU

→

(5×5×64)

Pool → FC
(2×2)

(1024)

ReLU

→

FC
(n)

which applies a standard ReLU activation, max pooling and outputs a final number of n
classes. In our experiments, we use an additional batch-normalization (BN) to improve the
accuracy significantly, and denote the corresponding model by ME-model+BN.
Our model is formed by replacing all ReLUs by a scaled lifting layer (as introduced in
Section 3.4) with L = 3, where we scaled with the absolute value |ti | of the labels to allow
for a meaningful combination with the max pooling layers. We found the comparably small
lifting of L = 3 to yield the best results in (deeply) nested architectures. As our lifting layer
increases the number of channels by a factor of 2, our model has almost twice as many free
parameters as the ME model. Since this could yield an unfair comparison, we additionally
include a larger model Large ME-model+BN with twice as many convolution filters and
fully-connected neurons resulting in even more free parameters than our model.
Figure 6 shows the results each of these models obtains on the image classification problems CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100. As we can see, the favorable behavior of the synthetic experiments carried over to the exemplary architectures in image classification: Our proposed
architecture based on lifting layers has the smallest test error and loss in both experiments.
Both common strategies, i.e. including batch normalization and increasing the size of the
model, improved the results, but even the larger of the two ReLU-bases architectures remains
inferior to the lifting-based architecture.
1

https://www.tensorflow.org/tutorials/layers

— 13 —

2
104

Maxout Activation Units
0.1
Lift
Maxout
ReLU

0.15

Lift
Maxout
ReLU

0.08
Test error

Test loss

0.2

0.1

0.06
0.04
0.02
0

0.05
20

40

60

80

100

20

Epochs

40

60

80

100

Epochs

Figure 7: MNIST image classification comparison of our lifting activation with the standard ReLU and
its maxout generalization. The ReLU, maxout and lifting architectures (79510, 79010 and 76485 trainable
parameters) achieved a best test error of 3.07%, 2.91% and 2.61%, respectively. The proposed approach
behaves favorably in terms of the test loss from epoch 50 on, leading to a lower overall test error after 100
epochs.
Table 1: Average PSNRs in [dB] for the BSD68 dataset for different standard deviations σ of the Gaussian
noise on all of which our lifting layer based architecture is among the leading methods. Please note that
(most likely due to variations in the random seeds) our reproduced DnCNN-S results are different - in the
second decimal place - from the results reported in [22].
σ
15
25
50

5.3

Noisy
24.80
20.48
14.91

BM3D [5]
31.07
28.57
25.62

WNNM [9]
31.37
28.83
25.87

Reconstruction PSNR in [dB ]
EPLL [23]
BSH12 [1]
31.21
28.68
28.96
25.67
26.03

CSF [20]
31.24
28.74
-

TNRD [2]
31.42
28.92
25.97

DnCNN-S [22]
31.72
29.21
26.21

Our
31.72
29.21
26.23

Maxout Activation Units

To also compare the proposed lifting activation layer with the maxout activation, we conduct
a simple MNIST image classification experiment with a fully connected one-hidden-layer
architecture, using a ReLu, maxout or lifting as activations. For the maxout layer we apply
a feature reduction by a factor of 2 which has the capabilities of representing a regular ReLU
and a lifting layer as in (2). Due to the nature of the different activations - maxout applies
a max pooling and lifting increases the number of input neurons in the subsequent layer we adjusted the number of neurons in the hidden layer to make for an approximately equal
and fair amount of trainable parameters.
The results in Figure 7 are achieved after optimizing a cross-entropy loss for 100 training
epochs by applying SGD with learning rate 0.01. Particularly, each architecture was trained
with the identical experimental setup. While both the maxout and our lifting activation
yield a similar convergence behavior better than the standard ReLU, the proposed method
exceeds in terms of the final lowest test error.

— 14 —

Conv 1

Noisy input

Lift

…

Conv 46 + BN

Lift

Conv 46 + BN

Lift

Conv 46 + BN

…

Noise
17 Convolutions

Test PSNR in [dB]

Image Denoising

29.2
29
DnCNN-S
Lift-46

28.8
28.6
1

10

20

30

40

50

Epochs
Figure 8: In (a) we illustrate our Lift-46 image denoising architecture which implements 16 convolution layers
with 46 filters. Although its test PSNR in (b) for Gaussian noise with σ = 25 plateaus - after a learning rate
decay at 30 epochs - to the same final value it generally shows a favorable and more stable behavior.

5.4

Image Denoising

To also illustrate the effectiveness of lifting layers for networks mapping images to images, we
consider the problem of Gaussian image denoising. We designed the Lift-46 architecture with
16 blocks each of which consists of 46 convolution filters of size 3×3, batch normalization, and
a lifting layer with L = 3 following the same experimental reasoning for deep architectures
as in Section 5.2. As illustrated in Figure 8(a), a final convolutional layer outputs an image
we train to approximate the residual, i.e., noise-only, image. Due to its state-of-the-art
performance in image denoising we adopted the same training pipeline as for the DnCNN-S
architecture from [22] which resembles our Lift-46 network but implements a regular ReLU
and 64 convolution filters. The two architectures contain an approximately equal amount of
trainable parameters.
Table 1 compares our architecture with a variety of denoising methods most notably
the DnCNN-S [22] and shows that we produce state-of-the-art performance for removing
Gaussian noise of different standard deviations σ. In addition, the development of the test
PSNR in Figure 8(b) suggests a more stable and favorable behavior of our method compared
to DnCNN-S.

6

Conclusions

We introduced lifting layers to be used as an alternative to ReLU-type activation functions
in machine learning. Opposed to the classical ReLU, liftings have a nonzero derivative
almost everywhere, and can - when combined with a fully connected layer - represent any
continuous piecewise linear function. We demonstrated several advantageous properties of
lifting and used this technique to handle non-convex and partly flat loss functions. Based
on our numerical experiments in image classification and image reconstruction, lifting layers
are an attractive building block in various neural network architectures and allowed us to
improve on the performance of corresponding ReLU-based architectures.

— 15 —

Vector-Valued Lifting

A

Vector-Valued Lifting

Notation for a Triangulation. For a non-empty, connected, and compact set Ω ⊂ Rd ,
Ω, where T l is the convex hull of
we consider a (non-degenerate) triangulation (T l )M
l=1 of 
d + 1 vertices (V κl (1) , . . . , V κl (d+1) ) from the set V := V 1 , . . . , V L of all vertices, and
κl : {1, . . . , d + 1} → {1, . . . , L} maps indices of the vertices of T l to the corresponding
indices in V. The notation is illustrated in Figure 2.

A.1

Definition

Definition 11 (Vector-Valued Lifting). We define the lifting of a variable x
∈ Ω ⊂ Rd

from the d-dimensional vector space Rd with respect to an orthogonal basis E := e1 , . . . , eL
d
L
of RL and a triangulation (T l )M
l=1 ⊂ R as a mapping ` : Ω → R defined by
`(x) =

d+1
X

λli (x)eκl (i)

with l such that x ∈ T l ,

(17)

i=1

where λli (x), i = 1, . . . , d+1, are the barycentric coordinates of x with respect to V κl (1) , . . . , V κl (d+1) .
The inverse mapping `† : RL → Rd is given by
L
X
el , z l
` (z) =
V .
|el |2
l=1
†

Example 12 (Scalar-Valued
Lifting). For d = 1, we obtain the scalar-valued lifting with

Ω = [t, t], V = t1 , . . . , tL , and the vertices of T l are exactly the interval borders V κl (1) = tl
and V κl (2) = tl+1 for l = 1, . . . , M with M = L − 1.
Example 13. For Ω = [t, t]d , a regular grid on the rectangular domain in Rd , a natural
triangulation is induced by the vertices V := [t1 , . . . , tL ]d , t = t1 < . . . < tL = t, which
implies a lifted dimension of dL.
Lemma 14 (Sanity Check of Inversion Formula). The mapping `† inverts the mapping
`, i.e. `† (`(x)) = x for x ∈ Ω ⊂ Rd .
Proof. For x ∈ T l , using el , ek = 0 for l 6= k (since E is orthogonal) , the following holds:
†

` (`(x)) =

L X
d+1
X
k=1 i=1

d+1

λli (x)

ek , eκl (i) k X l
V =
λi (x)V κl (i) = x .
|ek |2
i=1

where the last equality uses the definition of barycentric coordinates.

— 16 —

Analysis

A.2

Analysis

Proposition 15 (Prediction of a Continuous Piecewise Linear Functions). The
composition of a fully connected layer z 7→ θz with θ ∈ Rr×L , r ∈ N, and a lifting layer, i.e.
Nθ (x) := θ`(x) ,

(18)

yields a continuous piecewise linear (PLC) function. Conversely, any PLC function with
kinks on a triangulation of Ω can be expressed in the form of (18).
Proof. For x ∈ T l , we have:
A(`(x)) = θ`(x) = θ

d+1
X

λli (x)eκl (i)

i=1

=

d+1
X

λli (x)θeκl (i) .

i=1

Since λli (x) is linear, the expression on the right coincides with the linear interpolation
between the points θeκl (i) , i = 1, . . . , d + 1. Continuity follows by continuity of the expression
above at the boundary of T l , for each l = 1, . . . , M .
The converse statement follows by defining the lifting with respect to the same triangulation as the given PLC function and choosing θ such that Nθ coincides with that function
on the vertices. The details are analogue to the proof of Corollary 19.
Lemma 16 (Approximation by Continuous Piecewise Linear Functions). Let f : Ω →
Rr , r ∈ N, be a continuous function with the following modulus:
ω(f, δ) := sup {|f (x) − f (y)| : |x − y| ≤ δ, ∀x, y ∈ Ω} .

(19)

Define the continuous piecewise linear function
sf : Ω → Rr on the triangulation (T l )M
l=1 by
 1
L
M
setting sf (x) = f (x) at all vertices x ∈ V , . . . , V . We denote by hl the diameter of T l ,
given by
n
o
M
κl (i)
κl (i0 )
0
hl := sup |V
−V
| : i, i = 1, . . . , d + 1 ,
and set hM := maxl=1,...,M hM
l , which is finite. Then
sup |f (x) − sf (x)| ≤ ω(f, hM )
x∈Ω

and the right hand side vanishes for hM & 0.
P
l
κl (i)
Proof. For x ∈ T l , let sf be given by sf (x) = d+1
) with λli (x) ∈ [0, 1] and
i=1 λi (x)f (V
Pd+1 l
i=1 λi (x) = 1. Note that sf is uniquely defined. We conclude:
|f (x) − sf (x)| ≤ |

d+1
X



λli (x)

f (x) − f (V

κl (i)



) | ≤ sup |f (x) − f (y)| ≤ ω(f, hM
l ).
y∈T l

i=1

M
As Ω is compact, f is uniformly continuous, which, together with ω(f, hM
l ) ≤ ω(f, h ),
implies that the right hand side vanishes for hM & 0.

— 17 —

Lifting the Output
Example 17. Consider a (locally) Lipschitz continuous function f : Ω → Rr . By compactness of Ω, the function f is actually globally Lipschitz continuous on Ω with a constant m,
which implies ω(f, δ) ≤ δm, since |f (x) − f (y)| ≤ m|x − y|.
Corollary 18 (Prediction of Continuous Functions). Any continuous function f : Ω →
Rr , r ∈ N, can be represented arbitrarily accurate with a network architecture Nθ (x) = θ`(x)
for sufficiently large L and θ ∈ Rr×L .
Proof. Combine Proposition 15 with Lemma 16.
Corollary 19 (Overfitting). Let (xi , yi ) be training data in Ω × Rr , i = 1, . . . , N , xi 6= xj
for i 6= j. If L = N and V i = xi , there exists θ ∈ Rr×L such that Nθ (x) := θ`(x) is exact at
all data points x = xi , i.e. Nθ (xi ) = yi , for all i = 1, . . . , N .
Proof. Since xi = V i , (17) shows that λli (x) = 1 and λlj (x) = 0 for j 6= i. Therefore, we
have θ`(xi ) = θeκl (i) . Denote by E ∈ RL×L the matrix with columns given by e1 , . . . , eL ,
and y ∈ Rr×L the matrix with columns y1 , . . . , yL . Since E is a basis, the matrix E is
non-singular, and we may determine θ uniquely by solving the following linear system of
equations θE = y, which concludes the statement.
Proposition 20 (Convexity of a simple Regression Problem). Let (xi , yi ) ∈ Ω × Rr
be training data, i = 1, . . . , N . Then, the solution of the problem
min

θ∈Rr×L

N
X

L(θ`(xi ); yi )

(20)

i=1

yields the best continuous piecewise linear fit of the training data with respect to the loss
function L. In particular, if L is convex, then (20) is a convex optimization problem.
Proof. Proposition 15 shows that x 7→ θ`(x) is a continuous piecewise linear function. Obviously, θ 7→ θ`(xi ) is linear, hence composed with a convex loss function, (20) is a convex
optimization problem.

B

Lifting the Output

Lemma 21 (Characterization of the Range of `). The range of the mapping ` is given
by
(
)
PL
Pd+1
l
z
=
z
e
,
∃l
∈
{1,
.
.
.
,
M
}
:
z
=
1
l=1 l
i=1 κl (i)
im(`) = z ∈ [0, 1]L :
(21)
and ∀k 6∈ im(κl ) : zk = 0
and the mapping ` is a bijection between Ω and im(`) with inverse `† .
— 18 —

Lifting the Output
PL
l
Proof. Let z ∈ [0, 1]L be given by z =
l=1 zl e and there exists exactly one index l
Pd+1
such that
z
= 1 and, for all k 6∈ im(κl ), we have zk = 0. The point x given
Pd+1i=1 κl (i)κ (i)
l
by x =
zκl (i) V
maps to z via `. Obviously x ∈ T l , which implies that `(x) =
Pd+1 l i=1
κl (i)
and, by the uniqueness of barycentric coordinates, λli = zκl (i) . Moreover
i=1 λi (x)e
(17) implies for k 6∈ im(κl ) that zk = 0. We conclude that the set on right hand side of (21)
is included in im(`). By the definition in (17), it is clear that z = `(x) for x ∈ Ω satisfies the
condition for belonging to the set on the right hand side of (21), which implies their equality.
In order to prove the bijection, injectivity remains to show. This is proved as follows:
For x, x0 such that `(x) = `(x0 ), the definition in (17) requires that x, x0 lie in the same T l ,
and the property of a basis implies λl (x) = λl (x0 ), which implies that x = x0 holds. Finally,
the proof of `(`† (z)) = z for z ∈ im(`) follows similar arguments as the first part of this
proof.
Lemma 22 (Convex Relaxation of the Range of `). The set C given by
)
(
L
L
X
X
zl = 1
C := z ∈ [0, 1]L : z =
zl el ,

(22)

l=1

l=1

is the convex hull of im(`).
Proof. We make the abbreviation I = im(`). Obviously, I ⊂ C and C is convex. Therefore,
we need to show that C is the smallest convex set that contains I.
The convex hull convI of I consists of
 all convex combinations of points in I.
 By the characterization of I in (21), it is clear that e1 , . . . , eL ⊂ I. Moreover, C ⊂ conv e1 , . . . , eL ⊂
convI holds, thus, I ⊂ C already implies that C = convI, as the convex hull is the smallest
convex set containing I.
Proof of Proposition 9. Proposition 9 requires only the 1D-setting of Lemma 21 and 22
above. For convenience of the reader, we copy the statement of Proposition 9 here and proof
it.
Proposition 23. Let (xi , yi ) ∈ [t, t] × [ty , ty ] be training data, i = 1, . . . , N . Moreover, let
`y be a lifting of the common image [ty , ty ] of the loss functions Lyi , i = 1, . . . , N , and `x is
the lifting of the domain of Ly . Then
min
θ

N
X
i=1

`†y (θ`x (xi ))

s.t. θp,q ≥ 0,

Ly
X
p=1

θp,q

(
∀p = 1, . . . , Ly ,
= 1,
∀q = 1, . . . , Lx .

(23)

is a convex relaxation of the (non-convex) loss function, and the constraints guarantee that
θ`x (xi ) ∈ conv(im(`y )).

— 19 —

References
The objective in (14) is linear (w.r.t. θ) and can be written as
N
X
i=1

`†y (θ`x (xi ))

=

Ly Lx
N X
X
X

θp,q `x (xi )q tpy

i=1 p=1 q=1

=:

Ly Lx
X
X

cp,q θp,q

(24)

p=1 q=1

P
Ly >
>
1
where c := N
i=1 ty `x (xi ) , with ty := (ty , . . . , ty ) , is the cost matrix for assigning the loss
value tpy to the inputs xi .
Moreover, the closed-form solution of (14) is given for all q = 1, . . . , Lx by θp,q = 1, if the
index p minimizes cp,q , and θp,q = 0 otherwise.
Proof. (23) is obviously a convex problem, which was generated by relaxing the constraint
set im(`y ) using Lemma 22. Restricting θ to im(`y ) yields, obviously, a piecewise linear
approximation of the true loss Ly .
Since z := `x (xi ) ∈ im(`x ) satisfies the condition in (21) and in particular the condition
in (22), we conclude that
∀p : (θz)p ≥ 0 and

Ly
X
p=1

(θz)p =

Ly Lx
X
X
p=1 q=1

θp,q zq =

Lx
X

zq = 1 ,

q=1

which shows that θ`x (xi ) ∈ conv(im(`y )).
The linearity of the objective in (23) is obvious, and so is (24). Moreover, using the linear
expression in (24), clearly, the loss can be minimized by independently minimizing the cost
for each q = 1, . . . , Lx , as the constraints couple the variables only along the p-dimension.
For each q, the cost is minimized by searching the smallest entry in the cost matrix along
the p-dimension, which verifies the closed-form solution of (23).

References
[1] H. C. Burger, C. J. Schuler, and S. Harmeling. Image denoising: Can plain neural networks
compete with BM3D? In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 2392–
2399, 2012.
[2] Y. Chen and T. Pock. Trainable nonlinear reaction diffusion: A flexible framework for fast and
effective image restoration. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence,
39(6):1256–1272, 2017.
[3] D. Clevert, T. Unterthiner, and S. Hochreiter. Fast and accurate deep network learning by
exponential linear units (ELUs). Computing Research Repository (CoRR), abs/1511.07289,
2015.
[4] G. Cybenko. Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function. Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems, 2(4):303–314, 1989.
[5] K. Dabov, A. Foi, V. Katkovnik, and K. Egiazarian. Image denoising by sparse 3-D transformdomain collaborative filtering. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 16(8):2080–2095, Aug.
2007.

— 20 —

References
[6] C. Dugas, Y. Bengio, F. Bélisle, C. Nadeau, and R. Garcia. Incorporating second-order functional knowledge for better option pricing. In Advances in Neural Information Processing
Systems (NIPS), pages 451–457, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001. MIT Press.
[7] I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville. Deep Learning. The MIT Press, 2016.
[8] I. Goodfellow, D. Warde-Farley, M. Mirza, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio. Maxout networks. In
International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 1319–1327, 2013.
[9] S. Gu, L. Zhang, W. Zuo, and X. Feng. Weighted nuclear norm minimization with application
to image denoising. In International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
(CVPR), pages 2862–2869, 2014.
[10] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level
performance on imagenet classification. In International Conference on Computer Vision
(ICCV), pages 1026–1034, 2015.
[11] S. Ioffe and C. Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing
internal covariate shift. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages
448–456, 2015.
[12] K. Jarrett, K. Kavukcuoglu, M. Ranzato, and Y. LeCun. What is the best multi-stage architecture for object recognition? In International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition (CVPR), pages 2146–2153, 2009.
[13] G. Klambauer, T. Unterthiner, A. Mayr, and S. Hochreiter. Self-normalizing neural networks.
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2017.
[14] E. Laude, T. Möllenhoff, M. Moeller, J. Lellmann, and D. Cremers. Sublabel-accurate convex
relaxation of vectorial multilabel energies. In B. Leibe, J. Matas, N. Sebe, and M. Welling, editors, European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 614–627, Cham, 2016. Springer
International Publishing.
[15] M. Leshno, V. Lin, A. Pinkus, and S. Schocken. Multilayer feedforward networks with a
nonpolynomial activation function can approximate any function. Neural Networks, 6(6):861–
867, 1993.
[16] A. Maas, A. Hannun, and A. Ng. Rectifier nonlinearities improve neural network acoustic
models. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2013.
[17] T. Möllenhoff, E. Laude, M. Moeller, J. Lellmann, and D. Cremers. Sublabel-accurate relaxation of nonconvex energies. In International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition (CVPR), 2016.
[18] G. Montúfar, R. Pascanu, K. Cho, and Y. Bengio. On the number of linear regions of deep
neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), pages 2924–
2932, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014. MIT Press.
[19] T. Pock, D. Cremers, H. Bischof, and A. Chambolle. Global solutions of variational models
with convex regularization. SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 3(4):1122–1145, 2010.
[20] U. Schmidt and S. Roth. Shrinkage fields for effective image restoration. In International
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 2774–2781, 2014.
[21] B. Xu, N. Wang, T. Chen, and M. Li. Empirical evaluation of rectified activations in convolutional network. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2015. Deep
Learning Workshop.

— 21 —

References
[22] K. Zhang, W. Zuo, Y. Chen, D. Meng, and L. Zhang. Beyond a gaussian denoiser: Residual
learning of deep cnn for image denoising. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 26(7):3142–
3155, 2017.
[23] D. Zoran and Y. Weiss. From learning models of natural image patches to whole image
restoration. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 479–486, 2011.

— 22 —

