# Compressed sensing and sampling

A fancy ways of counting zero

August 18, 2014 — June 14, 2017

functional analysis
linear algebra
model selection
probabilistic algorithms
probability
signal processing
sparser than thou

Higgledy-piggledy notes on the theme of exploiting sparsity to recover signals from few non-local measurements, given that we know they are nearly sparse, in a sense that will be made clear soon.

## 1 Basic Compressed Sensing

I’ll follow the intro of , which tries to unify many variants.

We attempt to recover a signal $$x_k\in \mathbb{R}^d$$ from $$m\ll n$$ measurements $$y_k$$ of the form

$y_k =\langle a_k, x\rangle + z_k,\, 1\leq k \leq m,$

or, as a matrix equation,

$y = Ax + z$

where $$A$$ is the $$m \times d$$ stacked measurement matrices, and the $$z$$ terms denote i.i.d. measurement noise.

Now, if $$x$$ is a sparse vector, and $$A$$ satisfies a restricted isometry property or something then we can construct an estimate $$\hat{x}$$ with small error by minimising

$\hat{x}=\min \|\dot{x}\|_1 \text{ subject to } \|A\dot{x}-y\|_2 < \varepsilon,$

where $$\varepsilon> \|z\|_2^2.$$

In the lecture notes on restricted isometry properties, Candès and Tao talk about not vectors $$x\in \mathbb{R}^d$$ but functions $$f:G \mapsto \mathbb{C}$$ on Abelian groups like $$G=\mathbb{Z}/d\mathbb{Z},$$ which is convenient for some phrasing, since then when I say my signal is $$s$$-sparse, which means that its support $$\operatorname{supp} \tilde{f}=S\subset G$$ where $$|S|=s$$.

In the finite-dimensional vector framing, we can talk about best sparse approximations $$x_s$$ to non-sparse vectors, $$x$$.

$x_s = \argmin_{\|\dot{x}\|_0\leq s} \|x-\dot{x}\|_2$

where all the coefficients apart from the $$s$$ largest are zeroed.

The basic results find attractive convex problems with high probability in a nest of nastier ones. There are also greedy optimisation versions, which are formulated as above, but no longer necessarily a convex optimisation; instead, we talk about Orthogonal Matching Pursuit, Iterative Thresholding and some other stuff the details of which I do not yet know, which I think pops up in wavelets and sparse coding.

For all of these the results tend to be something like

with data $$y,$$ the difference between my estimate of $$\hat{x}$$ and $$\hat{x}_\text{oracle}$$ is bounded by something-or-other where the oracle estimate is the one where you know ahead of time the set $$S=\operatorname{supp}(x)$$.

Candés gives an example result

$\|\hat{x}-x\|_2 \leq C_0\frac{\|x-x_s\|_1}{\sqrt{s}} + C_1\varepsilon$

conditional upon

$\delta_2s(A) < \sqrt{2} -1$

where this $$\delta_s(\cdot)$$ gives the restricted isometry constant of a matrix, defined as the smallest constant such that $$(1-\delta_s(A))\|x\|_2^2\leq \|Ax\|_2^2\leq (1+\delta_s(A))\|x\|_2^2$$ for all $$s$$-sparse $$))x$$. That is, the measurement matrix does not change the norm of sparse signals “much”, and in particular, does not null them when $$\delta_s < 1.$$

This is not the strongest bound out there apparently, but for any of that form, those constants look frustrating.

Measuring the restricted isometry constant of a given measurement matrix is presumably hard, although I haven’t tried yet. But generating random matrices that have a certain RIC with high probability is easy; that’s a neat trick in this area.

## 2 Redundant compressed sensing

🏗 For now see Frame theory.

## 3 Introductory texts

• Aside: see the rather good practical python notebook in numerical tours.

• Terry Tao’s exposition is great as usual. See, e.g.

[…] we can at least give an informal geometric argument as to why $$\ell^1$$ minimisation is more likely to recover a sparse solution than $$\ell^2$$ minimisation. The set of all $$f$$ whose Fourier coefficients match the observed data $$c_\xi$$ forms an affine subspace of the space of all functions. The $$\ell^2$$ minimiser can then be viewed geometrically by taking l^2 balls (i.e. Euclidean balls) centred at the origin, and gradually increasing the radius of the ball until the first point of contact with the affine subspace. In general, there is no reason to expect this point of contact to be sparse (i.e. to lie on a high-codimension coordinate subspace). If however we replace $$\ell^2$$ with $$\ell^1$$, then the Euclidean balls are replaced by octahedra, which are much “pointier” (especially in high dimensions) and whose corners lie on coordinate subspaces. So the point of first contact is now much more likely to be sparse. The idea of using $$\ell^1$$ as a “convex relaxation” of $$\ell^0$$ is a powerful one in applied mathematics; see for instance on the topic.

• Hegde, Baraniuk, Davenport and Duarte have an open source textbook

• Wes McKinney’s intro

• RIP vs JL

• Gabriel Peyre’s Compressed Sensing of Images

## 4 …Using random projections

Classic. Notes under low dimensional projections

## 5 …Using deterministic projections

Surely this is close to quasi monte carlo?

• Dustin G. Mixon Achieving the Welch bound with difference sets

I blogged about constructing harmonic frames using difference sets. We proved that such harmonic frames are equiangular tight frames, thereby having minimal coherence between columns. I concluded the entry by conjecturing that incoherent harmonic frames are as good for compressed sensing as harmonic frames whose rows were randomly drawn from the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) matrix

• A variant on the compressed sensing of Yves Meyer

recent work of Yves Meyer might be relevant:

• A variant on the compressed sensing of Emmanuel Candes, Basarab Matei and Yves Meyer

• Simple quasicrystals are sets of stable sampling, Basarab Matei and Yves Meyer

These papers are interesting because their approach to compressed sensing is very different. Specifically, their sparse vectors are actually functions of compact support with sufficiently small Lebesgue measure. As such, concepts like conditioning are replaced with that of stable sampling, and the results must be interpreted in the context of functional analysis. The papers demonstrate that sampling frequencies according to a (deterministic) simple quasicrystal will uniquely determine sufficiently sparse functions, and furthermore, the sparsest function in the preimage can be recovered by L1-minimization provided it’s nonnegative.

## 6 Bayesian

Sparse Bayes can be tricky. See, perhaps, Bayesian Compressive Sensing.

## 7 Phase transitions

How well can you recover a matrix from a certain number of measurements? In obvious metrics there is a sudden jump in how well you do with increasing measurements for a given rank. This looks a lot like a physical phase transition, which is a known phenomenon in ML. Hmm.

## 8 Weird things to be classified

csgm, compressed sensing using generative models, tries to find a model which is sparse with respect to… some manifold of the latent variables of… a generative model? or something?

## 9 References

Achlioptas. 2003. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, Special Issue on PODS 2001,.
Azizyan, Krishnamurthy, and Singh. 2015. arXiv:1506.00898 [Cs, Math, Stat].
Bach, Jenatton, and Mairal. 2011. Optimization With Sparsity-Inducing Penalties. Foundations and Trends(r) in Machine Learning 1.0.
Baraniuk, Richard G. 2007. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine.
———. 2008. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine.
Baraniuk, Richard G., Cevher, Duarte, et al. 2010. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.
Baraniuk, Richard, Davenport, DeVore, et al. 2008. Constructive Approximation.
Baron, Sarvotham, and Baraniuk. 2010. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.
Bayati, and Montanari. 2011. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.
Berger, Daniels, and Yu. 2016. Communications of the ACM.
Bian, and Chen. 2013. SIAM Journal on Optimization.
Bingham, and Mannila. 2001. In Proceedings of the Seventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. KDD ’01.
Blanchard. 2013. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Bora, Jalal, Price, et al. 2017. In International Conference on Machine Learning.
Borgerding, and Schniter. 2016. arXiv:1612.01183 [Cs, Math].
Bruckstein, Elad, and Zibulevsky. 2008a. In 3rd International Symposium on Communications, Control and Signal Processing, 2008. ISCCSP 2008.
———. 2008b. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.
Cai, Xu, and Zhang. 2008. arXiv:0805.0149 [Cs].
Cai, and Zhang. 2015. The Annals of Statistics.
Candès, Emmanuel J. 2014. ICM 2014 Proceedings, to Appear.
Candès, Emmanuel J., and Davenport. 2011. arXiv:1104.5246 [Cs, Math, Stat].
Candès, Emmanuel J., Eldar, Needell, et al. 2011. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis.
Candès, Emmanuel J., and Recht. 2009. Foundations of Computational Mathematics.
Candès, Emmanuel J., Romberg, and Tao. 2006a. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.
Candès, Emmanuel J., Romberg, and Tao. 2006b. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics.
Candès, Emmanuel, and Tao. 2005. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.
Candès, Emmanuel J., and Tao. 2006. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.
———. 2008. “The Uniform Uncertainty Principle and Compressed Sensing.”
Candès, Emmanuel J., and Wakin. 2008. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine.
Carmi. 2013. Digital Signal Processing.
———. 2014. In Compressed Sensing & Sparse Filtering. Signals and Communication Technology.
Cevher, Duarte, Hegde, et al. 2009. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
Chartrand, and Yin. 2008. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2008. ICASSP 2008.
Chen. 2012. Mathematical Programming.
Chen, and Zhou. 2013. Computational Optimization and Applications.
Chretien. 2008. arXiv:0809.0660 [Stat].
Dasgupta. 2000. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. UAI’00.
Dasgupta, and Gupta. 2003. Random Structures & Algorithms.
Dasgupta, Hsu, and Verma. 2006. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. UAI’06.
Daubechies, I., Defrise, and De Mol. 2004. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics.
Daubechies, Ingrid, DeVore, Fornasier, et al. 2010. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics.
DeVore. 1998. Acta Numerica.
Diaconis, and Freedman. 1984. The Annals of Statistics.
Donoho, David L. 2006. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.
Donoho, David L., and Elad. 2003. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Donoho, D. L., Elad, and Temlyakov. 2006. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.
Donoho, David L., Maleki, and Montanari. 2009a. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
———. 2009b. In 2010 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW).
Donoho, David L., Maleki, and Montanari. 2010. In 2010 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW).
Duarte, and Baraniuk. 2013. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis.
Flammia, Gross, Liu, et al. 2012. New Journal of Physics.
Foygel, and Srebro. 2011. arXiv:1108.0373 [Math, Stat].
Freund, Dasgupta, Kabra, et al. 2007. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
Giryes, Sapiro, and Bronstein. 2016. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.
Graff, and Sidky. 2015. Applied Optics.
Hall, and Li. 1993. The Annals of Statistics.
Harchaoui, Juditsky, and Nemirovski. 2015. Mathematical Programming.
Hassanieh, Haitham, Indyk, Katabi, et al. 2012. In Proceedings of the Forty-Fourth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. STOC ’12.
Hassanieh, H., Indyk, Katabi, et al. 2012. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. Proceedings.
Hegde, and Baraniuk. 2012. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.
Hormati, Roy, Lu, et al. 2010. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.
Hoyer. n.d. Journal of Machine Learning Research.
Jaggi. 2013. In Journal of Machine Learning Research.
Jung, Heckel, Bölcskei, et al. 2013. arXiv:1311.3257 [Stat].
Kabán. 2014. In Journal of Machine Learning Research.
Kim, and Haldar. 2016. Signal Processing.
Lahiri, Gao, and Ganguli. 2016. arXiv:1607.04331 [Cs, q-Bio, Stat].
Launay, Poli, Boniface, et al. 2020. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
Li, Ping, Hastie, and Church. 2006. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. KDD ’06.
Li, Yingying, and Osher. 2009. Inverse Problems and Imaging.
Matei, and Meyer. 2010. Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations.
Mishali, and Eldar. 2010. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing.
Montanari. 2012. Compressed Sensing: Theory and Applications.
Mousavi, and Baraniuk. 2017. In ICASSP.
Needell, and Tropp. 2008. arXiv:0803.2392 [Cs, Math].
Oka, and Lampe. 2008. In 5th IEEE Sensor Array and Multichannel Signal Processing Workshop, 2008. SAM 2008.
Olshausen, B. A., and Field. 1996. Network (Bristol, England).
Olshausen, Bruno A, and Field. 2004. Current Opinion in Neurobiology.
Oxvig, Arildsen, and Larsen. 2017.
Pawar, and Ramchandran. 2015. arXiv:1501.00320 [Cs, Math].
Peleg, Eldar, and Elad. 2010. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.
Qiuyun Zou, Haochuan Zhang, Chao-Kai Wen, et al. 2018. IEEE Signal Processing Letters.
Rangan. 2011. In 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory Proceedings.
Ravishankar, Saiprasad, and Bresler. 2015. arXiv:1501.02923 [Cs, Stat].
Ravishankar, S., and Bresler. 2015. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.
Rish, and Grabarnik. 2014. In Compressed Sensing & Sparse Filtering. Signals and Communication Technology.
Rish, and Grabarnik. 2015. Sparse Modeling: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications. Chapman & Hall/CRC Machine Learning & Pattern Recognition Series.
Romberg. 2008. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine.
Rosset, and Zhu. 2007. The Annals of Statistics.
Rubinstein, Peleg, and Elad. 2013. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.
Sarvotham, Baron, and Baraniuk. 2006. In In Proc. Allerton Conf. On Comm., Control, and Computing.
Schniter, and Rangan. 2012. In 2012 50th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton).
Shalev-Shwartz, and Tewari. 2011. Journal of Machine Learning Research.
Smith, Forte, Jordan, et al. 2015. arXiv:1512.04011 [Cs].
Song, Xie, and Pokutta. 2015. arXiv:1509.00130 [Cs, Math, Stat].
Tropp, J.A. 2006. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.
Tropp, J. A., and Wright. 2010. Proceedings of the IEEE.
Vetterli. 1999. In AeroSense’99.
Weidmann, and Vetterli. 2012. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.
Wipf, and Nagarajan. 2016. Microsoft Research.
Wu, R., Huang, and Chen. 2013. IEEE Signal Processing Letters.
Wu, Yan, Rosca, and Lillicrap. 2019. In International Conference on Machine Learning.
Yaghoobi, Nam, Gribonval, et al. 2012. In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP).
Yang, and Xu. 2015. In Journal of Machine Learning Research.
Zhang, Liu, Zhang, et al. 2017. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. KDD ’17.