4.5 Article

Dense Error Correction Via l1-Minimization

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY
Volume 56, Issue 7, Pages 3540-3560

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIT.2010.2048473

Keywords

Dense error correction; measure concentration; Gaussian matrices; l(1)-minimization; polytope neighborliness; sparse signal recovery

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [CRS-EHS-0509151, CCF-TF-0514955, IIS 07-03756]
  2. U. S. Office of Naval Research [YIP N00014-05-1-0633]
  3. Microsoft Live Labs, Redmond, WA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper studies the problem of recovering a sparse signal x is an element of R-n from highly corrupted linear measurements y = Ax + e is an element of R-m, where e is an unknown error vector whose nonzero entries may be unbounded. Motivated by an observation from face recognition in computer vision, this paper proves that for highly correlated (and possibly overcomplete) dictionaries A, any sufficiently sparse signal can be recovered by solving an l(1)-minimization problem min parallel to x parallel to(perpendicular to) + parallel to e parallel to(perpendicular to) subject to y = Ax + e. More precisely, if the fraction of the support of the error e is bounded away from one and the support of is a very small fraction of the dimension m, then as m becomes large the above l(1)-minimization succeeds for all signals and almost all sign-and-support patterns of e. This result suggests that accurate recovery of sparse signals is possible and computationally feasible even with nearly 100% of the observations corrupted. The proof relies on a careful characterization of the faces of a convex polytope spanned together by the standard crosspolytope and a set of independent identically distributed (i. i. d.) Gaussian vectors with nonzero mean and small variance, dubbed the cross-and-bouquet (CAB) model. Simulations and experiments corroborate the findings, and suggest extensions to the result.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available