Low Complexity Regularization of Inverse Problems - Course #2 Recovery Guarantees

Gabriel Peyré

www.numerical-tours.com

Low Complexity Regularization of Inverse Problems

Cours #2 Recovery Guarantees

http://www.ceremade.dauphine.fr/~peyre/wavelet-tour/

http://www.ceremade.dauphine.fr/~peyre/wavelet-tour/

Overview of the Course

• Course #1: Inverse Problems

• Course #2: Recovery Guarantees

• Course #3: Proximal Splitting Methods

Overview

• Low-complexity Regularization with Gauges

• Performance Guarantees

• Grid-free Regularization

Inverse Problem Regularization

observations y

parameter �Estimator: x(y) depends only on

Observations: y = �x0 + w 2 RP .


observations y

parameter �

Example: variational methods

Estimator: x(y) depends only on

x(y) 2 argminx2RN

1

2||y � �x||2 + � J(x)

Data fidelity Regularity


J(x0)Regularity of x0


observations y

parameter �



x(y) 2 argminx2RN

1

2||y � �x||2 + � J(x)



Choice of �: tradeo� ||w||Noise level


x

? 2 argminx2RQ

,Kx=y

J(x)


observations y

parameter �



x(y) 2 argminx2RN

1

2||y � �x||2 + � J(x)



No noise: �� 0+, minimize



x

? 2 argminx2RQ

,Kx=y

J(x)

This course:

Performance analysis.

Fast computational scheme.


observations y

parameter �



x(y) 2 argminx2RN

1

2||y � �x||2 + � J(x)



No noise: �� 0+, minimize


�

Coe�cients x Image x

Union of Linear Models for Data ProcessingUnion of models: T 2 T linear spaces.

Synthesissparsity:

T

�


Union of Linear Models for Data ProcessingUnion of models: T 2 T linear spaces.

Synthesissparsity:

T

Structuredsparsity:

�


Union of Linear Models for Data Processing

D�

Image x

Gradient D⇤x

Union of models: T 2 T linear spaces.

Synthesissparsity:

T

Structuredsparsity:

Analysissparsity:

�


Multi-spectral imaging:xi,· =

Prj=1 Ai,jSj,·

Union of Linear Models for Data Processing

D�

Image x

Gradient D⇤x

Union of models: T 2 T linear spaces.

Synthesissparsity:

T

Structuredsparsity:

Analysissparsity:

Low-rank:

S1,·

S2,·

S3,·Figure 3. The concept of hyperspectral imagery. Image measurements are made atmany narrow contiguous wavelength bands, resulting in a complete spectrum for eachpixel.

Hyperspectral Data

Most multispectral imagers (e.g., Landsat, SPOT, AVHRR) measure radiation reflectedfrom a surface at a few wide, separated wavelength bands (Fig. 4). Most hyperspectralimagers (Table 1), on the other hand, measure reflected radiation at a series of narrowand contiguous wavelength bands. When we look at a spectrum for one pixel in ahyperspectral image, it looks very much like a spectrum that would be measured in aspectroscopy laboratory (Fig. 5). This type of detailed pixel spectrum can provide muchmore information about the surface than a multispectral pixel spectrum.

x

Gauge: J : RN ! R+8↵ 2 R+

, J(↵x) = ↵J(x)

Gauges for Union of Linear Models

Convex

x

T

Gauge:

,Union of linear models

(T )T2TPiecewise regular ball

J : RN ! R+8↵ 2 R+

, J(↵x) = ↵J(x)


J(x) = ||x||1T = sparsevectors

Convex

x

T

Gauge:



J : RN ! R+8↵ 2 R+

, J(↵x) = ↵J(x)


J(x) = ||x||1

x

0T 0

T = sparsevectors

Convex

x

T

Gauge:



J : RN ! R+8↵ 2 R+

, J(↵x) = ↵J(x)


J(x) = ||x||1

x

0T 0

T = sparsevectors

|x1|+||x2,3||x

0

x

T

T 0

T = block

vectors

sparse

Convex

x

T

Gauge:



J : RN ! R+8↵ 2 R+

, J(↵x) = ↵J(x)


J(x) = ||x||1T = low-rank

matrices

J(x) = ||x||⇤

x

x

0T 0

T = sparsevectors

|x1|+||x2,3||x

0

x

T

T 0

T = block

vectors

sparse

Convex

x

T

Gauge:



J : RN ! R+8↵ 2 R+

, J(↵x) = ↵J(x)


J(x) = ||x||1T = low-rank

matrices

J(x) = ||x||⇤

x

x

0T 0

T = anti-sparsevectors

J(x) = ||x||1

x

x

0

T 0

T = sparsevectors

|x1|+||x2,3||x

0

x

T

T 0

T = block

vectors

sparse

Convex

@J(x) = {⌘ \ 8 y, J(y) > J(x)+h⌘, y � xi}

Subdifferentials and Models|x|

I = supp(x) = {i \ xi 6= 0}

@J(x) = {⌘ \ 8 y, J(y) > J(x)+h⌘, y � xi}

Subdifferentials and Models

Example: J(x) = ||x||1

@||x||1 =

⇢⌘ \ supp(⌘) = I,

8 j /2 I, |⌘j | 6 1

�

x

@J(x)

0

|x|

Definition:

I = supp(x) = {i \ xi 6= 0}

T

x

= VectHull(@J(x))?

@J(x) = {⌘ \ 8 y, J(y) > J(x)+h⌘, y � xi}


Tx

= {⌘ \ supp(⌘) = I}


@||x||1 =

⇢⌘ \ supp(⌘) = I,

8 j /2 I, |⌘j | 6 1

�

Tx

x

@J(x)

0

|x|

Definition:

I = supp(x) = {i \ xi 6= 0}

T

x

= VectHull(@J(x))?

⌘ 2 @J(x) =) Proj

T

x

(⌘) = e

x

@J(x) = {⌘ \ 8 y, J(y) > J(x)+h⌘, y � xi}


e

x

= sign(x)

Tx

= {⌘ \ supp(⌘) = I}


@||x||1 =

⇢⌘ \ supp(⌘) = I,

8 j /2 I, |⌘j | 6 1

�

Tx

x

@J(x)

0 ex

|x|

Examples`

1 sparsity: J(x) = ||x||1e

x

= sign(x) T

x

= {z \ supp(z) ⇢ supp(x)}

x

0x

@J(x)

Examples

x

0x

@J(x)

`


x

= sign(x) T

x


e

x

= (N (xb

))b2B

N (a) = a/||a||Structured sparsity: J(x) =P

b ||xb||T

x


x

0x

@J(x)

Examples

x

0x

@J(x)

`


x

= sign(x) T

x


e

x

= (N (xb

))b2B


b ||xb||T

x


x

@J(x)x

0x

@J(x)

ex

= UV ⇤Nuclear norm: J(x) = ||x||⇤ x = U⇤V ⇤SVD:

Tx

=�UA+BV ⇤ \ (A,B) 2 (Rn⇥n)2

Examples

x

0x

@J(x)

x

x

0

@J(x)

I = {i \ |xi| = ||x||1}Anti-sparsity: J(x) = ||x||1T

x

= {y \ y

I

/ sign(xI

)}e

x

= |I|�1 sign(x)

`


x

= sign(x) T

x


e

x

= (N (xb

))b2B


b ||xb||T

x


x

@J(x)x

0x

@J(x)

ex

= UV ⇤Nuclear norm: J(x) = ||x||⇤ x = U⇤V ⇤SVD:

Tx

=�UA+BV ⇤ \ (A,B) 2 (Rn⇥n)2

Overview




Noiseless recovery:

min�x=�x0

J(x) (P0)

�x = �

x0

Dual Certificates

x

?

Noiseless recovery:

min�x=�x0

J(x) (P0)

Dual certificates:

�x = �

x0Proposition:

D(x0) = Im(�⇤) \ @J(x0)

x0 solution of (P0) () 9 ⌘ 2 D(x0)

Dual Certificates

⌘@J(x0)

x

?

Noiseless recovery:

min�x=�x0

J(x) (P0)

Dual certificates:

�x = �

x0Proposition:

D(x0) = Im(�⇤) \ @J(x0)

x0 solution of (P0) () 9 ⌘ 2 D(x0)

Proof:

(P0) () min�2ker(�)

J(x0 + �)

8 (⌘, �) 2 @J(x0)⇥ ker(�), J(x0 + �) > J(x0) + h�, ⌘i

⌘ 2 Im(�

⇤) =) h�, ⌘i = 0 =) x0 solution.

x0 solution =) 8 �, h�, ⌘i 6 0 =) ⌘ 2 ker(�)

?.

Dual Certificates

⌘@J(x0)

x

?

= interior for the topology of a↵(E)

ri(E) = relative interior of E

Dual Certificates and L2 Stability

�x = �

x0

⌘@J(x0)

x

?

Tight dual certificates:

D(x0) = Im(�⇤) \ ri(@J(x0))




Theorem:

[Fadili et al. 2013]

If 9 ⌘ 2 ¯D(x0), for � ⇠ ||w|| one has ||x? � x0|| = O(||w||)

�x = �

x0

⌘@J(x0)

x

?


D(x0) = Im(�⇤) \ ri(@J(x0))




[Grassmair 2012]: J(x? � x0) = O(||w||).[Grassmair, Haltmeier, Scherzer 2010]: J = || · ||1.

Theorem:



�x = �

x0

⌘@J(x0)

x

?


D(x0) = Im(�⇤) \ ri(@J(x0))




[Grassmair 2012]: J(x? � x0) = O(||w||).[Grassmair, Haltmeier, Scherzer 2010]: J = || · ||1.

�! The constants depend on N . . .

Theorem:



�x = �

x0

⌘@J(x0)

x

?


D(x0) = Im(�⇤) \ ri(@J(x0))

Random matrix: �i,j ⇠ N (0, 1), i.i.d.� 2 RP⇥N ,

Compressed Sensing Setting

Theorem:

Random matrix: �i,j ⇠ N (0, 1), i.i.d.

Sparse vectors: J = || · ||1.

Let s = ||x0||0. If

Then 9⌘ 2 ¯D(x0) with high probability on �.

� 2 RP⇥N ,

[Chandrasekaran et al. 2011]P > 2s log (N/s)

[Rudelson, Vershynin 2006]


Theorem:


Theorem:



Low-rank matrices: J = || · ||⇤.

Let s = ||x0||0. If

Let r = rank(x0). If


� 2 RP⇥N ,


P > 3r(N1 +N2 � r) x0 2 RN1⇥N2



[Chandrasekaran et al. 2011]

Theorem:


Theorem:



Low-rank matrices: J = || · ||⇤.

Let s = ||x0||0. If

Let r = rank(x0). If


� 2 RP⇥N ,

�! Similar results for || · ||1,2, || · ||1.


P > 3r(N1 +N2 � r) x0 2 RN1⇥N2



[Chandrasekaran et al. 2011]

Phase TransitionsP/N

0

1

s/N r/pN

J = || · ||1 J = || · ||⇤THE GEOMETRY OF PHASE TRANSITIONS IN CONVEX OPTIMIZATION 7

0 25 50 75 1000

25

50

75

100

0 10 20 300

300

600

900

FIGURE 2.2: Phase transitions for linear inverse problems. [left] Recovery of sparse vectors. The empiricalprobability that the `1 minimization problem (2.6) identifies a sparse vector x0 2 R100 given random linearmeasurements z0 = Ax0. [right] Recovery of low-rank matrices. The empirical probability that the S1minimization problem (2.7) identifies a low-rank matrix X0 2 R30£30 given random linear measurementsz0 =A (X0). In each panel, the colormap indicates the empirical probability of success (black = 0%; white =100%). The yellow curve marks the theoretical prediction of the phase transition from Theorem II; the red curvetraces the empirical phase transition.

fixed dimensions. This calculation gives the exact (asymptotic) location of the phase transition for the S1

minimization problem (2.7) with random measurements.To underscore these achievements, we have performed some computer experiments to compare the

theoretical and empirical phase transitions. Figure 2.2[left] shows the performance of (2.6) for identifyinga sparse vector in R100; Figure 2.2[right] shows the performance of (2.7) for identifying a low-rank matrixin R30£30. In each case, the colormap indicates the empirical probability of success over the randomness inthe measurement operator. The empirical 5%, 50%, and 95% success isoclines are determined from thedata. We also draft the theoretical phase transition curve, promised by Theorem II, where the number m ofmeasurements equals the statistical dimension of the appropriate descent cone, which we compute using theformulas from Sections 4.5 and 4.6. See Appendix A for the experimental protocol.

In both examples, the theoretical prediction of Theorem II coincides almost perfectly with the 50% successisocline. Furthermore, the phase transition takes place over a range of O(

pd) values of m, as promised.

Although Theorem II does not explain why the transition region tapers at the bottom-left and top-rightcorners of each plot, we have established a more detailed version of Theorem I that allows us to predict thisphenomenon as well. See the discussion after Theorem 7.1 for more information.

2.4. Demixing problems. In a demixing problem [MT12], we observe a superposition of two structuredvectors, and we aim to extract the two constituents from the mixture. More precisely, suppose that we measurea vector z0 2Rd of the form

z0 = x0 +U y0 (2.8)where x0, y0 2 Rd are unknown and U 2 Rd£d is a known orthogonal matrix. If we wish to identify the pair(x0, y0), we must assume that each component is structured to reduce the number of degrees of freedom.In addition, if the two types of structure are coherent (i.e., aligned with each other), it may be impossibleto disentangle them, so it is expedient to include the matrix U to model the relative orientation of the twoconstituent signals.

To solve the demixing problem (2.8), we describe a convex programming technique proposed in [MT12].Suppose that f and g are proper convex functions on Rd that promote the structures we expect to find in x0

THE GEOMETRY OF PHASE TRANSITIONS IN CONVEX OPTIMIZATION 7

0 25 50 75 1000

25

50

75

100

0 10 20 300

300

600

900

FIGURE 2.2: Phase transitions for linear inverse problems. [left] Recovery of sparse vectors. The empiricalprobability that the `1 minimization problem (2.6) identifies a sparse vector x0 2 R100 given random linearmeasurements z0 = Ax0. [right] Recovery of low-rank matrices. The empirical probability that the S1minimization problem (2.7) identifies a low-rank matrix X0 2 R30£30 given random linear measurementsz0 =A (X0). In each panel, the colormap indicates the empirical probability of success (black = 0%; white =100%). The yellow curve marks the theoretical prediction of the phase transition from Theorem II; the red curvetraces the empirical phase transition.

fixed dimensions. This calculation gives the exact (asymptotic) location of the phase transition for the S1

minimization problem (2.7) with random measurements.To underscore these achievements, we have performed some computer experiments to compare the

theoretical and empirical phase transitions. Figure 2.2[left] shows the performance of (2.6) for identifyinga sparse vector in R100; Figure 2.2[right] shows the performance of (2.7) for identifying a low-rank matrixin R30£30. In each case, the colormap indicates the empirical probability of success over the randomness inthe measurement operator. The empirical 5%, 50%, and 95% success isoclines are determined from thedata. We also draft the theoretical phase transition curve, promised by Theorem II, where the number m ofmeasurements equals the statistical dimension of the appropriate descent cone, which we compute using theformulas from Sections 4.5 and 4.6. See Appendix A for the experimental protocol.

In both examples, the theoretical prediction of Theorem II coincides almost perfectly with the 50% successisocline. Furthermore, the phase transition takes place over a range of O(

pd) values of m, as promised.

Although Theorem II does not explain why the transition region tapers at the bottom-left and top-rightcorners of each plot, we have established a more detailed version of Theorem I that allows us to predict thisphenomenon as well. See the discussion after Theorem 7.1 for more information.

2.4. Demixing problems. In a demixing problem [MT12], we observe a superposition of two structuredvectors, and we aim to extract the two constituents from the mixture. More precisely, suppose that we measurea vector z0 2Rd of the form

z0 = x0 +U y0 (2.8)where x0, y0 2 Rd are unknown and U 2 Rd£d is a known orthogonal matrix. If we wish to identify the pair(x0, y0), we must assume that each component is structured to reduce the number of degrees of freedom.In addition, if the two types of structure are coherent (i.e., aligned with each other), it may be impossibleto disentangle them, so it is expedient to include the matrix U to model the relative orientation of the twoconstituent signals.

To solve the demixing problem (2.8), we describe a convex programming technique proposed in [MT12].Suppose that f and g are proper convex functions on Rd that promote the structures we expect to find in x0

1

0 11

P/N

From [Amelunxen et al. 20013]

⌘ 2 D(x0) =)⇢

⌘ = �

⇤q

ProjT (⌘) = e

Minimal-norm Certificate

T = Tx0

e = ex0

⌘ 2 D(x0) =)⇢

⌘ = �

⇤q

ProjT (⌘) = e

⌘0 = argmin⌘=�⇤q,⌘T=e

||q||


Minimal-norm pre-certificate:

T = Tx0

e = ex0

⌘ 2 D(x0) =)⇢

⌘ = �

⇤q

ProjT (⌘) = e


||q||

�T = � � ProjT


Proposition: One has


T = Tx0

e = ex0

⌘0 = (�+T�)

⇤e

⌘ 2 D(x0) =)⇢

⌘ = �

⇤q

ProjT (⌘) = e


||q||



Proposition:

Theorem:

the unique solution x

?of P�(y) for y = �x0 + w satisfies

Tx

? = Tx0 and ||x? � x0|| = O(||w||) [Vaiter et al. 2013]

One has


T = Tx0

e = ex0

⌘0 = (�+T�)

⇤e

If ⌘0 2 D(x0) and � ⇠ ||w||,

[Fuchs 2004]: J = || · ||1.[Bach 2008]: J = || · ||1,2 and J = || · ||⇤.

[Vaiter et al. 2011]: J = ||D⇤ · ||1.

⌘ 2 D(x0) =)⇢

⌘ = �

⇤q

ProjT (⌘) = e


||q||



Proposition:

Theorem:

the unique solution x

?of P�(y) for y = �x0 + w satisfies

Tx

? = Tx0 and ||x? � x0|| = O(||w||) [Vaiter et al. 2013]

One has


T = Tx0

e = ex0

⌘0 = (�+T�)

⇤e

If ⌘0 2 D(x0) and � ⇠ ||w||,


Theorem:



Let s = ||x0||0. If

� 2 RP⇥N ,

Then ⌘0 2 ¯D(x0) with high probability on �.

[Dossal et al. 2011]

[Wainwright 2009]

P > 2s log(N)

P ⇠ 2s log(N)P ⇠ 2s log(N/s)

L2 stability Model stability

Phase

transitions:

vs.


Theorem:



Let s = ||x0||0. If

� 2 RP⇥N ,



[Wainwright 2009]

P > 2s log(N)

�! Similar results for || · ||1,2, || · ||⇤, || · ||1.



Phase

transitions:

vs.


Theorem:



Let s = ||x0||0. If

� 2 RP⇥N ,



[Wainwright 2009]

P > 2s log(N)

�! Similar results for || · ||1,2, || · ||⇤, || · ||1.

�! Not using RIP technics (non-uniform result on x0).



Phase

transitions:

vs.


Theorem:



Let s = ||x0||0. If

� 2 RP⇥N ,



[Wainwright 2009]

P > 2s log(N)

⇥x =�

i

xi�(·��i)

Increasing �:� reduces correlation.� reduces resolution.

J(x) = ||x||1

1-D Sparse Spikes Deconvolution

�x0

x0�

⇥x =�

i

xi�(·��i)

Increasing �:� reduces correlation.� reduces resolution.

�0 10

2

support recovery.

J(x) = ||x||1

()

||⌘0,Ic ||1 < 1

⌘0 2 D(x0)

I = {j \ x0(j) 6= 0}||⌘0,Ic ||1

1-D Sparse Spikes Deconvolution

�x0

x0�

201

()

Overview




1

NWhen N ! +1, support is not stable:

||⌘0,Ic ||1 �!N!+1

c > 1.

1

c

||⌘0,Ic ||1

StableUnstable

Support Instability and Measures

1


||⌘0,Ic ||1 �!N!+1

c > 1.

Intuition: spikes wants to move laterally.

1

c

||⌘0,Ic ||1

StableUnstable

�! Use Radon measures m 2 M(T), T = R/Z.


1


||⌘0,Ic ||1 �!N!+1

c > 1.

Intuition: spikes wants to move laterally.

1

c

||⌘0,Ic ||1

StableUnstable

Extension of `1: total variation

Discrete measure: mx,a

=P

i

ai

�xi .

One has ||mx,a

||TV = ||a||1

�! Use Radon measures m 2 M(T), T = R/Z.

||m||TV = sup||g||161

Z

Tg(x) dm(x)


Sparse Measure Regularization

Measurements: y = �(m0) + w where

8<

:

m0 2 M(T),� : M(T) ! L2(T),w 2 L2(T).

Acquisition operator:

�(m)(x) =

Z

T'(x, x0)dm(x0) where ' 2 C

2(T⇥ T)



8<

:

m0 2 M(T),� : M(T) ! L2(T),w 2 L2(T).


Total-variation over measures regularization:

minm2M(T)

1

2||�(m)� y||2 + �||m||TV

�(m)(x) =

Z


2(T⇥ T)



8<

:

m0 2 M(T),� : M(T) ! L2(T),w 2 L2(T).


Total-variation over measures regularization:

minm2M(T)

1

2||�(m)� y||2 + �||m||TV

�! Infinite dimensional convex program.

�! If dim(Im(�)) < +1, dual is finite dimensional.

�! If � is a filtering, re-cast dual as SDP program.

�(m)(x) =

Z


2(T⇥ T)



8<

:

m0 2 M(T),� : M(T) ! L2(T),w 2 L2(T).

Measures: minm2M

12 ||�m� y||2 + �||m||TV

�1

+1

Fuchs vs. Vanishing Pre-Certificates

mina2RN

12 ||�za� y||2 + �||a||1

Measures: minm2M

12 ||�m� y||2 + �||m||TV

On a grid z:

�1

+1


zi

mina2RN

12 ||�za� y||2 + �||a||1

Measures: minm2M

12 ||�m� y||2 + �||m||TV

On a grid z:

⌘F = �⇤�⇤,+I sign(a0,I)

�1

+1

For m0 = mz,a0 , supp(m0) = x0, supp(a0) = I:


zi

⌘F

mina2RN

12 ||�za� y||2 + �||a||1

Measures: minm2M

12 ||�m� y||2 + �||m||TV

On a grid z:

⌘F = �⇤�⇤,+I sign(a0,I) ⌘

V

= �⇤�+,⇤x0

�sign(a0), 0

�⇤

�1

+1


where �x

(a, b) =P

i

a

i

'(·, xi

) + b

i

'

0(·, xi

)


⌘V

zi

⌘F

(holds for ||w|| small enough and � ⇠ ||w||)

mina2RN

12 ||�za� y||2 + �||a||1

Measures: minm2M

12 ||�m� y||2 + �||m||TV

On a grid z:

⌘F = �⇤�⇤,+I sign(a0,I) ⌘

V

= �⇤�+,⇤x0

�sign(a0), 0

�⇤

�1

+1


where �x

(a, b) =P

i

a

i

'(·, xi

) + b

i

'

0(·, xi

)


If 8 j /2 I, |⌘F (xj)| < 1,

then supp(a�) = supp(a0)

Theorem: [Fuchs 2004]

⌘V

zi

⌘F

(holds for ||w|| small enough and � ⇠ ||w||)

mina2RN

12 ||�za� y||2 + �||a||1

Measures: minm2M

12 ||�m� y||2 + �||m||TV

On a grid z:

⌘F = �⇤�⇤,+I sign(a0,I) ⌘

V

= �⇤�+,⇤x0

�sign(a0), 0

�⇤

�1

+1


where �x

(a, b) =P

i

a

i

'(·, xi

) + b

i

'

0(·, xi

)

then m�

= mx�,a� with

||x� � x0||1 = O(||w||)

Theorem: [Duval-Peyre 2013]If 8 t /2 x0, |⌘V (t)| < 1,


If 8 j /2 I, |⌘F (xj)| < 1,

then supp(a�) = supp(a0)

Theorem: [Fuchs 2004]

⌘V

zi

⌘F

Numerical Illustration

�1

+1⌘V⌘F

Zoom

+1

Ideal low-pass filter: '(x, x

0) =

sin((2fc+1)⇡(x�x

0))sin(⇡(x�x

0)) , f

c

= 6.

⌘F

⌘V

Solution path � 7! a�

�


�1

+1⌘V⌘F

Zoom

+1


0) =


0))sin(⇡(x�x

0)) , f

c

= 6.

⌘F

⌘V

Solution path � 7! a�

�Theorem: [Duval-Peyre 2013]

Discrete ! continuous:

If ⌘V is valid, then a�

neighbors around supp(m0).

is supported on pairs of

(holds for � ⇠ ||w|| small enough.


�1

+1⌘V⌘F

Zoom

+1


0) =


0))sin(⇡(x�x

0)) , f

c

= 6.

⌘F

⌘V

Gauges: encode linear models as singular points.

Conclusion


Performance measures

L2error

model

di↵erent CS guarantees

Conclusion



L2error

model


Specific certificate:⌘0, ⌘F , ⌘V , . . .

Conclusion

– Approximate model recovery Tx

? ⇡ Tx0 .



L2error

model


Specific certificate:⌘0, ⌘F , ⌘V , . . .

(e.g. grid-free recovery)

– CS performance with arbitrary gauges.

Conclusion

Open problems:

Low Complexity Regularization of Inverse Problems - Course #2 Recovery Guarantees

Technology

Transcript of Low Complexity Regularization of Inverse Problems - Course #2 Recovery Guarantees