Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 168 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 49 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 37 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 34 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 99 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 214 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 466 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 37 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

The sample complexity of weighted sparse approximation (1507.06736v5)

Published 24 Jul 2015 in math.NA, cs.CC, cs.IT, math.FA, math.IT, and stat.CO

Abstract: For Gaussian sampling matrices, we provide bounds on the minimal number of measurements $m$ required to achieve robust weighted sparse recovery guarantees in terms of how well a given prior model for the sparsity support aligns with the true underlying support. Our main contribution is that for a sparse vector ${\bf x} \in \mathbb{R}N$ supported on an unknown set $\mathcal{S} \subset {1, \dots, N}$ with $|\mathcal{S}|\leq k$, if $\mathcal{S}$ has \emph{weighted cardinality} $\omega(\mathcal{S}) := \sum_{j \in \mathcal{S}} \omega_j2$, and if the weights on $\mathcal{S}c$ exhibit mild growth, $\omega_j2 \geq \gamma \log(j/\omega(\mathcal{S}))$ for $j\in\mathcal{S}c$ and $\gamma > 0$, then the sample complexity for sparse recovery via weighted $\ell_1$-minimization using weights $\omega_j$ is linear in the weighted sparsity level, and $m = \mathcal{O}(\omega(\mathcal{S})/\gamma)$. This main result is a generalization of special cases including a) the standard sparse recovery setting where all weights $\omega_j \equiv 1$, and $m = \mathcal{O}\left(k\log\left(N/k\right)\right)$; b) the setting where the support is known a priori, and $m = \mathcal{O}(k)$; and c) the setting of sparse recovery with prior information, and $m$ depends on how well the weights are aligned with the support set $\mathcal{S}$. We further extend the results in case c) to the setting of additive noise. Our results are {\em nonuniform} that is they apply for a fixed support, unknown a priori, and the weights on $\mathcal{S}$ do not all have to be smaller than the weights on $\mathcal{S}c$ for our recovery results to hold.

Citations (15)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.