CANDES AND TAO: NEAR-OPTIMAL SIGNAL RECOVERY FROM RANDOM PROJECTIONS 5409
As we will see later, Theorem 1.1 is a special case of The-
orem 1.2 below (but for the uniqueness claim which is proved
in Section III).
D. Precedents
A natural question is whether the number of random sam-
ples we identified in Theorem 1.2 is, in some sense, optimal. Or
would it be possible to obtain similar accuracies with far fewer
observations? To make things concrete, suppose we are inter-
ested in the recovery of objects with bounded
-norm, e.g., the
-ball
Suppose we can make linear measurements about
of the form . Then what is the best measurement/
reconstruction pair so that the error
(1.12)
is minimum? In (1.12),
is the reconstruction algorithm. To
develop an insight about the intrinsic difficulty of our problem,
consider the following geometric picture. Suppose we take
measurements ; this says that belongs to an affine space
where is a linear subspace of co-dimension less or
equal to
.Nowthe data available for the problem cannot dis-
tinguish any object belonging to that plane. Assume
is known
to belong to the
-ball , say, then the data cannot distinguish
between any two points in the intersection
. There-
fore, any reconstruction procedure
based upon
would obey
(1.13)
(When we take the supremum over all
, we may just assume
that
is orthogonal to the measurements since the
diameter will of course be maximal in that case.) The goal is
then to find
such that the above diameter is minimal. This
connects with the agenda of approximation theory where this
problem is known as finding the Gelfand
-width of the class
[12], as we explain below.
The Gelfand numbers of a set
are defined as
(1.14)
where
is, of course, the orthonormal projection on the sub-
space
. Then it turns out that .
Now a seminal result of Kashin [13] and improved by Garnaev
and Gluskin [14], [15] shows that for the
ball, the Gelfand
numbers obey
(1.15)
where
are universal constants. Gelfand numbers are also
approximately known for weak-
balls as well.
Viewed differently, Kashin, Garnaev and Gluskin assert
that with
measurements, the minimal reconstruction error
(1.12) one can hope for is bounded below by a constant times
. In this sense, Theorem 1.2 is optimal
(within a multiplicative constant) at least for
, with
.
2
Kashin also shows that if we take a random projection,
is bounded above by the right-hand side of
(1.15). We would also like to emphasize that similar types of
recovery have also been known to be possible in the literature
of theoretical computer science, at least in principle, for certain
types of random measurements [17]. On the one hand, finding
the Chebyshev center of
is a convex problem,
which would yield a near-optimal reconstruction algorithm.
On the other hand, this problem is computationally intractable
when
. Further, one would need to know and the
radius of the weak-
ball which is not realistic in practical
applications.
The novelty here is that the information about
can be re-
trieved from those random coefficients by minimizing a simple
linear program (1.10), and that the decoding algorithm adapts
automatically to the weak-
signal class, without knowledge
thereof. Minimizing the
-norm gives nearly the best possible
reconstruction error simultaneously over a wide range of sparse
classes of signals; no information about
and the radius are
required. In addition and as we will see next, another novelty is
the general nature of the measurement ensemble.
It should also be mentioned that when the measurement en-
semble consists of Fourier coefficients on a random arithmetic
progression, a very fast recovery algorithm that gives near-op-
timal results for arbitrary
data has recently been given in [18].
Since the preparation of this manuscript, we have learnt that re-
sults closely related to those in this paper have appeared in [19].
We compare our results with both these works in Section IX.B.
E. Other Measurement Ensembles
Underlying our results is a powerful machinery essentially
relying on properties of random matrices which gives us very
precise tools allowing us to quantify how much of a signal one
can reconstruct from random measurements. In fact, Theorem
1.1 holds for other measurement ensembles. For simplicity, we
shall consider three types of measured data.
• The Gaussian ensemble: Here, we suppose that
and are fixed, and the entries of
are identically and independently sampled from a standard
normal distribution
i.i.d.
The Gaussian ensemble is invariant by rotation since for
any fixed orthonormal matrix
, the distribution of is
that of
.
• The binary ensemble: Again we take
and
to be fixed. But now we suppose that the
entries of
are identically and independently sampled
from a symmetric Bernoulli distribution
i.i.d.
2
Note Added in Proof: Since submission of this paper, we proved in [16] that
Theorem 1.2 holds with
log(
N=K
)
instead of
log
N
in (1.11).