3
It is worth mentioning that the residual r
k
of the gOMP is
orthogonal to the columns of Φ
Λ
k since
Φ
Λ
k , r
k
=
Φ
Λ
k , P
⊥
Λ
k
y
(4)
= Φ
′
Λ
k
P
⊥
Λ
k
y (5)
= Φ
′
Λ
k
P
⊥
Λ
k
′
y (6)
=
P
⊥
Λ
k
Φ
Λ
k
′
y = 0 (7)
where (6) follows from the symmetry of P
⊥
Λ
k
(P
⊥
Λ
k
=
P
⊥
Λ
k
′
)
and (7) is due to
P
⊥
Λ
k
Φ
Λ
k = (I − P
Λ
k ) Φ
Λ
k = Φ
Λ
k −Φ
Λ
k Φ
†
Λ
k
Φ
Λ
k = 0.
Here we note that this property is satisfied when Φ
Λ
k has
full column rank, which is true if k ≤ m/N in the gOMP
operation. It is clear from this observation that indices in
Λ
k
cannot be re-selected in the succeeding iterations and the
cardinality of Λ
k
becomes simply kN. When the iteration loop
of the gOMP is finished, therefore, it is possible that the final
support set Λ
s
contains indices not in T . Note that, even in
this situation, the final result is unaffected and the original
signal is recovered because
ˆ
x
Λ
s
= Φ
†
Λ
s
y (8)
= (Φ
′
Λ
s
Φ
Λ
s
)
−1
Φ
′
Λ
s
Φ
T
x
T
(9)
= (Φ
′
Λ
s
Φ
Λ
s
)
−1
Φ
′
Λ
s
(Φ
Λ
s
x
Λ
s
)
−(Φ
′
Λ
s
Φ
Λ
s
)
−1
Φ
′
Λ
s
Φ
Λ
s
−T
x
Λ
s
−T
(10)
= x
Λ
s
, (11)
where (10) follows from the fact that x
Λ
s
−T
= 0. From
this observation, we deduce that as long as at least one
correct index is found in each iteration of the gOMP, we can
ensure that the original signal is perfectly recovered within K
iterations. In practice, however, the number of correct indices
being selected is usually more than one so that the required
number of iterations is much smaller than K.
In order to observe the empirical performance of the gOMP
algorithm, we performed computer simulations. In our ex-
periment, we use the testing strategy in [16], [22] which
measures the effectiveness of recovery algorithms by checking
the empirical frequency of exact reconstruction in the noiseless
environment. By comparing the maximal sparsity level of
the underlying sparse signals at which the perfect recovery
is ensured (this point is often called critical sparsity [16]),
accuracy of the reconstruction algorithms can be compared
empirically. In our simulation, the following algorithms are
considered.
1) LP technique for solving ℓ
1
-minimization problem
(http://cvxr.com/cvx/).
2) OMP algorithm.
3) gOMP algorithm.
4) StOMP with false alarm control (FAC) based threshold-
ing (http://sparselab.stanford.edu/).
1
5) ROMP algorithm
(http://www.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/DNeedell).
1
Since FAC scheme outperforms false discovery control (FDC) scheme, we
exclusively use FAC scheme in our simulation.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Sparsity
Frequency of Exact Reconstruction
gOMP (N=3)
gOMP (N=6)
gOMP (N=9)
OMP
StOMP
ROMP
CoSaMP
LP
Fig. 1. Reconstruction performance for K-sparse Gaussian signal vector as
a function of sparsity K.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Sparsity
Frequency of Exact Reconstruction
gOMP (N=3)
gOMP (N=6)
gOMP (N=9)
OMP
StOMP
ROMP
CoSaMP
LP
Fig. 2. Reconstruction performance for K-sparse PAM signal vector as a
function of sparsity K.
6) CoSaMP algorithm
(http://www.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/DNeedell).
In each trial, we construct m ×n (m = 128 and n = 256)
sensing matrix Φ with entries drawn independently from
Gaussian distribution N(0,
1
m
). In addition, we generate a
K-sparse vector x whose support is chosen at random. We
consider two types of sparse signals; Gaussian signals and
pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) signals. Each nonzero
element of Gaussian signals is drawn from standard Gaussian