4.7 Article

Greedy Algorithms for Joint Sparse Recovery

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING
Volume 62, Issue 7, Pages 1694-1704

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TSP.2014.2301980

Keywords

Compressed sensing; greedy algorithms; multiple measurement vectors; joint sparsity; row sparse matrices; performance comparison

Funding

  1. Grinnell College MAP Program
  2. [NSF DMS 11126152]
  3. Division Of Mathematical Sciences
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1112612] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Five known greedy algorithms designed for the single measurement vector setting in compressed sensing and sparse approximation are extended to the multiple measurement vector scenario: Iterative Hard Thresholding (IHT), Normalized IHT (NIHT), Hard Thresholding Pursuit (HTP), Normalized HTP (NHTP), and Compressive Sampling Matching Pursuit (CoSaMP). Using the asymmetric restricted isometry property (ARIP), sufficient conditions for all five algorithms establish bounds on the discrepancy between the algorithms' output and the optimal row-sparse representation. When the initial multiple measurement vectors are jointly sparse, ARIP-based guarantees for exact recovery are also established. The algorithms are then compared via the recovery phase transition framework. The strong phase transitions describing the family of Gaussian matrices which satisfy the sufficient conditions are obtained via known bounds on the ARIP constants. The algorithms' empirical weak phase transitions are compared for various numbers of multiple measurement vectors. Finally, the performance of the algorithms is compared against a known rank aware greedy algorithm, Rank Aware Simultaneous Orthogonal Matching Pursuit + MUSIC. Simultaneous recovery variants of NIHT, NHTP, and CoSaMP all outperform the rank-aware algorithm.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available