4.5 Article

Information Recovery From Pairwise Measurements

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY
卷 62, 期 10, 页码 5881-5905

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIT.2016.2600566

关键词

Pairwise difference; information divergence; random graphs; geometric graphs; homogeneous graphs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper is concerned with jointly recovering n node variables {x(i)}(1 <= i <= n) from a collection of pairwise difference measurements. Imagine we acquire a few observations taking the form of x(i) - x(j); the observation pattern is represented by a measurement graph G with an edge set E, such that x(i) - x(j) is observed if and only if (i, j) is an element of E. To account for noisy measurements in a general manner, we model the data acquisition process by a set of channels with given input/output transition measures. Employing information-theoretic tools applied to channel decoding problems, we develop a unified framework to characterize the fundamental recovery criterion, which accommodates general graph structures, alphabet sizes, and channel transition measures. In particular, our results isolate a family of minimum channel divergence measures to characterize the degree of measurement corruption, which together with the size of the minimum cut of G dictates the feasibility of exact information recovery. For various homogeneous graphs, the recovery condition depends almost only on the edge sparsity of the measurement graph irrespective of other graphical metrics; alternatively, the minimum sample complexity required for these graphs scales like (n log n)/(Hel(1/2)(min)) for certain information metric Hel(1/2)(min) defined in the main text, as long as the alphabet size is not super-polynomial in n. We apply our general theory to three concrete applications, including the stochastic block model, the random corruption model, and the haplotype assembly problem. Our theory leads to orderwise tight recovery conditions for all these scenarios.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据