![]() |
CiteULike | ![]() |
Group: Brain-like research group | ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Register | ![]() |
Log in | ![]() |
Compressed sensingby: David L. Donoho
|
Reviews
[Write a review of this article]
Find related articles from these CiteULike users
Find related articles with these CiteULike tags
Posting History
AbstractSuppose x is an unknown vector in R m (depending on context, a digital image or signal); we plan to acquire data and then reconstruct. Nominally this ‘should ’ require m samples. But suppose we know a priori that x is compressible by transform coding with a known transform, and we are allowed to acquire data about x by measuring n general linear functionals – rather than the usual pixels. If the collection of linear functionals is well-chosen, and we allow for a degree of reconstruction error, the size of n can be dramatically smaller than the size m usually considered necessary. Thus, certain natural classes of images with m pixels need only n = O(m 1/4 log 5/2 (m)) nonadaptive nonpixel samples for faithful recovery, as opposed to the usual m pixel samples. Our approach is abstract and general. We suppose that the object has a sparse representation in some orthonormal basis (eg. wavelet, Fourier) or tight frame (eg curvelet, Gabor), meaning that the coefficients belong to an ℓ p ball for 0 < p ≤ 1. This implies that the N most important coefficients in the expansion allow a reconstruction with ℓ 2 error O(N 1/2−1/p). It is possible to design n = O(N log(m)) nonadaptive measurements which
BibTeX record
RIS record