Measure What Should be Measured: Progress and Challenges in Compressive Sensing

Is compressive sensing overrated? Or can it live up to our expectations? What will come after compressive sensing and sparsity? And what has Galileo Galilei got to do with it? Compressive sensing has taken the signal processing community by storm. A large corpus of research devoted to the theory and numerics of compressive sensing has been published in the last few years. Moreover, compressive sensing has inspired and initiated intriguing new research directions, such as matrix completion. Potential new applications emerge at a dazzling rate. Yet some important theoretical questions remain open, and seemingly obvious applications keep escaping the grip of compressive sensing. In this paper I discuss some of the recent progress in compressive sensing and point out key challenges and opportunities as the area of compressive sensing and sparse representations keeps evolving. I also attempt to assess the long-term impact of compressive sensing

Hamming Compressed Sensing

Compressed sensing (CS) and 1-bit CS cannot directly recover quantized signals and require time consuming recovery. In this paper, we introduce \textit{Hamming compressed sensing} (HCS) that directly recovers a k-bit quantized signal of dimensional $n$ from its 1-bit measurements via invoking $n$ times of Kullback-Leibler divergence based nearest neighbor search. Compared with CS and 1-bit CS, HCS allows the signal to be dense, takes considerably less (linear) recovery time and requires substantially less measurements ($\mathcal O(\log n)$). Moreover, HCS recovery can accelerate the subsequent 1-bit CS dequantizer. We study a quantized recovery error bound of HCS for general signals and "HCS+dequantizer" recovery error bound for sparse signals. Extensive numerical simulations verify the appealing accuracy, robustness, efficiency and consistency of HCS.Comment: 33 pages, 8 figure