A totally unimodular view of structured sparsity

This paper describes a simple framework for structured sparse recovery based on convex optimization. We show that many structured sparsity models can be naturally represented by linear matrix inequalities on the support of the unknown parameters, where the constraint matrix has a totally unimodular (TU) structure. For such structured models, tight convex relaxations can be obtained in polynomial time via linear programming. Our modeling framework unifies the prevalent structured sparsity norms in the literature, introduces new interesting ones, and renders their tightness and tractability arguments transparent

Structured Sparsity: Discrete and Convex approaches

Compressive sensing (CS) exploits sparsity to recover sparse or compressible signals from dimensionality reducing, non-adaptive sensing mechanisms. Sparsity is also used to enhance interpretability in machine learning and statistics applications: While the ambient dimension is vast in modern data analysis problems, the relevant information therein typically resides in a much lower dimensional space. However, many solutions proposed nowadays do not leverage the true underlying structure. Recent results in CS extend the simple sparsity idea to more sophisticated {\em structured} sparsity models, which describe the interdependency between the nonzero components of a signal, allowing to increase the interpretability of the results and lead to better recovery performance. In order to better understand the impact of structured sparsity, in this chapter we analyze the connections between the discrete models and their convex relaxations, highlighting their relative advantages. We start with the general group sparse model and then elaborate on two important special cases: the dispersive and the hierarchical models. For each, we present the models in their discrete nature, discuss how to solve the ensuing discrete problems and then describe convex relaxations. We also consider more general structures as defined by set functions and present their convex proxies. Further, we discuss efficient optimization solutions for structured sparsity problems and illustrate structured sparsity in action via three applications.Comment: 30 pages, 18 figure

Simultaneously Structured Models with Application to Sparse and Low-rank Matrices

The topic of recovery of a structured model given a small number of linear observations has been well-studied in recent years. Examples include recovering sparse or group-sparse vectors, low-rank matrices, and the sum of sparse and low-rank matrices, among others. In various applications in signal processing and machine learning, the model of interest is known to be structured in several ways at the same time, for example, a matrix that is simultaneously sparse and low-rank. Often norms that promote each individual structure are known, and allow for recovery using an order-wise optimal number of measurements (e.g., $\ell_1$ norm for sparsity, nuclear norm for matrix rank). Hence, it is reasonable to minimize a combination of such norms. We show that, surprisingly, if we use multi-objective optimization with these norms, then we can do no better, order-wise, than an algorithm that exploits only one of the present structures. This result suggests that to fully exploit the multiple structures, we need an entirely new convex relaxation, i.e. not one that is a function of the convex relaxations used for each structure. We then specialize our results to the case of sparse and low-rank matrices. We show that a nonconvex formulation of the problem can recover the model from very few measurements, which is on the order of the degrees of freedom of the matrix, whereas the convex problem obtained from a combination of the $\ell_1$ and nuclear norms requires many more measurements. This proves an order-wise gap between the performance of the convex and nonconvex recovery problems in this case. Our framework applies to arbitrary structure-inducing norms as well as to a wide range of measurement ensembles. This allows us to give performance bounds for problems such as sparse phase retrieval and low-rank tensor completion.Comment: 38 pages, 9 figure

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