Distribution-aware Block-sparse Recovery via Convex Optimization

Compressed Sensing (CS) has emerged in the past decade as a modern technique for recovering a sparse vector $\bm{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ from compressed measurements (see [1, 2] for more explanations about this field). In this work, we consider signals $\bm{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ that have a block-sparse structure, namely their non-zero entries appear in blocks. This property has been referred in the literature as block-sparsity. It is common to use the following optimization problem for recovering the signal $\bm{x}$ from compressive measurements.

where $\bm{A}\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ represents a fat measurement matrix with $m\ll n$, $\{\mathcal{V}_{b}\}_{b=1}^{q}$ are the default disjoint blocks of size $\{k_{b}\}_{b=1}^{q}$ that partition the set $\{1,...,q\}$, $\bm{y}:=\bm{Ax}+\bm{e}\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ is the observation vector¹¹ 1 Our analysis holds for both real and complex-valued signals and measurements., $\bm{e}$ is the noise term which is considered to be i.i.d. Gaussian with variance $\sigma^{2}$, and $\eta$ is an upper-bound for $\|\bm{e}\|_{2}$. Most of the earlier literature in block-sparse recovery is focused on the case of single constraint $\|\bm{A}\bm{z}-\bm{y}\|_{2}\leq\eta$. However, in many applications such as DNA micro-arrays [3, 4], computational neuroscience [5] multi-band signal reconstruction, multiple measurement vector (MMV) problem [6], and the reconstruction of signals in union of subspaces [7, 8] [9, 10], there exist additional information (or alternatively additional constraints in $\mathsf{P}_{1,2}^{\eta}$) about the signal of interest. In this work, we explore the benefits of having access to extra information about the distribution of the block support (blocks containing non-zero elements) on the required number of measurements. To this end, we propose the optimization problem

where the quantities $w_{b},b=1,...,q$ are some positive scalars, $\bm{w}:=[w_{1},...,w_{q}]^{T}$ and $\mathcal{M}$ is some predefined model that restricts the feasible set of the solution. Specifically, we consider two new models for prior information that are of practical interest:

• •

  Model 1 (Prior distribution) : We assume that the prior distribution of the block support is available. Under this setting, there are known probabilities associated with each block index $b\in\{1,...,q\}$. Namely,

  $\displaystyle\mathds{P}(b\in{\rm bsupp}(\bm{x}))=p_{b}~~b=1,...,q,$

  (2)

  where ${\rm bsupp}(\cdot)$ returns the block support of a vector.

• •

  Model 2 (Multiple block support estimates): We consider $L$ disjoint sets $\mathcal{P}_{i}\subset\{1,\dots,q\}$ with $i=1,\dots,L$ that intersect ${\rm bsupp}(\bm{x})$ with the expected accuracy

  $\displaystyle\alpha_{i}:=\frac{\mathds{E}|{\rm bsupp}({\bm{x}})\cap\mathcal{P}_{i}|}{|\mathcal{P}_{i}|}~~i=1,...,L.$

  (3)

  To each subset $\mathcal{P}_{i}\subset\{1,...,q\}$, we assign a fixed weight $\lambda_{i}$. In fact, it holds that

  $\displaystyle\bm{w}=\sum_{i=1}^{L}\lambda_{i}\bm{1}_{\mathcal{P}_{i}}{\color[rgb]{0,0,0}=\bm{D\lambda}\in\mathbb{R}^{q},}$

  (4)

  where $\bm{1}_{C}$ is the indicator function of the set $C$, $\bm{D}:=[\bm{1}_{\mathcal{P}_{1}},\dots,\bm{1}_{\mathcal{P}_{L}}]$, and $\bm{\lambda}:=[\lambda_{1},\dots,\lambda_{L}]^{T}$.

One of the applications of Model 1 and 2 is in direction of arrival (DOA) estimation. In this application, Model 1 implies that the probability $p_{b}$ of having a target in an angle indexed by $b$ is known in advance [11]. In Model 2, however, we assume to know the expected number of targets in a range of angles represented by $\mathcal{P}_{i}$. Such statistics might be available from previous measurements in a dynamic scenario. Obviously, Model 1 imposes more strict conditions as knowing the probabilities for all angles is not easily achievable. In contrast, Model 2 could be applicable as the full angular range could be divided into 3 or 4 intervals, for which we can evaluate the average number of included targets.

In this work, we obtain the weights $\bm{w}^{*}\in\mathbb{R}^{q}$ and $\bm{\lambda}^{*}\in\mathbb{R}^{L}$ that minimize a threshold $m_{0}$ describing the expected number of required measurements for Models 1 and 2, respectively. Our approach is to find a suitable upper-bound for $m_{0}$. The bound is not necessarily tight but leads to closed-form expressions for $\bm{w}\in\mathbb{R}^{q}$ and $\bm{\lambda}\in\mathbb{R}^{L}$ in Models 1 and 2, respectively.

In the following propositions, we obtain closed-form solutions for optimal weights in case that $\bm{x}$ satisfies Model 1 and 2. The proofs are provided in Appendix -B.

In applications, it is of important practical value to know how the inaccuracies of $p_{b}$ and $\alpha_{i}$ in Model 1 and 2, respectively, affect the optimal weights. The following theorem is about this challenge.

From the above theorem and the right image of Figure 2, one can infer that the method of obtaining $w_{b}^{*}$ and $\lambda_{i}^{*}$ is robust to slight changes of $p_{b}$ and $\alpha_{i}$ as long as they are greater than approximately $\frac{1}{10}$.

In the first experiment, we construct a random block-sparse $\bm{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{250}$, whose building blocks $\mathcal{V}_{b}$ have equal size $k=5$. The probability of activating each block is taken from the vector $\bm{p}$ depicted in the left image of Figure 2 . Then, this signal is observed through a measurement matrix $\bm{A}\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times 250}$, of which the elements are drawn from i.i.d. standard normal distribution. We obtain the optimal weights $\bm{w}^{*}$ corresponding to $\bm{p}$ by solving (1). We also examine the heuristic weights $w_{b}=\tfrac{1}{p_{b}+\epsilon}$. In the middle image of Figure 2, we plot the success rate as a function of $m$. For each $m$, we average over $100$ realizations of $\bm{A}$ and $\bm{x}$. As expected, $\mathsf{P}_{1,2,\bm{w}}^{0}$ requires fewer measurements for successful recovery with optimal weights $\bm{w}^{*}$ rather than the other two options (heuristic or equal weights). In turn, heuristic weights are also superior to the equal weights.

In the second experiment, we test DOA estimation using broadband signals (see Subsection I-C and Figure 1). The angular half-space $-[90^{\circ},90^{\circ})$ is divided into $q=100$ angular grids. For each frequency bin $f_{l}\in[0,5]$ GHz, we take $k=10$ snapshots. We assume that there exist three ($L=3$) sets $\mathcal{P}_{i}$ with expected accuracies $\alpha_{1}=\frac{4}{5}$, $\alpha_{2}=\frac{2}{3}$, and $\alpha_{3}=0$. Also, we use $m=15$ sensors for recovering $s=10$ ground-truth sources (located at the angles $-66.9^{\circ}$, $-61.64^{\circ}$, $-42.84^{\circ}$, $-41.3^{\circ}$, $-5.74^{\circ}$, $-2.3^{\circ}$, $6.89^{\circ}$, $8.05^{\circ}$, $19.88^{\circ}$, $42.84^{\circ}$) and implement the optimization problem $\mathsf{P}_{1,2,\bm{D\lambda}}^{\eta}$ when $\bm{\lambda}$ is chosen optimally (i.e. $\lambda_{i}^{*}$’s are obtained using (2)), heuristically (i.e. $\lambda_{i}=\tfrac{1}{\alpha_{i}+\epsilon}$) and equally. As it turns out from Figure 3, while $\mathsf{P}_{1,2,\bm{D\lambda}}^{\eta}$ with equal and heuristic weights detects [respectively many and a few] non-existing sources with spurious DOAs, $\mathsf{P}_{1,2,\bm{D}\bm{\lambda}^{*}}^{\eta}$ locates the ground-truth sources correctly. This in turn suggests that our optimal weighting strategy considerably decreases the required number of sensors.