Stability of the Sparsest Solution
Contents
20.1. Stability of the Sparsest Solution#
We discuss various results related to the stability of the sparsest solution for the sparse approximation problem.
For convenience, we restate the problem.
We represent the signal
Since we only know
Our analysis in this section will focus on identifying criteria
which ensures this.
We start with generalizing the notion of spark for the noisy case.
Suppose
and are two solutions of (20.1).Then
as well as .Thus, both
and lie in a ball of radius around .Thus, the maximum distance between
and can be .Alternatively, using triangle inequality we have
If we define
, then
20.1.1. Spark #
Definition 20.1
Let
where
In words, this is the smallest number of columns (indexed by
Relationship with
When the smallest singular value is
, then the columns are linearly dependent.Thus, by choosing
, we get the smallest number of columns which are linearly dependent.This matches with the definition of spark.
Thus,
Since singular values are always non-negative, hence
.
Matrix with unit norm columns:
When columns of
are unit-norm (the case of dictionaries), then any single column sub-matrix has a singular value of . Hence,Choosing a value of
doesn’t make any difference since with a single column sub-matrix, we can show that
Monotonicity:
Let
. LetThen there exists a sub-matrix consisting of
columns of whose smallest singular value is upper bounded by .Since
, also serves as an upper bound for the smallest singular value for this sub-matrix.Clearly then
.Thus, we note that
is a monotone decreasing function of . i.e.
Maximum value:
We recall that the spark of
is upper bounded by its rank plus one.Assuming
to be a full rank matrix, we get following inequality:
We recall that if
Theorem 20.1
If
Proof. For contradiction, let us assume that
Let
.Then
.Also
.We recall that the smallest singular value of
is given byThus,
Thus, in our particular case
has columns with .Thus, from the definition of
This gives us
which contradicts with the assumption that
.
20.1.1.1. Coherence#
In the following, we will focus on the
Theorem 20.2
Let
Proof. .
We recall from Gershgorin’s theorem that for any square matrix
, every eigen value of satisfiesNow consider a matrix
with diagonal elements equal to 1 and off diagonal elements bounded by a value .Then
Thus,
This gives us a lower bound on the smallest eigen value.
Now consider any index set
and consider the submatrix with .Define
.The diagonal elements of
are one, while off-diagonal elements are bounded by .Thus,
Since this applies to every sub-matrix
, this in particular applies to the sub-matrix for which holds.For this sub-matrix
Thus
20.1.2. Uncertainty with Spark #
We now present an uncertainly result for the noisy case.
Theorem 20.3
If
Proof. .
From triangle inequality we have
We define
.Then
.Further define
as the normalized vector.Then
Now define
Then from Theorem 20.1 if
with , then .Finally,
This concludes the proof.
This result gives us a lower bound on the sum of sparsity levels of
two different sparse representations of same vector
20.1.3. Localization#
We can now develop a localization result for the sparse approximation up to a Euclidean ball. This is analogous to the uniqueness result in noiseless case.
Theorem 20.4
Given a distance
Then
Proof. .
Since
, henceFrom Theorem 20.3, if we define
then
Combining the two, we get
Because of the monotonicity of
, we havewhich completes our proof.
This theorem says that if
20.1.4. Stability using Coherence#
We can now develop a stability result for the (20.1) problem in terms of coherence of the dictionary.
Theorem 20.5
Consider an instance of the (20.1) problem
defined by the triplet
and gives a representation of
Proof. .
Note that
need not be sparsest possible representation of within the approximation error .But
is a feasible point of (20.1).Now since
is an optimal solution of (20.1) (thus sparsest possible), hence it is at least as sparse as ; i.e.,Due to Theorem 18.25,
Thus, there exists a value
such thatFrom Theorem 20.2 we recall that
Thus, we can find a suitable value of
such that we can enforce a stricter requirement:From this we can develop an upper bound on
beingIf we choose
, thencontinues to hold.
We have two solutions
and both of which satisfyand
If we choose a
, then applying Theorem 20.4, we will get