Analysis and design of irregular graphs for node-based verification-based recovery algorithms in compressed sensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a probabilistic analysis of iterative node-based verification-based (NB-VB) recovery algorithms over irregular graphs in the context of compressed sensing. Verification-based algorithms are particularly interesting due to their low complexity (linear in the signal dimension n). The analysis predicts the average fraction of unverified signal elements at each iteration ℓ where the average is taken over the ensembles of input signals and sensing matrices. The analysis is asymptotic (n → ∞) and is similar in nature to the well-known density evolution technique commonly used to analyze iterative decoding algorithms. Compared to the existing technique for the analysis of NB-VB algorithms, which is based on numerically solving a large system of coupled differential equations, the proposed method is much simpler and more accurate. This allows us to design irregular sensing graphs for such recovery algorithms. The designed irregular graphs outperform the corresponding regular graphs substantially. For example, for the same recovery complexity per iteration, we design irregular graphs that can recover up to about 40% more non-zero signal elements compared to the regular graphs. Simulation results are also provided which demonstrate that the proposed asymptotic analysis matches the performance of recovery algorithms for large but finite values of n.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".