The Benefits of Acting Locally: Reconstruction Algorithms for Sparse in Levels Signals With Stable and Robust Recovery Guarantees
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sparsity in levels model recently inspired a new generation of effective acquisition and reconstruction modalities for compressive imaging. Moreover, it naturally arises in various areas of signal processing such as parallel acquisition, radar, and the sparse corruptions problem. Reconstruction strategies for sparse in levels signals usually rely on a suitable convex optimization program. Notably, although iterative and greedy algorithms can outperform convex optimization in terms of computational efficiency and have been studied extensively in the case of standard sparsity, little is known about their generalizations to the sparse in levels setting. In this paper, we bridge this gap by showing new stable and robust uniform recovery guarantees for sparse in level variants of the iterative hard thresholding and the CoSaMP algorithms. Our theoretical analysis generalizes recovery guarantees currently available in the case of standard sparsity and favorably compare to sparse in levels guarantees for weighted ℓ <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup> minimization. In addition, we also propose and numerically test an extension of the orthogonal matching pursuit algorithm for sparse in levels signals.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it