Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Blind Deconvolution of Graph Signals: Robustness to Graph Perturbations

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that a convex blind-deconvolution estimator for graph signals stays within a provable error bound under small eigenbasis perturbations, and that an alternating algorithm can denoise the eigenbasis to sharpen recovery.

desk verdict The algorithm and experiments are worth attention, but the stability theorem's proof has a load-bearing gap that needs fixing before the theory can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15133 v1 pith:QKX6L3QJ submitted 2024-12-19 eess.SP

Chang Ye , Gonzalo Mateos This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords graphsignalprocessingblinddeconvolutionperturbationeigenbasisdenoisingStiefelmanifoldsparserecoverystabilityconvexoptimization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Given a network whose graph-shift operator is known only through a perturbed eigenbasis, the paper asks whether blind deconvolution of sparse signals on the graph still recovers the convolutional filter. It proves that the convex inverse-filter estimator is stable: the error $\|\hat{\tilde{g}}_p - \tilde{g}_0\|_2$ is bounded by a rational function of the perturbation-dependent matrix $E(S^c)$, provided the perturbation is small enough to keep the denominator positive. It then formulates a joint, non-convex problem that alternates filter deconvolution with eigenbasis denoising on the Stiefel manifold, argues that this algorithm converges, and shows numerically that it outperforms both the non-robust convex baseline and existing perturbation-tolerant methods, especially when the eigenbasis error grows.

What carries the argument

The argument's load-bearing object is the perturbation error matrix $E := (V-\Delta)[\Delta^\top - \operatorname{diag}(\tilde{g}_0)\Delta^\top H_0]X_0$, which collects how the eigenbasis mismatch $\Delta$ distorts the observations after the change of variables $w = \tilde{g} \circ \tilde{h}_0$. The proof of Theorem 2 splits $E$ into the sparse-support part $E(S)$ and its complement $E(S^c)$, lower-bounds the contribution of the sparse part via a proposition from the cited reference, and upper-bounds the complement via the column-operator norm $\|[E(S^c)]^\top V \odot V\|_{1\to 2}$; the final bound is a rational function whose denominator must stay positive, giving a quantitative meaning to 'small perturbation.' On the algorithmic side, the machinery is a block-coordinate descent that alternates an exact convex minimization for the filter taps with a single retraction-based Riemannian gradient step for the eigenbasis on the Stiefel manifold, using the Cayley transform, with convergence guaranteed by the cited manifold block-coordinate descent theorem.

What would settle it

For a small random undirected graph with $N=20$ nodes, sample a Bernoulli-Gaussian sparse input $X_0$ and an invertible filter so that the exact-recovery condition (2) holds, then form a perturbed eigenbasis $V_p$ by a skew-symmetric rotation perturbation with increasing magnitude. Compute both sides of the asserted equality $\|E\|_F = \|[\Delta^\top - \operatorname{diag}(\tilde{g}_0)\Delta^\top H_0]X_0\|_F$; any measurable discrepancy would disprove the equality used to derive (6). Then solve (3) and check whether the empirical error $\|\hat{\tilde{g}}_p - \tilde{g}_0\|_2$ stays under the right-hand side of (4); a clear violation would indicate the proof's reformulation between (13) and (14) or the invoked companion proposition does not hold in this setting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is Theorem 2: under the same Bernoulli-Gaussian and filter-condition assumptions that guarantee exact recovery for a known eigenbasis, replacing $V$ by $V_p = V - \Delta$ makes the convex estimator (3) err by at most $\|\hat{\tilde{g}}_p - \tilde{g}_0\|_2 \le \frac{2\sigma_{\max}(\operatorname{diag}(\tilde{g}_0) - \tilde{g}_0\tilde{g}_0^\top/N)\,\|E(S^c)\|_{1,1}}{P Q - a_0\|E(S^c)\|_{1,1} - \|[E(S^c)]^\top V \odot V\|_{1\to 2}}$, where the denominator must be positive. The paper interprets this as a quantitative statement that small eigenbasis errors cause only small recovery errors, with the threshold for 'small' governed by the filter's ill-conditioning measure $\|P_1^\perp \tilde{g}_0\|_2$: the closer $\tilde{g}_0$ is to the all-ones vector, the larger the tolerated perturbation. The algorithmic claim is that the alternating RBDoGS method, built on a Huber-smoothed surrogate and a Riemannian gradient step on the Stiefel manifold per iteration, converges by the manifold block-coordinate descent theorem cited from the literature, and that in experiments it nearly corrects small eigenbasis perturbations and outperforms the baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The tolerable-perturbation bound (6) rests on an unproven equality, $\|E\|_F = \|[\Delta^\top - \operatorname{diag}(\tilde{g}_0)\Delta^\top H_0]X_0\|_F$, that drops a $(V-\Delta)$ factor, and the proof of Theorem 2 treats the change-of-variables reformulation of the perturbed problem as an exact equivalence even though that equivalence is not derived; if either step gives way, the stated error bound does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Errors in the recovered inverse filter stay proportional to the size of the perturbation-induced contaminating term $E(S^c)$ rather than to the full dynamic range of the data.
  • Easier filtering problems, whose inverse frequency response $\tilde{g}_0$ is close to the all-ones vector, tolerate larger eigenbasis errors before the error bound (4) breaks down.
  • The RBDoGS algorithm corrects small eigenbasis perturbations nearly perfectly and, for larger perturbations, recovers the support of the sparse inputs substantially better than the plain convex estimator and the node-domain perturbation-robust baselines.
  • When the eigenbasis is estimated from the sample covariance of the observations, as in Remark 1 of the paper, the stability result ties the number of available signals $P$ to the admissible deviation of the estimated eigenvectors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial: The asserted equality $\|E\|_F = \|[\Delta^\top - \operatorname{diag}(\tilde{g}_0)\Delta^\top H_0]X_0\|_F$, used to turn the stability bound into the perturbation threshold (6), can be tested numerically; if it fails for random rotation-type perturbations $\Delta$, the threshold needs a correction factor and the practical small-perturbation range would shift.
  • Editorial: The same perturbation-error decomposition could be applied to perturbations of the graph shift operator $S$ rather than of its eigenbasis directly, yielding a stability statement in terms of first-order eigenvector sensitivities.
  • Editorial: The denominator in (4) defines an implicit phase transition; locating it empirically by sweeping the perturbation magnitude in the paper's rotation model would give a practical criterion for when the eigenbasis-denoising step of RBDoGS becomes necessary.
  • Editorial: Combining the covariance-estimation setting of Remark 1 with the stability bound yields a finite-sample guarantee for blind deconvolution from raw observations, once the sample eigenvector error $\|\Delta\|_F$ is bounded in probability.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript considers blind deconvolution of graph signals when the graph shift operator's eigenbasis is known only approximately. It proposes to solve the convex program (3) with the perturbed basis Vp, claims a stability bound (Theorem 2) showing that the estimation error remains controlled for small eigenbasis perturbations, and introduces a block-coordinate algorithm RBDoGS that alternates between Huber-smoothed blind deconvolution and Riemannian gradient descent on the Stiefel manifold for eigenbasis denoising. Numerical experiments on Erdős-Rényi graphs with controlled and covariance-based perturbations report improved recovery over the non-robust baseline and over two prior perturbation-aware methods.

Significance. The problem addressed is relevant, since graph topology is often imperfectly known; a rigorous stability guarantee would strengthen the case for the convex approach to graph blind deconvolution. The algorithm is clearly stated, the code is released, and the experiments cover relevant baselines. However, the proof of Theorem 2, the main theoretical contribution, contains a false algebraic equivalence between (13) and (14) in the supplementary; as a result, the claimed stability bound is not established. The paper's value currently rests on the empirical demonstration, so the theoretical claims must be corrected or substantially qualified.

major comments (2)
  1. [Supplementary Material, eqs. (13)-(14)] The claimed equivalence between (13) and (14) is not valid for generic w and Δ. With U = V^T Δ, A = I − U, D_g = diag(g), D_h = diag(h0), D = diag(w) = D_g D_h, and D_g0 = diag(g0), the left-hand side of the displayed equality equals V A D_g A^T D_h V^T X0, while the right-hand side equals V [D + D A(U^T − D_g0 U^T D_h)] V^T X0. Expanding the difference of the bracketed terms to first order in U and using the orthonormality of Vp, which implies U + U^T = O(∥U∥^2), gives a first-order term D U − U D (up to sign). This vanishes only if D commutes with U, which is not true for a generic diagonal D and a generic skew-symmetric U. Therefore the equality Vp diag(g) Vp^T Y = P(w)[X0 + E] fails to first order in the perturbation, so (14) is not equivalent to (13). Since the optimality inequality (18) and the bound (20) are derived for (14), they do not control the actual estimator (3). This is a load-bearing gap in the proof of Theorem 2.
  2. [Supplementary Material, inequality (16)] The derivation of (16) invokes [20, Proposition 1] for the lower bound on ∥P(ŵ)(X0 + E(S))∥_{1,1}. The hypotheses of that proposition are not stated, and it is not demonstrated that the perturbed matrix X0 + E(S), which is no longer Bernoulli-Gaussian, satisfies them. Without a verification or a restatement of the proposition, the constants Q and C1 and hence the bound in Theorem 2 are not self-contained. This is an additional gap in the proof of the main theorem.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III, after eq. (4)] The equality ∥E∥_F = ∥[Δ^T − diag(g0)Δ^T H0]X0∥_F relies on Vp = V − Δ being orthonormal; please state this explicitly, since the reader cannot otherwise infer it from the text.
  2. [Theorem 2] The parameter σ appearing in the definition of Q is not defined in the theorem statement; it is introduced later in the proof. Please either define σ or state explicitly that the bound holds with the value of σ ∈ [0,1] determined in the proof.
  3. [Section IV] The convergence claim for Algorithm 1 cites [28, Theorem 4] but does not verify the theorem's assumptions in the present setting (e.g., block-i Lipschitz smoothness of F, exact minimization in (9), and sufficient decrease of the Riemannian gradient step in (10)). A short verification would make the claim credible.
  4. [Equation (6)] M2 is defined using the normalized direction Δ/∥Δ∥_F, so the bound (6) depends on the perturbation direction. If the authors intend a uniform condition on ∥Δ∥_F, they should take the supremum of M2 over all unit-norm directions, or clarify that (6) is a per-realization bound.
  5. [Fig. 2 caption and text] RBDoG is used where the algorithm is named RBDoGS; please harmonize the notation.
  6. [Supplementary Material] Kathri-Rao should be Khatri-Rao.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the stability bound is a perturbation analysis around a known solution, using companion-paper lemmas and an external convergence theorem, not a fit or a definitional identity.

full rationale

Theorem 2 is a deterministic perturbation bound whose right-hand side depends on the ground-truth quantities g0, X0, and the eigenbasis mismatch Δ; no parameter is fitted to the estimator ĝp to force the bound, and the bound does not reduce to the estimator's optimality conditions by construction. The proof imports Theorem 1 and Proposition 1 from the authors' companion paper [20], but those are lemmas about exact recovery and about lower bounds for graph-filter actions on sparse matrices, not statements of the perturbation bound being proved, so the target result is not identical to the cited inputs. The convergence claim for Algorithm 1 invokes an external block-coordinate descent theorem [28] rather than a result derived from the algorithm's own output. The supplementary material's change-of-variables step equating (13) and (14), and the norm equality ∥E∥F = M2∥Δ∥F, are algebraic claims whose validity may be questionable, but an algebraic gap is a correctness concern, not circularity: the perturbation E is defined independently of the final error bound. The proof is deferred to the Supplement but is present there, so the page-constraint note is not a missing-support circularity. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the required evidentiary standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical results rest on the companion paper [20] for Theorem 1 and Proposition 1, and on a to-appear paper [28] for convergence. The derivation of the perturbation threshold contains an unproved equality, and the algorithm introduces hyperparameters ρ and ϵ that are not analyzed. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • ρ (regularization weight in (8))
    The RBDoGS objective includes ρ/2 ∥V − Vp∥_F^2; ρ is not specified in the paper and presumably tuned in code. Its value affects the tradeoff between data fidelity and eigenvector fidelity.
  • ϵ (Huber loss smoothing parameter)
    The Huber loss (7) depends on ϵ, and the algorithm solves (9) with this parameter. The paper does not specify ϵ for the experiments.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Bernoulli-Gaussian model for X0 with θ ∈ (0, 0.324]
    The theoretical guarantees (Theorem 1 and Theorem 2) assume X0 follows the Bernoulli-Gaussian model Definition 1 with the stated sparsity parameter. This is a standard statistical model in the GSP literature.
  • domain assumption Invertibility of the graph filter H and polynomial representation of its inverse
    Section II assumes H is invertible so that G = H^{-1} is a graph filter of degree at most N−1, citing [15, Theorem 4]. This is essential for the convex relaxation (1).
  • domain assumption Small eigenbasis perturbation: ||∆||_F below a threshold
    Theorem 2's bound requires the denominator to be positive, which imposes an implicit smallness condition on the perturbation. The paper interprets this as an upper bound on ||∆||_F in (6).
  • standard math Proposition 1 from [20]
    The proof of Theorem 2 (Supplementary) invokes an unstated Proposition 1 from the authors' companion paper [20] to lower-bound the first term in inequality (15). This proposition is not reproduced, so its conditions are not independently verifiable in this manuscript.
  • standard math Convergence theorem [28, Theorem 4]
    The convergence of Algorithm 1 is claimed to follow from [28, Theorem 4], a to-appear paper on block coordinate descent on smooth manifolds. The paper does not verify the theorem's assumptions in detail, nor does it reproduce the result.
  • ad hoc to paper Equality ||E||_F = M2||∆||_F
    In Section III, the paper asserts ∥E∥_F = ∥[∆^T − diag(˜g0)∆^T H0]X0∥_F = M2∥∆∥_F, using the definition E := (V − ∆)[∆^T − diag(˜g0)∆^T H0]X0. This equality drops the (V − ∆) factor and is not justified; it underlies the derivation of (6).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Blind Deconvolution of Graph Signals: Robustness to Graph Perturbations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QKX6L3QJ

@misc{pith2026241215133,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Blind Deconvolution of Graph Signals: Robustness to Graph Perturbations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QKX6L3QJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15133}
}
read the original abstract

We study blind deconvolution of signals defined on the nodes of an undirected graph. Although observations are bilinear functions of both unknowns, namely the forward convolutional filter coefficients and the graph signal input, a filter invertibility requirement along with input sparsity allow for an efficient linear programming reformulation. Unlike prior art that relied on perfect knowledge of the graph eigenbasis, here we derive stable recovery conditions in the presence of small graph perturbations. We also contribute a provably convergent robust algorithm, which alternates between blind deconvolution of graph signals and eigenbasis denoising in the Stiefel manifold. Reproducible numerical tests showcase the algorithm's robustness under several graph eigenbasis perturbation models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15133 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of an iteration of the robust blind deconvolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Improved recovery performance of the RBDoGS algorithm on Erd ⊥ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Improved recovery performance of the RBDoGS algorithm on Erd [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SLoG-Net: Algorithm Unrolling for Source Localization on Graphs

    eess.SP 2024-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    SLoG-Net unrolls ADMM iterations into a trainable network that localizes sparse sources of graph diffusion with accuracy on par with the iterative solver and much faster inference.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Graph frequency analysis of brain signals,

    W. Huang, L. Goldsberry, N. F. Wymbs, S. T. Grafton, D. S. Bassett, and A. Ribeiro, “Graph frequency analysis of brain signals,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process. , vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 1189–1203, Oct. 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Localizing sources of brain disease progression with network diffusion model,

    C. Hu, X. Hua, J. Ying, P. M. Thompson, G. E. Fakhri, and Q. Li, “Localizing sources of brain disease progression with network diffusion model,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process. , vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 1214– 1225, 2016

    2016

  3. [3]

    Online discriminative graph learning from multi-class smooth signals,

    S. S. Saboksayr, G. Mateos, and M. Cetin, “Online discriminative graph learning from multi-class smooth signals,” Signal Process., vol. 186, p. 108101, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    New York City taxi analysis with graph signal processing,

    J. A. Deri and J. M. F. Moura, “New York City taxi analysis with graph signal processing,” in Proc. IEEE Global Conf. on Signal and Information Process., Dec. 2016, pp. 1275–1279

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Graph signal processing: Overview, challenges, and ap- plications,

    A. Ortega, P. Frossard, J. Kova ˇcevi´c, J. M. F. Moura, and P. Van- dergheynst, “Graph signal processing: Overview, challenges, and ap- plications,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 106, no. 5, pp. 808–828, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Identifying the topology of undirected networks from diffused non-stationary graph signals,

    R. Shafipour, S. Segarra, A. G. Marques, and G. Mateos, “Identifying the topology of undirected networks from diffused non-stationary graph signals,” IEEE Open J. Signal Process. , vol. 2, pp. 171–189, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Graph frequency analysis of COVID-19 incidence to identify county-level contagion patterns in the United States,

    Y . Li and G. Mateos, “Graph frequency analysis of COVID-19 incidence to identify county-level contagion patterns in the United States,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, Signal Process. , 2021, pp. 3230–3234

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Blind identifi- cation of graph filters,

    S. Segarra, G. Mateos, A. G. Marques, and A. Ribeiro, “Blind identifi- cation of graph filters,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 1146–1159, 2017

    2017

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Learning Laplacian matrix in smooth graph signal representations,

    X. Dong, D. Thanou, P. Frossard, and P. Vandergheynst, “Learning Laplacian matrix in smooth graph signal representations,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 64, no. 23, pp. 6160–6173, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Joint sampling and reconstruction of time-varying signals over directed graphs,

    Z. Xiao, H. Fang, S. Tomasin, G. Mateos, and X. Wang, “Joint sampling and reconstruction of time-varying signals over directed graphs,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 71, pp. 2204–2219, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Sampling of graph signals with successive local aggregations,

    A. G. Marques, S. Segarra, G. Leus, and A. Ribeiro, “Sampling of graph signals with successive local aggregations,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 1832–1843, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Towards acceler- ated greedy sampling and reconstruction of bandlimited graph signals,

    A. Hashemi, R. Shafipour, H. Vikalo, and G. Mateos, “Towards acceler- ated greedy sampling and reconstruction of bandlimited graph signals,” Signal Process., vol. 195, p. 108505, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Understanding the basis of graph signal processing via an intuitive example-driven approach,

    L. Stankovic, D. P. Mandic, M. Dakovic, I. Kisil, E. Sejdic, and A. G. Constantinides, “Understanding the basis of graph signal processing via an intuitive example-driven approach,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 133–145, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Graph signal processing: History, development, impact, and outlook,

    G. Leus, A. G. Marques, J. M. Moura, A. Ortega, and D. I. Shuman, “Graph signal processing: History, development, impact, and outlook,” vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 49–60, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Discrete signal processing on graphs,

    A. Sandryhaila and J. M. Moura, “Discrete signal processing on graphs,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 1644–1656, 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    Graphs, convolutions, and neural networks: From graph filters to graph neural networks,

    F. Gama, E. Isufi, G. Leus, and A. Ribeiro, “Graphs, convolutions, and neural networks: From graph filters to graph neural networks,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 128–138, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Graph filters for signal processing and machine learning on graphs,

    E. Isufi, F. Gama, D. I. Shuman, and S. Segarra, “Graph filters for signal processing and machine learning on graphs,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., pp. 1–32, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Blind identification of invertible graph filters with sparse inputs,

    C. Ye, R. Shafipour, and G. Mateos, “Blind identification of invertible graph filters with sparse inputs,” in Proc. of European Signal Process. Conf., Sep. 2018, pp. 121–125

    2018

  11. [19]

    Blind deconvolution from multiple sparse inputs,

    L. Wang and Y . Chi, “Blind deconvolution from multiple sparse inputs,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett. , vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 1384–1388, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Blind deconvolution on graphs: Exact and stable recovery,

    C. Ye and G. Mateos, “Blind deconvolution on graphs: Exact and stable recovery,”Signal Process., Dec. 2024 (to appear; see also arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12164 [eess.SP])

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Small perturbation analysis of network topologies,

    E. Ceci and S. Barbarossa, “Small perturbation analysis of network topologies,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, Signal Process., 2018, pp. 4194–4198

    2018

  14. [22]

    Graph signal processing in the presence of topology uncertain- ties,

    ——, “Graph signal processing in the presence of topology uncertain- ties,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 68, pp. 1558–1573, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Stability properties of graph neural networks,

    F. Gama, J. Bruna, and A. Ribeiro, “Stability properties of graph neural networks,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 68, pp. 5680–5695, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Graph-based learning under perturbations via total least-squares,

    E. Ceci, Y . Shen, G. B. Giannakis, and S. Barbarossa, “Graph-based learning under perturbations via total least-squares,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 68, pp. 2870–2882, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Robust graph filter identification and graph denoising from signal observations,

    S. Rey, V . M. Tenorio, and A. G. Marques, “Robust graph filter identification and graph denoising from signal observations,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 71, pp. 3651–3666, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Blind deconvolution of sparse graph signals in the presence of perturbations,

    V . M. Tenorio, S. Rey, and A. G. Marques, “Blind deconvolution of sparse graph signals in the presence of perturbations,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, Signal Process. , 2024, pp. 9406–9410

    2024

  19. [27]

    Network topology inference from spectral templates,

    S. Segarra, A. G. Marques, G. Mateos, and A. Ribeiro, “Network topology inference from spectral templates,” IEEE Trans. Signal Inf. Process. Netw., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 467–483, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Block coordinate descent on smooth mani- folds: Convergence theory and twenty-one examples,

    L. Peng and R. Vidal, “Block coordinate descent on smooth mani- folds: Convergence theory and twenty-one examples,” in Proc. Conf. Parsimony and Learning , 2025 (to appear; see also arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14744 [math.OC])

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Robust estimation of a location parameter,

    P. J. Huber, “Robust estimation of a location parameter,” Ann. Math. Stat., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 73 – 101, 1964

    1964

  22. [30]

    Absil, R

    P.-A. Absil, R. Mahony, and R. Sepulchre, Optimization Algorithms on Matrix Manifolds. Princeton University Press, 2008

    2008

  23. [31]

    Boumal, An Introduction to Optimization on Smooth Manifolds

    N. Boumal, An Introduction to Optimization on Smooth Manifolds . Cambridge University Press, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Signal processing on directed graphs: The role of edge directionality when processing and learning from network data,

    A. G. Marques, S. Segarra, and G. Mateos, “Signal processing on directed graphs: The role of edge directionality when processing and learning from network data,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 99–116, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Learning to identify sources of network dif- fusion,

    C. Ye and G. Mateos, “Learning to identify sources of network dif- fusion,” in Proc. of European Signal Process. Conf. , Sep. 2022, pp. 727–731. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL Proof of Theorem 2 For a given GSO S = VΛV⊤, we denote a polyno- mial graph filter with frequency response ˜h...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.