Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 56 references

Modulo Sampling: Performance Guarantees in The Presence of Quantization

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A modulo ADC that folds the input before quantization can, with oversampling factor above 3 and more than 3 amplitude bits, achieve mean-squared error $O(\mathrm{OF}^{-3})$, strictly better than a conventional ADC's $O(\mathrm{OF}^{-1})$…

desk verdict The O(1/OF^3) guarantee rests on a dropped cross-term in the least-squares step; the paper is a useful extension but Theorem 1 as written is not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01506 v2 pith:6YG5PULT submitted 2025-01-02 eess.SP

Neil Irwin Bernardo , Shaik Basheeruddin Shah , Yonina C. Eldar This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP MSC 94A2094A12
keywords moduloADCunlimitedsamplingquantizationnoiseditheredoversamplingorthogonalmatchingpursuitbandlimitedsignalsweakandstrong
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

The paper sets out to prove that a modulo ADC—one that folds a large-amplitude signal through a modulo operator before quantizing—does more than avoid clipping: it actively suppresses quantization noise. With an extra 1-bit signal that marks where folds occur, the authors show that oversampling factor $\mathrm{OF}>3$ and quantizer resolution $b>3$ guarantee exact unfolding after a rounding step, so the only remaining error is lowpass-filtered quantization noise. The resulting MSE is $$\mathrm{MSE} = \frac{$c^{2}$}{\mathrm{OF}(2^b-2)^2}\left(\frac{\|f\|_\infty}{\mathrm{OF}-2}\right)^2,$$ scaling as $O(\mathrm{OF}^{-3})$, while a conventional ADC with the same amplitude-quantization bits scales only as $O(\mathrm{OF}^{-1})$. The paper further claims the same MSE for an OMP-based recovery that does not need the folding flag, at the price of the stronger bit condition $b>3+\log_2(\zeta)$. A sympathetic reader should care because, if true, this gives a concrete engineering recipe: oversample moderately and fold the input rather than buying more bits, to capture high-dynamic-range signals without clipping.

What carries the argument

The argument has three load-bearing parts. First, the dithered quantization framework: a triangle dither with the right amplitude makes the b-bit quantization noise white with variance $\lambda^2/2^{2b}$, so the lowpass-filtered quantization power is known exactly. Second, sparsity of the first-order difference of the modulo residue: the folding positions form a sparse set $S$, and the out-of-band DFT of the folded samples yields the sensing equation $y = V_S \Delta z_S$ plus filtered quantization noise; Lemma 1 shows $V_S$ is full column rank once $\mathrm{OF}>3$ and $\lambda' \ge \|f\|_\infty/(\mathrm{OF}-2)$. Third, exact rounding: the least-squares estimate $\Delta\hat{z}_S = V_S^\dagger y$ is claimed to stay within $\lambda'$ of the true multiples of $2\lambda'$, so rounding reproduces $z[n]$ exactly when $b>3$; for the system without the flag, OMP with a bounded-noise stopping rule first recovers $S$, using the fact that the smallest nonzero entry of $\Delta z$ has magnitude $\lambda'$ and an RIP condition on $V$.

What would settle it

Run the modulo ADC recovery with b=4 and OF=4 on a bandlimited signal with many closely spaced folds, and compare the simulated MSE to the Theorem 1 curve; then compute the leakage norm $\|V_S^\dagger V_{S^c}\Delta\epsilon_{S^c}\|_\infty/\lambda'$ for the same signal. If the leakage ratio is not negligible, or if the simulated MSE stays above the predicted $O(\mathrm{OF}^{-3})$ curve by more than the filtered quantization-noise power, the exact-rounding step fails and the sufficient condition in Theorem 1 does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that quantization noise in a modulo ADC can decay as the inverse cube of the oversampling factor rather than the inverse first power. Theorem 1 states that with modulo threshold $\lambda' = c\|f\|_\infty/(\mathrm{OF}-2)$ for $1 \le c \le \mathrm{OF}-2$, with $\mathrm{OF}>3$, $b>3$, and negligible truncation, the reconstruction error of the modulo ADC with 1-bit folding information is exactly the filtered in-band quantization noise, $\mathrm{MSE} = \frac{c^2}{\mathrm{OF}(2^b-2)^2}\left(\frac{\|f\|_\infty}{\mathrm{OF}-2}\right)^2$. A conventional ADC using the same bits for amplitude quantization has $\mathrm{MSE} = \|f\|_\infty^2/(\mathrm{OF}(2^b-2)^2)$, which is strictly larger for every $\mathrm{OF}>3$ because of the extra $(\mathrm{OF}-2)^{-2}$ factor. Theorem 3 extends the same MSE expression to the modulo ADC without folding information, assuming OMP recovers the folding support under condition $b>3+\log_2(\zeta)$. Corollary 1 carries the result to simultaneous weak/strong band acquisition, giving a per-component NMSE bound that also decays as $O(\mathrm{OF}^{-3})$.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes that, when the folding positions are known, the noise at the other sample positions does not contaminate the least-squares estimate of the difference signal; if that contamination is large, rounding to the nearest multiple of the folding threshold is not guaranteed even when b>3.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the theorem is right, oversampling is three times more powerful in a modulo ADC than in a conventional one: doubling OF reduces quantization noise by about 9 dB instead of 3 dB.
  • A modulo ADC without the folding flag still reaches the same $O(\mathrm{OF}^{-3})$ scaling, so the flag is not needed for the asymptotic gain—it only tightens the sufficient bit condition.
  • In a two-band signal with a strong and a weak component, the per-component NMSE bound grows with the component bandwidth and shrinks with its energy, so a weak narrowband signal is not buried by the strong signal's quantization noise.
  • The paper's simulations show the predicted curves hold with and without the dither signal, and that the advantage disappears when $b=2$ or $b=3$, consistent with the sufficient conditions.
  • If the scaling law holds, every finite-energy bandlimited signal becomes digitizable by a modulo ADC with better quantization-noise scaling than a conventional b-bit ADC at the same amplitude-quantization bit budget.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $O(\mathrm{OF}^{-3})$ law survives hardware non-idealities, the practical design rule is to oversample rather than add bits: increasing OF by a factor of about 1.6 buys the same noise suppression as one extra bit, since each octave of OF gives roughly 9 dB and each bit gives 6 dB.
  • The leakage condition in Appendix B is directly testable: computing $V_S^\dagger V_{S^c}\Delta\epsilon_{S^c}$ for partial Fourier matrices with adjacent folding indices would show whether the paper's sufficient conditions are loose or whether the guarantee needs an additional assumption on the folding pattern.
  • A coherence-based alternative to the RIP condition in Theorem 3, computable for this deterministic Fourier sensing matrix, would make the no-flag guarantee practically checkable, since the paper itself notes that verifying RIP is NP-hard.
  • The same machinery of sparse first-order difference, out-of-band Fourier sensing, and exact rounding is likely to transfer to other signal classes studied under unlimited sampling, such as finite-rate-of-innovation or sparse multi-band signals, though the paper does not prove that.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies modulo analog-to-digital converters under dithered quantization. For a modulo ADC with an extra 1-bit folding-information signal, it claims that OF > 3 and b > 3 are sufficient for exact unfolding and derives the mean squared error MSE = c^2 / (OF (2^b - 2)^2) * (||f||_inf / (OF - 2))^2, which is O(1/OF^3). For the system without side information, it proposes an OMP-based support recovery algorithm and claims the same MSE under OF > 3 and b > 3 + log_2(zeta), conditional on a restricted isometry property (RIP) of the sensing matrix. The results are extended to the simultaneous acquisition of strong and weak signals in disjoint frequency bands, and several numerical experiments are reported.

Significance. If the O(1/OF^3) quantization-noise scaling were rigorously established, this would be an important contribution to modulo sampling: it would show that, for the same amplitude-quantization bit budget, a modulo ADC strictly outperforms a conventional oversampled ADC. The paper is clearly organized, the comparison with conventional ADCs is thoughtfully set up, and the numerical study covers the main claimed scenarios, including dither-free operation and weak/strong components. However, the central guarantees rest on proof steps that are not justified as written, so the stated contribution is not currently established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-A, Appendix B, Eq. (7)] The proof of Theorem 1 is invalid because it replaces the true observation model y = V_S Delta z_S + V Delta epsilon with V_S(Delta z_S + Delta epsilon_S). From the definition of y in Eq. (6), Delta epsilon is present at every time sample, so the least-squares estimate is Delta z_S + V_S^dagger V Delta epsilon = Delta z_S + Delta epsilon_S + V_S^dagger V_{S^c} Delta epsilon_{S^c}. The cross term V_S^dagger V_{S^c} Delta epsilon_{S^c} is not zero and is never bounded; the argument around inequality (24) controls only the l_infinity norm of Delta epsilon. Consequently the rounding step is not guaranteed by b > 3, Eq. (11) does not follow, and Theorem 3 and Corollary 1 inherit the gap.
  2. [Appendix A, Lemma 1] The proof of Lemma 1 asserts that the columns of V_S are linearly independent because they are columns of the Fourier basis, and therefore |S| <= K suffices for full column rank. This statement is false in general for a partial Fourier matrix: after restriction to a subset of rows, distinct Fourier columns can become linearly dependent. The dimensional inequality in Eq. (22)-(23) does not establish full column rank, so OF > 3 alone does not justify the unique-recovery step in Eq. (7).
  3. [Section III-B, Theorem 3] The OMP-based guarantee is conditional on an RIP hypothesis on the matrix V that is not verified for the specific deterministic OOB-frequency submatrix used in the paper. The text acknowledges this limitation, but the subsequent appeal to random partial DFT matrices does not apply because V is not random. Thus the paper does not establish the claimed sufficient conditions OF > 3 and b > 3 + log_2(zeta) for the no-side-information system; the bit condition in Eq. (16) depends on an unknown RIP constant delta_{L0+1}.
  4. [Section V and overall] The numerical experiments are consistent with the formulas, but they use particular signals and averaging over random coefficients and time offsets; they do not probe the leakage term V_S^dagger V_{S^c} Delta epsilon_{S^c} or the possible rank deficiency of V_S. The simulations therefore do not fill the gap in the theoretical proof.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section III-B] The abstract uses delta in the condition b > 3 + log_2(delta), while the body and Theorem 3 use zeta for the same penalty term; the notation should be unified.
  2. [Section II-A] The text writes 'Reimann-Lebesgue lemma'; this should be 'Riemann-Lebesgue lemma'.
  3. [Section III-A] The phrase 'sufficient condition of OF >= 3' conflicts with the OF > 3 condition used in Theorem 1 and Lemma 1; the threshold should be stated consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central MSE formulas are derived from the dithered-quantization model and the chosen modulo threshold, not fitted, and the same-group citations are independent published bounds.

full rationale

No circular step is present. The central MSE formula (Theorem 1, Eq. (11)) is derived from the dithered-quantization noise power E[epsilon^2[n]] = lambda^2 / 2^{2b} (Eq. (3)), the no-overload quantizer range lambda = 2^b lambda' / (2^b - 2), the threshold choice lambda' = c ||f||_infinity / (OF - 2), and the lowpass-filter variance reduction rho = 1/OF; the theoretical curve in Fig. 4 is a plot of this derived formula, not a fit to the simulation points. Lemma 1's OF > 3 condition uses the fold-count bound from the authors' own prior work [20, Eq. 7]; this is a self-citation, but it is a parameter-free, externally checkable bound on the number of folding events, not a restatement of the target MSE, so under the review rules it is independent support and does not raise the circularity score. Theorem 3's support-recovery argument imports the OMP guarantee from the external theorem [49] and standard partial-DFT RIP results; the only in-house step is applying Theorem 1 after support recovery, not assuming its conclusion. Section III-B explicitly notes that the RIP constant is NP-hard to evaluate, and Section III-C notes that the OMP approach may be impractical; both are acknowledged limitations rather than circular moves. The Appendix B step ||V_S^dagger y - Delta z_S||_infinity = ||V_S^dagger V_S (Delta z_S + Delta epsilon_S) - Delta z_S||_infinity silently drops the leakage term V_S^dagger V_{S^c} Delta epsilon_{S^c}; this is a mathematical gap about unproved orthogonality of selected and unselected Fourier columns, not a self-referential reduction, so it belongs to correctness risk rather than circularity.

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

The central MSE claims rest on the dithered-quantization noise model (standard), the sparsity bound from [20] (authors' prior, independent), and two matrix properties that are not established: the leakage-free identity in Appendix B and the RIP condition in Theorem 3. The first is an incorrect equality as written; the second is acknowledged as unverifiable. The modulo threshold scale c and the OMP stopping parameter eta are free design choices that enter the bounds. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Modulo threshold scale c = c in [1, OF-2]
    Section III-A: lambda' is set to c*||f||infinity/(OF-2). The constant c is not determined by the data or by first principles; it appears in the final MSE expression (11) and in Corollary 1. The design chooses the smallest admissible lambda', but c remains a free design parameter.
  • OMP stopping parameter eta = 0.8 in Simulations 2, 4, 5, 6; otherwise unspecified
    Section II-C and Theorem 3: the stopping bound is eta*6lambda'/(2^b-2). The sufficient bit condition (16) depends on eta, and the simulations fix eta=0.8 without a selection rule.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Input f(t) is in L1(R) and bandlimited to (-omega_m/2, +omega_m/2), with finite energy and known ||f||infinity.
    Section II-A. Used to apply Riemann-Lebesgue so f decays and truncation error can be made negligible; also used to bound ||f||infinity via Papoulis in Corollary 1.
  • domain assumption The number of folding events |S| obeys the bound in [20, Eq. 7]: |S| <= 4*floor(rho N/2) + 4*floor(rho N/2)*floor((||f||infinity-lambda')/(2lambda')).
    Lemma 1 and Theorem 3 use this bound to guarantee K >= |S| and to define L0. The bound is imported from the authors' prior work; it is not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Triangle dither with support [-2lambda/2^b, 2lambda/2^b] satisfies the Schuchman conditions, making quantization noise zero-mean, white, independent of f_lambda'[n], and bounded by 3lambda/2^b.
    Section II-A, Eq. (3), Appendix B. The white-noise variance lambda^2/2^{2b} and the bound |DeltaEpsilon[n]| <= 6lambda/2^b are the basis for the rounding condition b>3.
  • domain assumption The 1-bit folding information c[n] exactly marks the time indices where the modulo residue jumps, so the support S of DeltaZ is known.
    Section II-A and II-B. The recovery algorithm assumes DeltaZ is nonzero only at indices n with c[n]=1. Timing ambiguity within an interval is ignored.
  • ad hoc to paper The least-squares error on the folding support is exactly the noise restricted to S, i.e., V_S^dagger V DeltaEpsilon = DeltaEpsilon_S.
    Appendix B, first display. This is not proven and is generally false for a partial Fourier matrix; the cross-term V_S^dagger V_{S^c} DeltaEpsilon_{S^c} is omitted. It is load-bearing for Theorem 1 and therefore also for Theorem 3.
  • ad hoc to paper The partial Fourier matrix V satisfies RIP of order L0 with delta_{L0+1} < 1/sqrt(L0+1).
    Theorem 3 and its proof. The RIP constant is not computed, and the cited random partial Fourier RIP results in [51] do not cover the deterministic contiguous OOB row set used here. The paper acknowledges the limitation but still relies on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modulo Sampling: Performance Guarantees in The Presence of Quantization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6YG5PULT

@misc{pith2026250101506,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modulo Sampling: Performance Guarantees in The Presence of Quantization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6YG5PULT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01506}
}
abstract

In this paper, we investigate the relationship between the dynamic range and quantization noise power in modulo analog-to-digital converters (ADCs). Two modulo ADC systems are considered: (1) a modulo ADC which outputs the folded samples and an additional 1-bit folding information signal, and (2) a modulo ADC without the 1-bit information. A recovery algorithm that unfolds the quantized modulo samples using the extra 1-bit folding information is analyzed. Using the dithered quantization framework, we show that an oversampling factor of $\mathrm{OF} > 3$ and a quantizer resolution of $b > 3$ are sufficient conditions to unfold the modulo samples. When these conditions are met, we demonstrate that the mean squared error (MSE) performance of modulo ADC with an extra 1-bit folding information signal is better than that of a conventional ADC with the same number of bits used for amplitude quantization. Since folding information is typically not available in modulo ADCs, we also propose and analyze a recovery algorithm based on orthogonal matching pursuit (OMP) that does not require the 1-bit folding information. In this case, we prove that $\mathrm{OF} > 3$ and $b > 3 + \log_2(\delta)$ for some $\delta > 1$ are sufficient conditions to unfold the modulo samples. For the two systems considered, we show that, with sufficient number of bits for amplitude quantization, the mean squared error (MSE) of a modulo ADC is $\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{OF}^3}\right)$ whereas that of a conventional ADC is only $\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{OF}}\right)$. We extend the analysis to the case of simultaneous acquisition of weak and strong signals occupying different frequency bands. Finally, numerical results are presented to validate the derived performance guarantees.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01506 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A typical high DR input signal and the corresponding modulo signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of (a) a modulo sampling system with dithered quantization. A 1-bit folding information signal is also generated by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of simultaneous acquisition of weak and strong signal components using a modulo ADC. The digital channelizer can be tuned to select [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Numerical and theoretical MSE results vs. OF for both modulo ADC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Numerical and theoretical NMSE vs. OF for modulo ADC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Numerical and theoretical NMSE vs. OF for modulo ADC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Numerical NMSE vs. OF for modulo and conventional ADCs with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Numerical NMSE vs. OF for modulo and conventional ADCs with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Numerical NMSE results (in dB) for different OF and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Numerical MSE vs. OF result for modulo ADC with and without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Y . C. Eldar, Sampling Theory: Beyond Bandlimited Systems . Cam- bridge University Press, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Quantization,

    R. Gray and D. Neuhoff, “Quantization,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 2325–2383, 1998

    1998

  3. [3]

    Recovering High Dynamic Range Radi- ance Maps from Photographs,

    P. E. Debevec and J. Malik, “Recovering High Dynamic Range Radi- ance Maps from Photographs,” in ACM Siggraph, 1997, pp. 369–378

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    A vision sensor having an expanded dynamic range for autonomous vehicles,

    K. Yamada, T. Nakano, and S. Yamamoto, “A vision sensor having an expanded dynamic range for autonomous vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 332–341, 1998

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Restoration of clipped seismic waveforms using projection onto convex sets method,

    J. Zhang, J. Hao, X. Zhao, et al. , “Restoration of clipped seismic waveforms using projection onto convex sets method,” Nature Sci. Rep., vol. 6, no. 39056, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Low dynamic range for ris-aided bistatic integrated sensing and communication,

    A. Bazzi and M. Chafii, “Low dynamic range for ris-aided bistatic integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications , vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 912–927, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Signals designed for recovery after clipping — ii. fourier transform theory of recovery,

    B. F. Logan, “Signals designed for recovery after clipping — ii. fourier transform theory of recovery,” AT&T Bell Laboratories Tech- nical Journal, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 287–306, 1984

    work page 1984

  8. [8]

    Restoring a clipped signal,

    J. Abel and J. Smith, “Restoring a clipped signal,” in [Proceedings] ICASSP 91: 1991 International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 1991, 1745–1748 vol.3

    work page 1991

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Mitigation of clipping in sensors,

    S.-K. Ting and A. H. Sayed, “Mitigation of clipping in sensors,” in 2013 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2013, pp. 5934–5938

    2013

  2. [10]

    Aliasing reduction in clipped signals,

    F. Esqueda, S. Bilbao, and V . V ¨alim¨aki, “Aliasing reduction in clipped signals,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 64, no. 20, pp. 5255–5267, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    On unlimited sampling and reconstruction,

    A. Bhandari, F. Krahmer, and R. Raskar, “On unlimited sampling and reconstruction,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 69, pp. 3827–3839, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    On unlimited sampling,

    A. Bhandari, F. Krahmer, and R. Raskar, “On unlimited sampling,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Sampling Theory Appl. , Jul. 2017, pp. 31–35

    2017

  5. [13]

    Above the Nyquist Rate, Modulo Folding Does Not Hurt,

    E. Romanov and O. Ordentlich, “Above the Nyquist Rate, Modulo Folding Does Not Hurt,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett. , vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1167–1171, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Wavelet-based reconstruction for unlimited sampling,

    S. Rudresh, A. Adiga, B. A. Shenoy, and C. S. Seelamantula, “Wavelet-based reconstruction for unlimited sampling,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2018, pp. 4584–4588

    2018

  7. [15]

    Residual Recovery Algorithm for Modulo Sampling,

    E. Azar, S. Mulleti, and Y . C. Eldar, “Residual Recovery Algorithm for Modulo Sampling,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., 2022, pp. 5722–5726

    2022

  8. [16]

    Unlimited Sampling From Theory to Practice: Fourier-Prony Recovery and Prototype ADC,

    A. Bhandari, F. Krahmer, and T. Poskitt, “Unlimited Sampling From Theory to Practice: Fourier-Prony Recovery and Prototype ADC,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 70, pp. 1131–1141, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Unlimited sampling beyond modulo,

    E. Azar, S. Mulleti, and Y . C. Eldar, “Unlimited sampling beyond modulo,” Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis , vol. 74, p. 101 715, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Above the nyquist rate, modulo folding does not hurt,

    E. Romanov and O. Ordentlich, “Above the nyquist rate, modulo folding does not hurt,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1167–1171, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Sliding dft-based signal recovery for modulo adc with 1-bit folding information,

    N. I. Bernardo, “Sliding dft-based signal recovery for modulo adc with 1-bit folding information,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2410.18757, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Lasso-based fast residual recovery for modulo sampling,

    S. B. Shah, S. Mulleti, and Y . C. Eldar, “Lasso-based fast residual recovery for modulo sampling,” in ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  13. [21]

    Compressed sensing based residual recovery algorithms and hardware for modulo sampling,

    S. B. Shah, S. Mulleti, and Y . C. Eldar, “Compressed sensing based residual recovery algorithms and hardware for modulo sampling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12724 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Noise-resilient unlimited sampling and recovery of sparse signals,

    G. Joseph, “Noise-resilient unlimited sampling and recovery of sparse signals,” in ICASSP 2025 - 2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  15. [23]

    A hardware prototype of wideband high-dynamic range analog-to-digital converter,

    S. Mulleti, E. Reznitskiy, S. Savariego, M. Namer, N. Glazer, and Y . C. Eldar, “A hardware prototype of wideband high-dynamic range analog-to-digital converter,” IET Circuits, Devices & Systems, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 181–192, 2023. eprint: https : / / ietresearch . onlinelibrar...

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Hardware demonstration of low-rate and high-dynamic range ADC,

    S. Mulleti, A. Eyar, S. B. Shah, et al. , “Hardware demonstration of low-rate and high-dynamic range ADC,” Show and Tell Demos, IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Practical modulo sampling: Mitigating high-frequency components,

    Y . Kvich, S. Savariego, M. Namer, and Y . C. Eldar, “Practical modulo sampling: Mitigating high-frequency components,” (manuscript under preparation), 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Back in the us-sr: Unlimited sampling and sparse super- resolution with its hardware validation,

    A. Bhandari, “Back in the us-sr: Unlimited sampling and sparse super- resolution with its hardware validation,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 29, pp. 1047–1051, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    A modulo sam- pling hardware prototype and reconstruction algorithms evaluation,

    J. Zhu, J. Ma, Z. Liu, F. Qu, Z. Zhu, and Q. Zhang, “A modulo sam- pling hardware prototype and reconstruction algorithms evaluation,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 74, pp. 1–11, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Modulo sampling of FRI signals,

    S. Mulleti and Y . C. Eldar, “Modulo sampling of FRI signals,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 60 369–60 384, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Generalized approximate message passing for unlimited sampling of sparse signals,

    O. Musa, P. Jung, and N. Goertz, “Generalized approximate message passing for unlimited sampling of sparse signals,” in 2018 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing (Global- SIP), 2018, pp. 336–340

    2018

  22. [30]

    On the identifiability of sparse vectors from modulo compressed sensing measurements,

    D. Prasanna, C. Sriram, and C. R. Murthy, “On the identifiability of sparse vectors from modulo compressed sensing measurements,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , vol. 28, pp. 131–134, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Sparse signal recovery from modulo ob- servations,

    V . Shah and C. Hegde, “Sparse signal recovery from modulo ob- servations,” EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing , vol. 2021, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Unlimited dynamic range signal recovery for folded graph signals,

    F. Ji, Pratibha, and W. P. Tay, “Unlimited dynamic range signal recovery for folded graph signals,” Signal Processing , vol. 198, p. 108 574, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Line spectral estimation via unlimited sampling,

    Q. Zhang, J. Zhu, F. Qu, and D. W. Soh, “Line spectral estimation via unlimited sampling,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 7214–7231, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Modulo sampling and recovery in shift-invariant spaces,

    Y . Kvich and Y . C. Eldar, “Modulo sampling and recovery in shift-invariant spaces,” in ICASSP 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , 2024, pp. 11–15

    2024

  27. [35]

    Multichannel modulo sampling with unlimited noise,

    D. Florescu, “Multichannel modulo sampling with unlimited noise,” in ICASSP 2025 - 2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  28. [36]

    The surprising ben- efits of hysteresis in unlimited sampling: Theory, algorithms and experiments,

    D. Florescu, F. Krahmer, and A. Bhandari, “The surprising ben- efits of hysteresis in unlimited sampling: Theory, algorithms and experiments,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 70, pp. 616–630, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Unlimited sampling radar: Life below the quantization noise,

    T. Feuillen, B. Shankar MRR, and A. Bhandari, “Unlimited sampling radar: Life below the quantization noise,” in ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  30. [38]

    Krishna, S

    A. Krishna, S. Rudresh, V . Shaw, H. R. Sabbella, C. S. Seelaman- tula, and C. S. Thakur, Unlimited dynamic range analog-to-digital conversion, 2019. arXiv: 1911.09371 [eess.SP]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Dither signals and their effect on quantization noise,

    L. Schuchman, “Dither signals and their effect on quantization noise,” IEEE Transactions on Communication Technology , vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 162–165, 1964

    1964

  32. [40]

    Dithered quantizers,

    R. Gray and T. Stockham, “Dithered quantizers,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 805–812, 1993

    1993

  33. [41]

    Modulo sampling with 1-bit side information: Performance guarantees in the presence of quantization,

    N. I. Bernardo, S. B. Shah, and Y . C. Eldar, “Modulo sampling with 1-bit side information: Performance guarantees in the presence of quantization,” in 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), 2024, pp. 3498–3503

    2024

  34. [42]

    I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of integrals, series, and products, Seventh. Elsevier/Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2007, pp. xlviii+1171, Translated from the Russian, Translation edited and with a preface by Alan Jeffrey and Daniel Zwillinger, With one CD- ROM (Windows,...

    2007

  35. [43]

    Matching pursuits with time-frequency dictionaries,

    S. Mallat and Z. Zhang, “Matching pursuits with time-frequency dictionaries,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 3397–3415, 1993

    1993

  36. [44]

    Signal recovery from random measurements via orthogonal matching pursuit,

    J. A. Tropp and A. C. Gilbert, “Signal recovery from random measurements via orthogonal matching pursuit,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 4655–4666, 2007

    2007

  37. [45]

    Y . C. Eldar and G. Kutyniok, Compressed sensing: theory and applications. Cambridge University Press, 2012

    2012

  38. [46]

    Orthogonal matching pursuit for sparse signal recovery with noise,

    T. T. Cai and L. Wang, “Orthogonal matching pursuit for sparse signal recovery with noise,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 4680–4688, 2011

    2011

  39. [47]

    Uno: Unlimited sampling meets one-bit quantization,

    A. Eamaz, K. V . Mishra, F. Yeganegi, and M. Soltanalian, “Uno: Unlimited sampling meets one-bit quantization,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 72, pp. 997–1014, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Zhang, J

    Q. Zhang, J. Zhu, F. Qu, Z. Zhu, and D. W. Soh, On the identifiability from modulo measurements under dft sensing matrix , 2024. arXiv: 2401.00194 [cs.IT]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    The exact support recovery of sparse signals with noise via orthogonal matching pursuit,

    R. Wu, W. Huang, and D.-R. Chen, “The exact support recovery of sparse signals with noise via orthogonal matching pursuit,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 403–406, 2013

    2013

  42. [50]

    Certi- fying the restricted isometry property is hard,

    A. S. Bandeira, E. Dobriban, D. G. Mixon, and W. F. Sawin, “Certi- fying the restricted isometry property is hard,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 3448–3450, 2013

    2013

  43. [51]

    Near-optimal signal recovery from random projections: Universal encoding strategies?

    E. J. Candes and T. Tao, “Near-optimal signal recovery from random projections: Universal encoding strategies?” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 5406–5425, 2006

    2006

  44. [52]

    Zero-crossing mod- ulation for wideband systems employing 1-bit quantization and tem- poral oversampling: Transceiver design and performance evaluation,

    P. Neuhaus, M. D ¨orpinghaus, and G. Fettweis, “Zero-crossing mod- ulation for wideband systems employing 1-bit quantization and tem- poral oversampling: Transceiver design and performance evaluation,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society , vol. 2, pp. 1915– 1934, 2021

    1915

  45. [53]

    Comparison of orthogonal matching pursuit implementations,

    B. L. Sturm and M. G. Christensen, “Comparison of orthogonal matching pursuit implementations,” in 2012 Proceedings of the 20th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), 2012, pp. 220– 224

    2012

  46. [54]

    On hybrid radar fusion for integrated sensing and communication,

    A. Chowdary, A. Bazzi, and M. Chafii, “On hybrid radar fusion for integrated sensing and communication,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 8984–9000, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Limits on bandlimited signals,

    A. Papoulis, “Limits on bandlimited signals,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 1677–1686, 1967

    1967

  48. [56]

    Harris, Multirate Signal Processing for Communication Systems (River Publishers Series in Signal, Image and Speech Processing)

    F. Harris, Multirate Signal Processing for Communication Systems (River Publishers Series in Signal, Image and Speech Processing). River Publishers, 2021. Neil Irwin Bernardo received the Bachelor of Science degree in Electronics and Communications Engineering and the Master o...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.