pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.01078 · v1 · pith:EKOSHRWOnew · submitted 2019-07-01 · 💻 cs.IT · math.IT· math.SP

Quantization in Compressive Sensing: A Signal Processing Approach

Isidora Stankovic , Milos Brajovic , Milos Dakovic , Cornel Ioana , Ljubisa Stankovic This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 11:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IT math.ITmath.SP
keywords compressive sensingquantization noisesparse signalsreconstruction errornoise modelfinite precisionsignal processingerror energy
0
0 comments X

The pith

A unified statistical model merges quantization noise with signal nonsparsity to yield an exact formula for expected reconstruction error energy in compressive sensing.

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

The paper develops a single mathematical model that treats both quantization of measurements and deviations from exact sparsity as components of one noise process. From this model it derives a closed-form expression for the average energy of the error that remains after compressive sensing reconstruction. The derivation holds for an arbitrary number of quantization bits and applies to both exactly sparse signals and signals that are only approximately sparse. It also covers secondary effects such as noise folding and the use of floating-point arithmetic. The resulting formula lets engineers predict reconstruction fidelity directly from bit depth and sparsity level rather than relying solely on simulation.

Core claim

The central claim is that quantization noise and signal nonsparsity can be combined into one unified statistical model whose parameters produce an exact closed-form expression for the expected energy of the reconstruction error in compressive sensing, valid across arbitrary quantization bit widths and for both sparse and approximately sparse signals.

What carries the argument

The unified statistical model that folds quantization noise together with nonsparsity deviations into a single noise term whose variance enters the error-energy formula.

If this is right

  • Expected reconstruction error energy becomes computable in closed form once quantization bit width and sparsity level are known.
  • The same formula applies without change to signals that are only approximately sparse.
  • Noise-folding contributions from quantization are automatically included in the predicted error energy.
  • Floating-point arithmetic effects can be analyzed by substituting the corresponding quantization noise variance into the model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Hardware designers could select the smallest number of bits that keeps predicted error below a target threshold without exhaustive simulation.
  • The model supplies a quantitative link between measurement-matrix coherence and tolerable quantization coarseness.
  • The formula could be inverted to find the bit depth needed to restore a desired error level when nonsparsity level is known.

Load-bearing premise

Quantization effects and nonsparsity can be treated as additive components inside one statistical model that produces an exact closed-form error expression without leftover interactions from register length or the choice of reconstruction algorithm.

What would settle it

Numerical Monte-Carlo trials of basis-pursuit or orthogonal-matching-pursuit reconstruction on quantized measurements whose measured average error energy lies systematically outside the interval predicted by the closed-form formula for the same sparsity and bit depth.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.01078 by Cornel Ioana, Isidora Stankovic, Ljubisa Stankovic, Milos Brajovic, Milos Dakovic.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of a system for the reconstruction of a sparse signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Reconstruction results for N = 256-dimensional signal whose M = 128 measurements are stored into B = 6 bit registers. Reconstruction of a sparse signal with K = 10 nonzero coefficients (top). Reconstruction of a nonsparse signal assuming its sparsity K = 10 (bottom). The original signal is colored in black, while the reconstructed signal is denoted by red crosses. where ν(p) is a random variable with unifo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Reconstruction error with measurements quantized to fit the registers with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reconstruction error for various measurement matrices. (a)-(c) Sparse signal with measurements quantized to fit the registers with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reconstruction error for the Bernoulli matrix for nonsparse signals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Reconstruction error for the partial DFT measurement matrix when the Iterative Hard Thresholding (IHT) reconstruction algorithm is used. (a) Sparse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reconstruction error for the partial Gaussian measurement matrix ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Influence of the finite-length registers and quantization effects on the reconstruction of sparse and approximately sparse signals is analyzed in this paper. For the nonquantized measurements, the compressive sensing (CS) framework provides highly accurate reconstruction algorithms that produce negligible errors when the reconstruction conditions are met. However, hardware implementations of signal processing algorithms involve the finite-length registers and quantization of the measurements. An analysis of the effects related to the measurements quantization with an arbitrary number of bits is the topic of this paper. A unified mathematical model for the analysis of the quantization noise and the signal nonsparsity on the CS reconstruction is presented. An exact formula for the expected energy of error in the CS-based reconstructed signal is derived. The theory is validated through various numerical examples with quantized measurements, including the cases of approximately sparse signals, noise folding, and floating-point arithmetics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the effects of finite-length registers and quantization on the reconstruction of sparse and approximately sparse signals in compressive sensing (CS). It introduces a unified mathematical model combining quantization noise and signal nonsparsity, derives an exact closed-form expression for the expected energy of the reconstruction error E[||x̂ - x||²], and validates the result via numerical examples covering quantized measurements, approximately sparse signals, noise folding, and floating-point arithmetic.

Significance. If the exact formula holds under the stated assumptions, the work would provide a practical analytical tool for predicting reconstruction error in hardware-constrained CS systems, which is relevant for bridging theoretical CS guarantees with finite-bit implementations. The numerical validations across multiple scenarios, including noise folding and floating-point effects, represent a strength in demonstrating applicability beyond idealized models.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Derivation of the unified model): The exact formula for expected error energy assumes that quantization noise and nonsparsity perturbations propagate through the reconstruction operator in a manner permitting a closed-form second-moment calculation. However, for nonlinear solvers such as basis pursuit or OMP, the mapping from measurement perturbation to reconstruction error is generally nonlinear, which can introduce unmodeled cross terms or dependence on support recovery and matrix conditioning not eliminated by the statistical independence assumptions.
  2. [§4] §4 (Numerical validation): The examples report close agreement between the derived formula and simulations, but the manuscript does not specify which reconstruction algorithm is used in the experiments or how finite-bit effects are isolated from solver-specific nonlinearities, making it difficult to confirm that the exactness claim extends beyond the linear decoder case implicitly used in the model.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction use 'exact formula' without immediately clarifying the linearity or Gaussianity assumptions required for the second-moment calculation; adding a brief statement in the introduction would improve clarity.
  2. [§2] Notation for the quantization noise variance and the nonsparsity error term could be made more consistent across equations to avoid potential confusion when combining the two effects.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the scope of our derivation. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Derivation of the unified model): The exact formula for expected error energy assumes that quantization noise and nonsparsity perturbations propagate through the reconstruction operator in a manner permitting a closed-form second-moment calculation. However, for nonlinear solvers such as basis pursuit or OMP, the mapping from measurement perturbation to reconstruction error is generally nonlinear, which can introduce unmodeled cross terms or dependence on support recovery and matrix conditioning not eliminated by the statistical independence assumptions.

    Authors: The derivation in §3 explicitly models the reconstruction operator as linear (e.g., a fixed matrix applied to the vector of quantized measurements), which permits the exact closed-form second-moment result under the stated independence assumptions. This linearity holds for decoders such as the pseudoinverse solution on a known or estimated support. The manuscript does not claim the formula is exact for nonlinear iterative solvers such as OMP or basis pursuit; those introduce additional dependencies that fall outside the model. We will revise the text in §3 to state the linear-reconstruction assumption explicitly and note the distinction from nonlinear solvers. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (Numerical validation): The examples report close agreement between the derived formula and simulations, but the manuscript does not specify which reconstruction algorithm is used in the experiments or how finite-bit effects are isolated from solver-specific nonlinearities, making it difficult to confirm that the exactness claim extends beyond the linear decoder case implicitly used in the model.

    Authors: We agree that the reconstruction algorithm employed in the numerical examples should have been stated. The simulations use a linear decoder consisting of the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse applied to the sensing matrix restricted to the (estimated) support, with quantization applied directly to the measurements prior to this linear step. This isolates the quantization and nonsparsity effects from solver nonlinearities. We will revise §4 to specify the decoder, describe the support estimation procedure, and add a short discussion confirming that the experiments match the linear model under which the formula is exact. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Exact closed-form error energy derived from unified statistical model with no reduction to fitted inputs or self-citations

full rationale

The paper presents a unified mathematical model combining quantization noise and nonsparsity effects, then derives an exact formula for expected reconstruction error energy. No quoted equations or sections indicate that this formula is obtained by fitting parameters to data and renaming the fit as a prediction, nor does any load-bearing step reduce to a self-citation chain or ansatz smuggled via prior work. The derivation is presented as a direct statistical expectation calculation under the model's assumptions, remaining self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a unified model that treats quantization as additive noise combinable with nonsparsity effects via expectation; no free parameters or new entities are indicated in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Quantization effects can be modeled as additive noise with specific statistical properties combinable with nonsparsity in the CS error expectation.
    Core of the unified mathematical model for quantization noise and signal nonsparsity.
  • domain assumption CS reconstruction conditions extend to the quantized case in a manner allowing exact error energy calculation.
    Invoked when extending nonquantized reconstruction accuracy to quantized measurements.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5689 in / 1328 out tokens · 35656 ms · 2026-05-25T11:13:00.004026+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Compressed sensing,

    D. Donoho, “Compressed sensing,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1289–1306, 2006

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Compressive sensing,

    R. Baraniuk, “Compressive sensing,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 118–121, 2007

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Robust uncertainty principles: Exact signal reconstruction from highly incomplete frequency information,

    E. Candes, J. Romberg and T. Tao. “Robust uncertainty principles: Exact signal reconstruction from highly incomplete frequency information,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 52, pp. 489–509, 2006

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Stable signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate measurements,

    E. Candes, J. Romberg, and T. Tao, “Stable signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate measurements,” Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 59: 1207-1223., 2006, doi:10.1002/cpa.20124

    work page doi:10.1002/cpa.20124 2006

  5. [5]

    Encoding the lp from limited measure- ments,

    E. Candes, and J. Romberg. “Encoding the lp from limited measure- ments,” Data Compression Conference (DCC’06). IEEE , 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Missing Samples Analysis in Signals for Applications to L-estimation and Compressive Sensing,

    L. Stankovi ´c, S. Stankovi ´c, and M. Amin, “Missing Samples Analysis in Signals for Applications to L-estimation and Compressive Sensing,” Signal Processing, vol. 94, pp. 401–408, January 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Introduction to compressed sensing,

    M. Davenport, M. Duarte, Y . Eldar, and G. Kutyniok, “Introduction to compressed sensing,” Chapter in Compressed Sensing: Theory and Applications, Cambridge University Press, 2012

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    On the Uniqueness of the Sparse Signals Reconstruction Based on the Missing Samples Variation Analysis,

    L. Stankovi ´c, and M. Dakovi´c, “On the Uniqueness of the Sparse Signals Reconstruction Based on the Missing Samples Variation Analysis,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering , vol. 2015, Article ID 629759, 14 pages, 2015. doi:10.1155/2015/629759

    work page doi:10.1155/2015/629759 2015

  9. [9]

    A Relationship between the Robust Statistics Theory and Sparse Compressive Sensed Signals Reconstruction,

    S. Stankovi ´c, L. Stankovi ´c, and I. Orovi ´c, “A Relationship between the Robust Statistics Theory and Sparse Compressive Sensed Signals Reconstruction,”IET Signal Processing , vol. 8, no. 3, May 2014

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    CoSaMP: Iterative signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate samples,

    D. Needell, and J. A. Tropp, “CoSaMP: Iterative signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate samples,” Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis vol.26, no.3, pp.301–321, 2009

    work page 2009

  11. [11]

    Sampling and reconstructing signals from a union of linear subspaces,

    T. Blumensath, “Sampling and reconstructing signals from a union of linear subspaces,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory vol.57, no.7, pp.4660–4671, 2011

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    Iterative hard thresholding for compressed sensing,

    T. Bumensath, and M. E. Davies, “Iterative hard thresholding for compressed sensing,” Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 265–274, 2009

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    Stankovi ´c, Digital Signal Processing with Selected Topics

    L. Stankovi ´c, Digital Signal Processing with Selected Topics. Cre- ateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, An Amazon.com Company, November, 2015

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    A Tutorial on Sparse Signal Reconstruction and its Applications in Signal Processing

    L. Stankovi ´c, E. Sejdi ´c, S. Stankovi ´c, M. Dakovi ´c, and I. Orovi ´c “A Tutorial on Sparse Signal Reconstruction and its Applications in Signal Processing” Circuits, Systems & Signal Processing, published online 01. Aug. 2018, DOI 10.1007/s00034-018-0909-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00034-018-0909-2 2018

  15. [15]

    On the Errors in Randomly Sampled Nonsparse Signals Reconstructed with a Sparsity Assumption,

    L. Stankovi ´c, M. Dakovi ´c, I. Stankovi ´c, and S. Vujovi ´c, “On the Errors in Randomly Sampled Nonsparse Signals Reconstructed with a Sparsity Assumption,”IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Lett., V ol: 14, Issue: 12, pp. 2453–2456 , Dec. 2017, DOI: 10.1109/LGRS.2017.2768664

    work page doi:10.1109/lgrs.2017.2768664 2017

  16. [16]

    1-bit Compressive Sensing,

    P. Boufounos, and R. Baraniuk, “1-bit Compressive Sensing,” 42nd Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems, Princeton, NJ, USA, 2008

    work page 2008

  17. [17]

    Robust 1- bit compressive sensing via binary stable embeddings for sparse vectors,

    L. Jacques, J. N. Laska, P. T. Boufounos, and R. G. Baraniuk, “Robust 1- bit compressive sensing via binary stable embeddings for sparse vectors,” IEEE Transactions of Information Theory, vol. 59. no. 4, pp. 2082–2102, 2011

    work page 2082

  18. [18]

    One-Bit Compressive Sensing with Partial Support Infor- mation,

    P. North, “One-Bit Compressive Sensing with Partial Support Infor- mation,” CMC Senior Theses , paper 1194, [Available online: http: //scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc theses/1194], 2015

    work page 2015

  19. [19]

    Greedy sparse signal reconstruction from sign mea- surements,

    P. T. Boufounos, “Greedy sparse signal reconstruction from sign mea- surements,” 2009 Conference Record of the 43rd Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers , CA, USA, 2009

    work page 2009

  20. [20]

    Quantization of sparse representations,

    P. Boufounos and R. Baraniuk, “Quantization of sparse representations,” Preprint, 2008

    work page 2008

  21. [21]

    Information Theoretical and Algorithmic Approaches to Quantized Compressive Sensing,

    W. Dai, and O. Milenkovic, “Information Theoretical and Algorithmic Approaches to Quantized Compressive Sensing,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 59, no. 7, July 2011

    work page 2011

  22. [22]

    Quantization and Compressive Sensing,

    P.T. Boufounos, L. Jacques, F. Krahmer, and R. Saab, “Quantization and Compressive Sensing,” in: Boche H., Calderbank R., Kutyniok G., Vybial J. (eds) Compressed Sensing and its Applications. Applied and Numerical Harmonic Analysis . Birkh ¨auser, Cham, pp. 193–237, 2013

    work page 2013

  23. [23]

    Information Estimations and Acqui- sition Costs for Quantized Compressive Sensing,

    Y . Wang, S. Feng, and P. Zhang, “Information Estimations and Acqui- sition Costs for Quantized Compressive Sensing,” International Confer- ence on Digital Signal Processing (DSP) 2015, Singapore, Singapore, July 2015

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    Methods for quantized compressed sensing,

    H.M. Shi, M. Case, X. Gu, S. Tu, and D. Needell, “Methods for quantized compressed sensing,” Information Theory and Applications Workshop (ITA) 2016, California, USA, 2016

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    One-Bit Unlimited Sampling,

    O. Graf, A. Bhandari, and F. Krahmer, “One-Bit Unlimited Sampling,” ICASSP 2019, Brighton, United Kingdom, May 2019

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Noise folding in compressed sensing,

    E. Arias-Castro and Y . Eldar, “Noise folding in compressed sensing,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 478–481, 2011

    work page 2011

  27. [27]

    Welch, ”Lower Bounds on the Maximum Cross Correlation of Signals”

    L.R. Welch, ”Lower Bounds on the Maximum Cross Correlation of Signals”. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. 20 (3), pp.397-399, May 1974

    work page 1974

  28. [28]

    Tipping, ”Sparse Bayesian Learning and the Relevance Vector Ma- chine”, Journal of Machine Learning Research , JMLR.org, 1, pp.211– 244, 2001

    M. Tipping, ”Sparse Bayesian Learning and the Relevance Vector Ma- chine”, Journal of Machine Learning Research , JMLR.org, 1, pp.211– 244, 2001

    work page 2001

  29. [29]

    S. Ji, Y . Xue, L. Carin, ”Bayesian Compressive Sensing”, IEEE Trans- actions on Signal Processing, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 2346–2356, June 2008

    work page 2008

  30. [30]

    Analysis of the Reconstruction of Sparse Signals in the DCT Domain Applied to Audio Sig- nals,

    LJ. Stankovi ´c, and M. Brajovi ´c, “Analysis of the Reconstruction of Sparse Signals in the DCT Domain Applied to Audio Sig- nals,”IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Pro- cessing, vol. 26, no.7, pp.1216–1231, July 2018. 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 20 40 60 80 100 120...

    work page 2018