Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Robust One-Bit Recovery via ReLU Generative Networks: Near-Optimal Statistical Rate and Global Landscape Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dithered one-bit measurements with a ReLU generative prior recover every bounded target uniformly at rate $\widetilde{O}(kn\log d/\varepsilon^2)$; under a weight-distribution condition the ERM landscape has no spurious stationary points…

desk verdict A sound near-optimal statistical result for dithered one-bit recovery with ReLU priors, wrapped in a computational claim whose WDC-dependent constants put it at a far weaker scale. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05368 v3 pith:OCF7PYXZ submitted 2019-08-14 math.ST cs.LGstat.MLstat.TH

Shuang Qiu , Xiaohan Wei , Zhuoran Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.STcs.LGstat.MLstat.TH MSC 62C2062J0768T07
keywords one-bitcompressedsensinggenerativepriorsReLUnetworksempiricalriskminimizationditheredquantizationsub-exponentialmeasurementsnon-convexlandscapesamplecomplexity
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

Robust one-bit compressed sensing is usually studied under sparsity in a known basis; this paper replaces that assumption with a fixed $n$-layer ReLU generative prior $G:\mathbb{R}^k\to\mathbb{R}^d$, so the target is $\theta_0=G(x_0)$. It proposes to recover $G(x_0)$ by an unconstrained ERM over the low-dimensional representation $x$, and proves that $m=\widetilde{O}(kn\log d/\varepsilon^2)$ dithered sub-exponential measurements suffice for every bounded target simultaneously, up to error $\varepsilon$. For shallow generators, an information-theoretic lower bound shows this rate is optimal up to logarithmic factors. The same loss, under a condition on the layer weights, has no bad stationary points away from the true representation and its negative multiple, making the non-convex recovery problem computationally tractable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are dithering and piecewise linearity. Uniform dithering makes $\mathbb{E}_\tau[\mathrm{sign}(V+\tau)]=V/\lambda$ when $|V|\le\lambda$, which linearizes the quantized observation and yields the quadratic bias term in the ERM. The ReLU network's piecewise linearity cuts $\mathbb{R}^k$ into at most $(dk+1)^n\le(2d)^{kn}$ linear pieces; counting these pieces converts a two-parameter empirical-process supremum into a covering argument over $2k$-dimensional subspaces, and a VC-dimension bound of order $kn\log d$ controls the fraction of indices whose signs change under the covering. For the landscape analysis, the named condition is the Weight Distribution Condition (WDC): each layer matrix, after the ReLU nonlinearity, approximately preserves the angle between any two inputs. WDC plus an angle-recursion map $h_{x,x_0}$ forces the gradient to align with either $x_0$ or $-\rho_n x_0$, where $\rho_n\in(0,1]$ is a depth-dependent scalar tending to $1$.

What would settle it

Choose a two-layer ReLU network whose weight matrix is designed to violate the Weight Distribution Condition (e.g., a rank-deficient or near-zero row), generate dithered one-bit measurements of a fixed $G(x_0)$, and grid-search the representation space for a point far from both $x_0$ and $-\rho_n x_0$ with no negative directional derivative of the ERM; such a point would refute the landscape theorem, while checking whether ERM solutions still meet the $\varepsilon$ error bound would test the statistical theorem independently.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that the sign-quantization difficulty disappears when dithering noise $\tau\sim\mathrm{Unif}[-\lambda,\lambda]$ is introduced: conditionally, the expected signed measurement becomes proportional to $\langle a,G(x_0)\rangle+\xi$, so the population version of the loss $L(x)=\|G(x)\|_2^2-\frac{2\lambda}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m y_i\langle a_i,G(x)\rangle$ has a quadratic bias term in the output space. The remaining obstacle is uniform concentration of the empirical process over pairs $(x,x_0)$, and the paper shows that the piecewise-linear structure of ReLU networks bounds the relevant complexity by the number of linear pieces, $(2d)^{kn}$, leading to the stated rate. The landscape theorems assert that whenever every layer satisfies the Weight Distribution Condition, any point outside small neighborhoods of $x_0$ and $-\rho_n x_0$ has a descent direction, and the global minimum lies in the $x_0$-neighborhood rather than the negative-multiple one.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every layer's weight matrix satisfies the Weight Distribution Condition with a very small error (roughly $\varepsilon_{wdc}\lesssim n^{-32}$ in the theorem's stated form); for arbitrary or learned ReLU weights there is no guarantee, so a network violating the condition could still have spurious stationary points even though the uniform statistical recovery bound remains valid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A fixed ReLU generative model can serve as a drop-in prior for one-bit sensing: sample complexity scales with latent dimension $k$ and depth $n$, with only a logarithmic dependence on ambient dimension $d$.
  • Recovery is uniform: the same measurement count guarantees simultaneous recovery of every target $G(x_0)$ with $\|G(x_0)\|_2\le R$, so the target may be chosen adversarially.
  • Under the Weight Distribution Condition, gradient-type local search on the ERM will not be trapped at spurious stationary points; the only basins are near the true representation and its negative multiple.
  • For shallow generators the sample rate is optimal up to $\log(1/\varepsilon)$ and $k$ factors, matching classical sparse one-bit sensing without requiring a known sparsity basis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the statistical argument uses only piecewise linearity, the same rate should carry over to leaky-ReLU, max-pooling, or other piecewise-linear generators; the paper says the extension is plausible but does not prove it.
  • The linear dependence on depth $n$ enters through the $(2d)^{kn}$ linear-piece count; for realistic trained networks with far fewer effective regions, the bound may be loose, and measuring the effective linear-piece count would be a direct test.
  • Whether the Weight Distribution Condition can be enforced or certified for learned weights is open; if training can maintain approximate angle preservation, the landscape theorem becomes usable beyond random expansive Gaussian networks.
  • The theorem requires $\lambda$ to grow logarithmically in $1/\varepsilon$, so extreme accuracy demands a wide dithering range; hardware with limited dynamic range will face a trade-off between precision and the validity of the bound.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies robust one-bit compressed sensing with dithered sub-exponential measurements and an n-layer ReLU generative prior. The authors propose an unconstrained empirical risk minimization (ERM) for recovering the target G(x0), prove a uniform statistical sample-complexity bound of O~(kn log d / ε^2) under a weak sub-exponential measurement assumption, and establish an information-theoretic lower bound showing near-optimality for shallow networks. On the computational side, they analyze the landscape of the ERM under a Weight Distribution Condition (WDC), claiming that with high probability no spurious stationary points exist outside small neighborhoods of x0 and -ρ_n x0, and that the global minimizer lies near x0 under further assumptions. The statistical proof uses a dithering-bias lemma and a VC-dimension-based uniform empirical-process bound; the computational proof uses WDC and concentration lemmas. The paper is carefully written with detailed proofs in the supplement.

Significance. If the statistical theorem is correct, it is a genuine contribution: it provides uniform recovery guarantees for one-bit compressed sensing under sub-exponential measurements with a generative prior, without REC-type assumptions, and matches the information-theoretic lower bound up to logarithmic factors for shallow networks. The lower-bound construction via group-sparse signals is elegant and correctly transfers from linear to quantized observations. The landscape analysis is a useful step toward understanding non-convex ERM with generative priors, and the WDC-based framework connects to prior work. However, the computational half is substantially weaker than the statistical half: its assumptions force enormous layer widths and sample sizes, and it does not provide an actual algorithm. The paper's main value is the near-optimal statistical rate and the clean proof of the uniform bound; the computational claims require significant qualification.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Theorem 3.8 (cf. Theorem 3.2)] The computational guarantee is not at near-optimal sample complexity. Theorem 3.8 requires c1 n^8 ε_wdc^{1/4} ≤ 1 and m ≥ c2 λ^2 log^2(λm)(kn log(ed) + k log(2R) + k log m + u)/ε_wdc^2. At the boundary of the WDC condition, ε_wdc ~ n^{-32}, so m = Ω(k n^{64} log d / polylog); under the stronger condition of Remark 3.11 (c n^{19} ε_wdc^{1/4} ≤ 1), m = Ω(k n^{152} log d / polylog). These rates are astronomically larger than the O~(kn log d / ε^2) statistical guarantee in Theorem 3.2. Thus the phrases 'joint statistical and computational analysis' and 'near-optimal rate' in the abstract and introduction apply only to the statistical half; the landscape theorems hold only in a regime where the sample size has a polynomial-in-n blow-up. This mismatch should be stated explicitly and the computational claims moderated.
  2. [Section 3.3, Theorem 3.8] The radius δ2 = c5 n^{14} ε_wdc^{1/4} ||x0|| around -ρ_n x0 is not guaranteed to be small under the stated condition c1 n^8 ε_wdc^{1/4} ≤ 1. At the edge of that condition, ε_wdc^{1/4} ~ n^{-8}, so δ2 is of order n^6 ||x0||. Consequently, the conclusion 'no stationary point outside of small neighborhoods around x0 and -ρ_n x0' is only accurate for the neighborhood of x0; the neighborhood of -ρ_n x0 can be enormous. To make B(-ρ_n x0, δ2) comparable to the O(n^{-5}||x0||) ball used in Theorem 3.10, one needs the separate condition c n^{19} ε_wdc^{1/4} ≤ 1, which is not part of Theorem 3.8 and again forces the n^{152} sample scaling. The statement of Theorem 3.8 should be reframed so that the two neighborhoods are treated asymmetrically, or the condition should be strengthened.
  3. [Definition 3.7 and Section 3.3] The computational half rests entirely on the Weight Distribution Condition for every layer. The only cited construction (Hand and Voroninski 2018) requires layer widths polynomial in ε_wdc^{-1}; with ε_wdc ≤ n^{-32}, this forces widths and hence the ambient dimension d to be at least n^{Ω(1)} k log k. For a fixed or learned ReLU generator there is no such guarantee, and the paper explicitly leaves WDC necessity open. Consequently the landscape results do not apply to the same class of networks covered by the statistical theorem, which requires only Assumption 3.1. This limitation should be elevated from a remark to a clearly stated restriction on the computational contribution, not presented as a companion guarantee for the same recovery problem.
  4. [Abstract and Sections 1.3, 4.3] No algorithm with a convergence guarantee is provided. The abstract introduces 'an algorithm' and Section 4.3 proves only existence of descent directions and compares function values near x0 and -ρ_n x0; it does not show that any polynomial-time method converges to a global minimizer, nor does it give iteration complexity. Given the paper's claim of a 'joint statistical and computational analysis,' the computational part should either include an explicit algorithm (e.g., a descent or projected scheme with a convergence proof) or be described as landscape analysis only, without implying computational tractability.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Notation and typos] There are several typographical errors: 'Olicz' should be 'Orlicz' in the notation section; Theorem 3.8 contains 'sastisfies' and 'wights'; Figure 1 caption has 'Guassian' instead of 'Gaussian'; Corollary 3.5 has 'quantizd' instead of 'quantized'.
  2. [Equation (4)] The estimator x̂_m is defined as an exact global minimizer of L(x), but the ERM objective is not coercive in general (e.g., directions in which the ReLU network outputs zero produce L(x)=0 along a ray). The paper should state that x̂_m is taken to be an ε-approximate minimizer, or add conditions under which a global minimizer exists.
  3. [Supplement, Lemma A.4 proof] In the proof of Lemma A.4, the chain 'm ≥ √c2 k m ≥ √c2 k log m' appears dimensionally incorrect; the intended inequality is likely '√(c2 k m) ≥ √c2 k log m' or similar. Please correct this step so the lower bound on ηm/(3λ) is transparent.
  4. [Section 3.3 and Lemma C.3] The theorem statements use the condition c1 n^8 ε_wdc^{1/4} ≤ 1, while the proof of Theorem 3.8 invokes 88π n^6 ε_wdc^{1/4} < 1 and Lemma C.3 is stated with √ε. The exponents and constants should be reconciled, and Lemma C.3 should be restated in the notation used by the theorems.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the statistical and lower-bound results are derived from stated assumptions against external benchmarks, and the computational results rest on an explicitly stated WDC assumption rather than on fitted or self-referential inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 3.2 is proved from Assumption 3.1 through two internally developed ingredients: Lemma 4.1, which bounds the dithering bias using the explicit choice lambda >= 4 C log(64 C / eps), and Lemma 4.2, a uniform empirical-process bound obtained via piecewise-linear covering and VC-dimension arguments. Neither lemma is assumed from the conclusions; the sample-complexity bound contains lambda only as an explicitly lower-bounded algorithm parameter and does not fit any constant to the target recovery error. The lower bound (Theorem 3.4 and Corollary 3.5) is likewise independent: it constructs a specific three-layer ReLU network (Proposition 4.4) whose range contains nonnegative k-group sparse vectors, then applies external minimax bounds from Plan et al.; it does not presuppose the upper bound. The computational half (Theorems 3.8 and 3.10) explicitly assumes the Weight Distribution Condition, Definition 3.7, rather than deriving it; existence of such weights for expansive Gaussian layers is cited from Hand and Voroninski (2018), an external prior work, and the paper itself flags that 'The question whether WDC is necessary for analyzing the computational aspect of the generative network remains open and warrants further studies' (after Def. 3.7). That open question is a completeness/correctness limitation, not circularity, because WDC is an input assumption, not a renamed prediction. The only self-citation, Wei et al. (2019), appears in the introduction as background on nonlinear recovery with generative models and is not load-bearing for any theorem. The limitations noted in Remark 3.3 about the dependence on n and the large n-exponents in the WDC conditions are explicit scope caveats, not disguised inputs. Across the statistical upper bound, the lower bound, and the landscape analysis, no equation is equivalent to another by construction and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on a small set of probabilistic conditions and external theorems. The statistical result needs sub-exponential isotropic measurements and a bounded target range. The computational result additionally needs WDC, a strong condition on the weight matrices that the paper itself notes is not known to be necessary. The lower bound imports the minimax framework of Plan et al. (2016). No data are fitted; the only hand-chosen quantity is the dithering amplitude lambda, which has an explicit lower bound.

free parameters (1)
  • Dithering amplitude lambda = lambda >= 4 C_{a,xi,R} log(64 C_{a,xi,R} / epsilon)
    Chosen by hand to make Lemma 4.1's bias negligible; its logarithm enters the sample complexity via log^2(lambda m) factors. Not fitted to data, but a design choice that the theory requires.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Measurement vectors a are mean-zero, isotropic, and sub-exponential; pre-quantization noise xi is sub-exponential (Assumption 3.1).
    This is the core probabilistic model. All tail and isotropy bounds in Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2 use it; without it the ERM bias-variance decomposition fails.
  • domain assumption The target satisfies ||G(x0)||_2 <= R (bounded range), and the dithering amplitude lambda is chosen at least 4 C_{a,xi,R} log(64 C_{a,xi,R} / epsilon).
    Used to control bias in Lemma 4.1 and to define the sample complexity in Theorem 3.2; R is an input, lambda is an explicit design choice.
  • domain assumption For the computational results, every weight matrix W_i satisfies the Weight Distribution Condition with parameter epsilon_wdc (Definition 3.7), with epsilon_wdc small enough that c1 n^8 epsilon_wdc^{1/4} <= 1 (Thm 3.8) and c n^19 epsilon_wdc^{1/4} <= 1 (Thm 3.10).
    The landscape proofs reduce the gradient and risk to functions of h_{x,x0} via Lemmas C.3-C.4, which require WDC. Existence for random expansive Gaussian weights is cited from Hand and Voroninski (2018), but no guarantee is given for arbitrary or learned generators.
  • standard math The minimax lower bound of Plan et al. (2016) for linear measurements over star-shaped sets is accepted as a black box.
    Lemma B.3 (Theorem 4.2 of Plan et al. 2016) is used to prove Lemma 4.5 and hence the Omega(k log(d/k)/epsilon^2) lower bound.
  • standard math Standard concentration and empirical process tools: Bernstein, symmetrization, Chernoff, Dudley entropy bound, Haussler's VC dimension bound.
    Used in the variance analysis (Lemmas A.6-A.9) without proof; these are classical results cited to Wellner et al. (2013).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust One-Bit Recovery via ReLU Generative Networks: Near-Optimal Statistical Rate and Global Landscape Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OCF7PYXZ

@misc{pith2026190805368,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust One-Bit Recovery via ReLU Generative Networks: Near-Optimal Statistical Rate and Global Landscape Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OCF7PYXZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05368}
}
abstract

We study the robust one-bit compressed sensing problem whose goal is to design an algorithm that faithfully recovers any sparse target vector $\theta_0\in\mathbb{R}^d$ \textit{uniformly} via $m$ quantized noisy measurements. Specifically, we consider a new framework for this problem where the sparsity is implicitly enforced via mapping a low dimensional representation $x_0 \in \mathbb{R}^k$ through a known $n$-layer ReLU generative network $G:\mathbb{R}^k\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^d$ such that $\theta_0 = G(x_0)$. Such a framework poses low-dimensional priors on $\theta_0$ without a known sparsity basis. We propose to recover the target $G(x_0)$ solving an unconstrained empirical risk minimization (ERM). Under a weak \textit{sub-exponential measurement assumption}, we establish a joint statistical and computational analysis. In particular, we prove that the ERM estimator in this new framework achieves a statistical rate of $m=\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(kn \log d /\varepsilon^2)$ recovering any $G(x_0)$ uniformly up to an error $\varepsilon$. When the network is shallow (i.e., $n$ is small), we show this rate matches the information-theoretic lower bound up to logarithm factors of $\varepsilon^{-1}$. From the lens of computation, we prove that under proper conditions on the network weights, our proposed empirical risk, despite non-convexity, has no stationary point outside of small neighborhoods around the true representation $x_0$ and its negative multiple; furthermore, we show that the global minimizer of the empirical risk stays within the neighborhood around $x_0$ rather than its negative multiple under further assumptions on the network weights.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05368 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of landscape for L(x). We build a two-layer ReLU network G(·) with input x0 where x0 = [1, 1]>, Gaussian weights W1 ∈ R 64×2 and W2 ∈ R 1024×64 such that k = 2 and d = 1024. The samples {(ai , yi)} m i=1 are generated via standard Guassian vector ai and yi = sign(hai , G(x0)i + ξi + τi) with noise ξi ∼ N (0, 0.01), dithering τi ∼ Unif(−10, 10), and a large sample number m → +∞. by solving following mini… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    , Lapanowski, A

    Ai, A. , Lapanowski, A. , Plan, Y. and Vershynin, R. (2014). One-bit compressed sensing with non-gaussian measurements. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 441 222--239

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    and Valiant, L

    Angluin, D. and Valiant, L. G. (1979). Fast probabilistic algorithms for H amiltonian circuits and matchings. Journal of Computer and system Sciences, 18 155--193

    work page 1979

  5. [5]

    Why are deep nets reversible: A simple theory, with implications for training

    Arora, S. , Liang, Y. and Ma, T. (2015). Why are deep nets reversible: A simple theory, with implications for training. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.05653

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    , Loureiro, B

    Aubin, B. , Loureiro, B. , Maillard, A. , Krzakala, F. and Zdeborov \'a , L. (2019). The spiked matrix model with generative priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.12385

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    , Jalal, A

    Bora, A. , Jalal, A. , Price, E. and Dimakis, A. G. (2017). Compressed sensing using generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.03208

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Non-Gaussian Hyperplane Tessellations and Robust One-Bit Compressed Sensing

    Dirksen, S. and Mendelson, S. (2018 a ). Non-gaussian hyperplane tessellations and robust one-bit compressed sensing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.09409

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    and Mendelson, S

    Dirksen, S. and Mendelson, S. (2018 b ). Robust one-bit compressed sensing with partial circulant matrices. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.06719

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Gilbert, A. C. , Zhang, Y. , Lee, K. , Zhang, Y. and Lee, H. (2017). Towards understanding the invertibility of convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.08664

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    , Minsker, S

    Goldstein, L. , Minsker, S. and Wei, X. (2018). Structured signal recovery from non-linear and heavy-tailed measurements. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 64 5513--5530

    2018

  4. [12]

    and Wei, X

    Goldstein, L. and Wei, X. (2018). Non-Gaussian observations in nonlinear compressed sensing via Stein discrepancies . Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 8 125--159. ://doi.org/10.1093/imaiai/iay006

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    , Klatzer, T

    Hammernik, K. , Klatzer, T. , Kobler, E. , Recht, M. P. , Sodickson, D. K. , Pock, T. and Knoll, F. (2018). Learning a variational network for reconstruction of accelerated mri data. Magnetic resonance in medicine, 79 3055--3071

    2018

  6. [14]

    and Joshi, B

    Hand, P. and Joshi, B. (2019). Global guarantees for blind demodulation with generative priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.12576

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    , Leong, O

    Hand, P. , Leong, O. and Voroninski, V. (2018). Phase retrieval under a generative prior. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2018

  8. [16]

    and Voroninski, V

    Hand, P. and Voroninski, V. (2018). Global guarantees for enforcing deep generative priors by empirical risk. In Conference On Learning Theory

    2018

  9. [17]

    , Hand, P

    Huang, W. , Hand, P. , Heckel, R. and Voroninski, V. (2018). A provably convergent scheme for compressive sensing under random generative priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04176

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    , Laska, J

    Jacques, L. , Laska, J. N. , Boufounos, P. T. and Baraniuk, R. G. (2013). Robust 1-bit compressive sensing via binary stable embeddings of sparse vectors. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 59 2082--2102

    2013

  11. [19]

    , Karmalkar, S

    Kamath, A. , Karmalkar, S. and Price, E. (2019). Lower bounds for compressed sensing with generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.02938

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    , Theis, L

    Ledig, C. , Theis, L. , Husz \'a r, F. , Caballero, J. , Cunningham, A. , Acosta, A. , Aitken, A. , Tejani, A. , Totz, J. , Wang, Z. et al. (2017). Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a generative adversarial network. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision ...

    2017

  13. [21]

    , Luo, Z

    Lei, N. , Luo, Z. , Yau, S.-T. and Gu, D. X. (2018). Geometric understanding of deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.10451

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    and Scarlett, J

    Liu, Z. and Scarlett, J. (2019). Information-theoretic lower bounds for compressive sensing with generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10744

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    , Krzakala, F

    Manoel, A. , Krzakala, F. , M \'e zard, M. and Zdeborov \'a , L. (2017). Multi-layer generalized linear estimation. In 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT). IEEE

    2017

  16. [24]

    , Sahraee-Ardakan, M

    Pandit, P. , Sahraee-Ardakan, M. , Rangan, S. , Schniter, P. and Fletcher, A. K. (2020). Inference with deep generative priors in high dimensions. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory

    2020

  17. [25]

    and Vershynin, R

    Plan, Y. and Vershynin, R. (2013). Robust 1-bit compressed sensing and sparse logistic regression: A convex programming approach. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 59 482--494

    2013

  18. [26]

    and Vershynin, R

    Plan, Y. and Vershynin, R. (2014). Dimension reduction by random hyperplane tessellations. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 51 438--461

    2014

  19. [27]

    , Vershynin, R

    Plan, Y. , Vershynin, R. and Yudovina, E. (2016). High-dimensional estimation with geometric constraints. Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 6 1--40

    2016

  20. [28]

    S nderby, C. K. , Caballero, J. , Theis, L. , Shi, W. and Husz \'a r, F. (2016). Amortised map inference for image super-resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.04490

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    and Rawat, A

    Thrampoulidis, C. and Rawat, A. S. (2018). The generalized lasso for sub-gaussian measurements with dithered quantization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06976

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    , Yang, Z

    Wei, X. , Yang, Z. and Wang, Z. (2019). On the statistical rate of nonlinear recovery in generative models with heavy-tailed data. In International Conference on Machine Learning

    2019

  23. [31]

    Wellner, J. et al. (2013). Weak convergence and empirical processes: with applications to statistics. Springer Science & Business Media

    2013

  24. [32]

    Winder, R. (1966). Partitions of n-space by hyperplanes. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 14 811--818

    1966

  25. [33]

    and Jacques, L

    Xu, C. and Jacques, L. (2018). Quantized compressive sensing with rip matrices: The benefit of dithering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.05870

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Yang, G. , Yu, S. , Dong, H. , Slabaugh, G. , Dragotti, P. L. , Ye, X. , Liu, F. , Arridge, S. , Keegan, J. , Guo, Y. et al. (2018). Dagan: Deep de-aliasing generative adversarial networks for fast compressed sensing mri reconstruction. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 37...

    2018

  27. [35]

    Yeh, R. A. , Chen, C. , Yian Lim, T. , Schwing, A. G. , Hasegawa-Johnson, M. and Do, M. N. (2017). Semantic image inpainting with deep generative models. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    2017

  28. [36]

    Zhang, L. , Yi, J. and Jin, R. (2014). Efficient algorithms for robust one-bit compressive sensing. In International Conference on Machine Learning

    2014

  29. [37]

    and Gu, Q

    Zhu, R. and Gu, Q. (2015). Towards a lower sample complexity for robust one-bit compressed sensing. In International Conference on Machine Learning

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.