Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Compressed Sensing Based Residual Recovery Algorithms and Hardware for Modulo Sampling

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 This paper claims that modulo-ADC recovery can be made fast and robust by treating the first-order difference of the residual as a sparse signal, and that spending one ADC bit on folding indicators reduces recovery to a pseudo-inverse.

desk verdict Useful sparsity insight and a neat 1-bit side-information mechanism, but the main theorem's proof rests on an unquantified truncation approximation and the hardware demo is much weaker than the simulations. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12724 v1 pith:YSJBTBHL submitted 2024-12-17 eess.SP

Shaik Basheeruddin Shah , Satish Mulleti , Yonina C. Eldar This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP MSC 94A1294A20
keywords modulosamplingunlimitedcompressedsensingLASSOresidualrecoveryanalog-to-digitalconverterhighdynamicrange1-bitsideinformation
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

This paper claims that modulo sampling, which folds a high-dynamic-range signal into an ADC's range, can be unfolded by exploiting sparsity in the first-order difference of the residual (the difference between folded and original samples). The authors prove an upper bound on how many nonzero entries this difference can have, and use that to cast recovery as a LASSO problem solved by ISTA from out-of-band Fourier measurements. They then show that if the hardware spends one bit marking when folding occurs, recovery reduces to a simple pseudo-inverse computation, which is far faster and works at lower modulo thresholds. Numerical simulations and a hardware prototype with an OR gate support the claims. A sympathetic reader would care because this promises ADC designs that handle high dynamic range without clipping while recovering near the Nyquist rate.

What carries the argument

The central object is the first-order difference of the residual, $\hat{z}(n) = \Delta z(n)$, where $z(n) = f_\lambda(n) - f(n)$ is a piecewise-constant signal taking values in $2\lambda\mathbb{Z}$. Nonzero entries of $\hat{z}$ mark each $2\lambda$ level jump, i.e., each modulo folding event. Its sparsity is bounded by a level-crossing count for trigonometric polynomials of order $K = \lfloor N/(2\,\mathrm{OF})\rfloor$, and that sparsity makes the partial-DFT equation $\hat{\mathbf{F}}_\lambda = \mathbf{V}\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ solvable by $\ell^1$ minimization. When a 1-bit folding indicator reveals the support, the same equation collapses to the pseudo-inverse (18).

What would settle it

Construct a bandlimited signal whose energy is concentrated near the edges of the chosen $T$-duration window so that truncation creates substantial spectral leakage, count the level crossings of the true residual difference, and check whether the count exceeds $4K + 4K \lfloor (\|f\|_\infty - \lambda)/(2\lambda)\rfloor$; exceeding it would falsify Theorem 1. Alternatively, simulate LASSO-B2R2 on such a signal and test whether recovery fails despite satisfying the spark condition, which would indicate that the spectral-leakage approximation is load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The first-order difference of the residual, $\hat{z}(n)$, is sparse: Theorem 1 bounds its support by $L \le \min(4K + 4K \lfloor (\|f\|_\infty - \lambda)/(2\lambda)\rfloor, N)$ with $K = \lfloor N/(2\,\mathrm{OF})\rfloor$. Because $\hat{z}$ lives in the out-of-band Fourier coefficients of the folded samples, recovery of $\hat{z}$ from the partial DFT matrix $\mathbf{V}$ is a sparse linear inverse problem, solved here by the LASSO in (13) via ISTA. With a 1-bit folding-indicator stream $b(n)$, the support of $\hat{z}$ is known in advance, and the estimate becomes the oracle least-squares pseudo-inverse $\hat{\mathbf{z}}_T = \mathbf{V}_T^\dagger \hat{\mathbf{F}}_\lambda^q$ in (18). The paper also demonstrates that the extra bit can be obtained from the existing modulo hardware by adding a single OR gate, and reports numerical and hardware results showing lower MSE and much lower runtime than prior B2R2 recovery.

Load-bearing premise

The sparsity bound in Theorem 1 treats the truncated, periodized signal as if it were exactly bandlimited to $[-\omega_m,\omega_m]$, ignoring the spectral leakage introduced by truncation, and no error estimate is given; the practical choice of $N$ also relies on a 99%-energy heuristic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LASSO-B2R2 recovers modulo samples robustly at lower oversampling than higher-order-difference and prediction-based methods, with runtime much lower than B2R2.
  • The sparsity bound connects oversampling factor, modulo threshold $\lambda$, and the number of out-of-band measurements $M$ through the spark condition $L < (M+1)/2$, giving a design rule for choosing sampling parameters.
  • Bits distribution: using 1 of $B$ bits to mark folding events reduces recovery to a closed-form least-squares estimate, removing iterative solving entirely.
  • Hardware: the existing modulo-ADC prototype needs only an OR gate plus comparators to supply the 1-bit folding stream, making the faster algorithm practical.
  • At low $\lambda$, LASSO-B2R2 alone requires a higher sampling rate, but the 1-bit variant overcomes this limitation while keeping performance comparable to B2R2.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same sparse-residual viewpoint could extend to other signal models, such as finite-rate-of-innovation or graph signals, where the residual's difference may be sparse under a different bound.
  • The 1-bit side-information idea could be refined: instead of one bit per sample, flag only genuine folding events, potentially saving bits when folding is rare in a long record.
  • The spectral-leakage approximation in Theorem 1 is unquantified; a tighter analysis might change the sparsity bound and the operating region where LASSO-B2R2 is guaranteed to succeed.
  • Combining the spark condition with the bound on $L$ yields a concrete recipe for choosing $\mathrm{OF}$ and $\lambda$; stress-testing it on adversarial signals with rapid repeated foldings would show whether the rule is tight or pessimistic.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LASSO-B2R2, a compressed-sensing-based recovery algorithm for modulo (unlimited) sampling. The central idea is that the first-order difference of the residual signal, z-hat(n), is sparse; the authors derive an upper bound on its sparsity (Theorem 1), cast residual recovery as a LASSO problem solved by ISTA, and then introduce a 1-bit folding-indicator mechanism that reduces recovery to a pseudo-inverse computation. The paper also reports simulation comparisons against HOD, prediction-based, and B2R2 algorithms, and presents a hardware prototype that captures the 1-bit folding information with minimal additional circuitry. The claimed advantages are higher speed and robustness, and an improved performance at low modulo thresholds when the 1-bit side information is used.

Significance. If the sparsity bound and the recovery guarantees are made rigorous, the LASSO-B2R2 formulation is a valuable computational alternative to the sample-by-sample B2R2 method, and the 1-bit bits-distribution mechanism is a practical and economical hardware enhancement. The paper's strengths include a concrete algorithmic contribution, extensive numerical comparisons, and a working hardware prototype that demonstrates the 1-bit folding channel with only an OR gate added to an existing modulo-ADC. The main weaknesses are that the proof of the sparsity bound relies on an unquantified truncation/periodization approximation, and the hardware validation shows a substantially larger MSE than the corresponding simulations; both issues need to be addressed before the central claims are fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-A, Theorem 1] The proof of Theorem 1 truncates the finite-energy bandlimited signal f(t) to duration T, asserts that the truncated signal is approximately bandlimited to [-omega_m, omega_m], and then periodizes it to a trigonometric polynomial of order K. A nonzero finite-energy bandlimited signal cannot be time-limited, so the truncated signal has unbounded spectral support and the Fourier series in (10) is not finite. Dropping the terms with |k|>K changes the function and can change the number of level crossings, but no error estimate is supplied for this approximation. This is load-bearing because the sparsity of z-hat, and hence the justification for the LASSO formulation in (13), rests on this bound. Please provide a rigorous error estimate or replace the approximation argument with a direct bound on the number of level crossings of the original bandlimited signal, for example using properties of exponential-type functions.
  2. [Section II-B, time-limitedness property] The claim that choosing T via the energy condition (4) guarantees |f(t)| < lambda for all t outside [0,T] is not justified for general bandlimited L2 signals. Tail energy below (lambda - epsilon)^2 does not preclude a narrow excursion of amplitude larger than lambda outside [0,T]; such an excursion could have arbitrarily small energy while still being present in the bandlimited signal. If such a tail bump exists, z(n) is not N-limited, and the measurement model V z-hat = F-hat in (7) is corrupted by folds outside the window. The numerical experiments use random signals for which this effect is negligible, but the theoretical statement needs additional assumptions, such as a bound on the signal amplitude or a decay rate, or an explicit quantification of the resulting model error.
  3. [Section IV-B and IV-C, hardware results] The simulated LASSO-B2R2 with 1-bit reports MSE of -9.0683 dB (Table II), while the hardware result in Table IV reports MSE of 4.8 dB, a degradation of roughly 14 dB. Similarly, B2R2 and LASSO-B2R2 show hardware MSE of 7.8149 dB, far from the simulated values. The paper does not discuss this discrepancy. Since the hardware section is presented as demonstrating practical feasibility, please analyze the sources of degradation (e.g., comparator thresholds, timing, board non-idealities, noise) and report the actual folding-detection error rate, or temper the claim to indicate that the prototype demonstrates the 1-bit channel concept but does not yet achieve the simulated recovery performance.
  4. [Section IV-A and IV-B, oracle support in simulations] The pseudo-inverse recovery in (18) is evaluated in simulations using the true support T of the sparse vector z-hat. In the hardware, the support is estimated from the 1-bit folding stream, which is subject to detection errors. The comparison in Table II and Fig. 8 is therefore an oracle upper bound, not a performance evaluation of the full pipeline with estimated support. Please either simulate recovery using the support obtained from the actual 1-bit stream (with realistic errors) or explicitly state that the simulated results assume perfect folding detection, and assess how support-estimation errors affect the MSE.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I, first paragraph] The sentence 'Modern data acquisition systems relay on Analog-to-Digital Converters' contains a typo: 'relay' should be 'rely'.
  2. [Section III-B, equation (17)] The typo 'LASSSO' appears twice in (17); it should be 'LASSO'.
  3. [Section IV-C, hardware prototype] The text says 'Table II tabulates the MSE and the computational time required by each algorithm' when describing hardware results; the correct reference is Table IV.
  4. [Algorithm 1, line 15] The rounding operation 'z <- ceil(floor(z/lambda)/2)' is not explained; please clarify how this maps the soft-thresholded estimate to values in 2*lambda*Z.
  5. [Section III-D] The statement that 'the spark of V is at least M+1' is correct for a partial DFT matrix, but the phrase 'at least' combined with the subsequent condition L < (M+1)/2 is slightly imprecise; the relevant property is that the spark equals M+1 when any M columns are linearly independent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sparsity bound and 1-bit recovery are independent of their inputs; Theorem 1 has an uncontrolled approximation but no equation reduces to an input.

full rationale

The central claims do not reduce to their own inputs. The sparsity of z(n) is a property of the 2λZ-valued residual, and Theorem 1's bound is a crossing-count bound for the periodized truncated signal, derived independently of the LASSO recovery target. The LASSO problem (13) is a standard sparse linear inverse problem with the partial DFT matrix V, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The 1-bit mechanism supplies an extra measured channel (the folding-indicator support T), after which (18) is the least-squares solution on that measured support, not a fitted predictor. The main caveat is correctness, not circularity: the proof of Theorem 1 explicitly truncates f(t) to [0,T] and 'approximates' the bandwidth back to [-ω_m,ω_m], and the time-limitedness property inherited from [20],[22] is asserted via the energy condition (4), which does not by itself imply pointwise |f(t)|<λ outside [0,T]. These are uncontrolled approximation gaps that could invalidate the sparsity guarantee, but they do not make the theorem equivalent to its inputs. Self-citations to [20],[22],[36] supply background assumptions and hardware, not the derived result itself, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The algorithm relies on standard CS recovery theory and on domain assumptions about the signal being bandlimited, finite-energy, and time-limited. The main nonstandard assumption is neglecting spectral leakage in the sparsity-bound proof. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • N (discrete signal duration) = chosen via 99% energy rule
    The recovery problem size and the sparsity bound depend on N, chosen in Section II-B as the length capturing 99% of folded-sample energy. This is a heuristic selection, not derived from first principles.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption There exists a finite duration T with |f(t)| < lambda outside [0,T]; the 99% energy rule picks N = ceil(T/Ts)
    Used in Section II-B to make the residual z(n) finite and to justify equation (5).
  • ad hoc to paper Truncation spectral leakage is negligible: the truncated and periodized signal is treated as bandlimited to [-omega_m, omega_m]
    In the proof of Theorem 1 the authors state 'we approximate the bandwidth of f_tilde(t) to be [-omega_m, omega_m]'; no bound on the approximation error is given.
  • standard math A trigonometric polynomial of order K crosses any level at most 2K times
    Used in Theorem 1 proof; standard result cited as [42].
  • standard math The partial DFT matrix V has spark at least M+1
    Used in Section III-D to derive the identifiability condition L < (M+1)/2 for the sparse recovery.
  • domain assumption Quantization error is additive, i.i.d. uniform over [-Delta_B/2, Delta_B/2]
    Used in Section II-B to model f_q_lambda(n) and in the error bounds (17) and (19).
  • standard math ISTA with step-size 1/||V||^2 converges to a LASSO solution for the chosen initialization
    Used in Section III-B; standard proximal-gradient convergence result cited as [43].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Compressed Sensing Based Residual Recovery Algorithms and Hardware for Modulo Sampling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YSJBTBHL

@misc{pith2026241212724,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Compressed Sensing Based Residual Recovery Algorithms and Hardware for Modulo Sampling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YSJBTBHL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12724}
}
read the original abstract

Analog-to-Digital Converters (ADCs) are essential components in modern data acquisition systems. A key design challenge is accommodating high dynamic range (DR) input signals without clipping. Existing solutions, such as oversampling, automatic gain control (AGC), and compander-based methods, have limitations in handling high-DR signals. Recently, the Unlimited Sampling Framework (USF) has emerged as a promising alternative. It uses a non-linear modulo operator to map high-DR signals within the ADC range. Existing recovery algorithms, such as higher-order differences (HODs), prediction-based methods, and beyond bandwidth residual recovery (B2R2), have shown potential but are either noise-sensitive, require high sampling rates, or are computationally intensive. To address these challenges, we propose LASSO-B2R2, a fast and robust recovery algorithm. Specifically, we demonstrate that the first-order difference of the residual (the difference between the folded and original samples) is sparse, and we derive an upper bound on its sparsity. This insight allows us to formulate the recovery as a sparse signal reconstruction problem using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). Numerical simulations show that LASSO-B2R2 outperforms prior methods in terms of speed and robustness, though it requires a higher sampling rate at lower DR. To overcome this, we introduce the bits distribution mechanism, which allocates 1 bit from the total bit budget to identify modulo folding events. This reduces the recovery problem to a simple pseudo-inverse computation, significantly enhancing computational efficiency. Finally, we validate our approach through numerical simulations and a hardware prototype that captures 1-bit folding information, demonstrating its practical feasibility.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12724 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) BL signal f(t) and the corresponding modulo signal fλ(t) with λ = 0.25. (b) Residual signal, z(t) = fλ(t)−f(t). The samples between [300, 750] are displayed for better visibility. twice the maximum frequency present in the signal [1]. This minimum rate is known as the Nyquist rate. A key consideration in an ADC design is ensuring that the Dynamic Range (DR) of the ADC is greater than that of the input analog sig… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Modulo-ADC block diagram. reset ADCs [3], [4], [17], [18]. Among these modulo-based approaches, the recent Unlimited Sampling Framework (USF) has emerged as a particularly promising solution [19]. USF begins by preprocessing the high DR input signal f(t) using a modulo operation Mλ(.) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. First-order difference of the residual signal, shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Average NMSE versus SNR and average time versus SNR for OF= 4 and OF= 6 with λ = 0.25. 2 5 10 15 20 OF (a) 0 50 100 150 Average NMSE (dB) SNR = 5 dB Higher-Order Difference Prediction-Based B2 R2 LASSO-B2 R2 2 5 10 15 20 OF (b) -50 0 50 100 150 Average NMSE (dB) SNR = …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average NMSE versus OF for SNR= 5 dB and SNR= 10 dB. robustness compared to the HOD-based and prediction-based methods, albeit at a slightly higher computational cost. The robustness of LASSO-B2R 2 is on par with B2R 2 , but with reduced computational time. As mentione…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a)-(b) Average NMSE and average L for different OF and λ pair values, respectively. This challenge can be addressed using Tail-ℓ1-minimization algorithms. Consider the representation in (7), Fˆλ = Vˆz, where ˆz is assumed to be non-sparse. In this context, aiming to a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) BL signal with High DR. (b) Sampled and quantized modulo signal with OF= 3 and b= 6. (c) Sampled and quantized modulo signal with OF= 3 and b= 5 (blue color); along with the 1-bit information (orange color). (d)-(f) Estimated true signal using B2R 2 , LASSO￾B 2R 2 …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a)-(c) Average NMSE computed for various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hardware Prototype of modulo-ADC with additional 1-bit information. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Hardware Setup: A Modulo Board is paired with two 8-bit ADCs. One ADC utilizes all 8 bits to capture the signal information, while the other ADC uses its LSB to record the folding instance or level-crossing and the remaining bits to preserve the signal information. TA…

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. Modulo Sampling: Performance Guarantees in The Presence of Quantization

    eess.SP 2025-01 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper derives MSE guarantees for dithered modulo ADCs, claiming OF>3 and b>3 suffice for 1/OF^3 scaling, but the central proof omits a noise-leakage term.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Y . C. Eldar, Sampling Theory: Beyond Bandlimited Systems . Cambridge University Press, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Recovering High Dynamic Range Radiance Maps from Photographs,

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

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    A wide dynamic-range cmos image sensor using self-reset technique,

    D. Park, J. Rhee, and Y . Joo, “A wide dynamic-range cmos image sensor using self-reset technique,” IEEE Electron Device Letters, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 890–892, 2007

    2007

  4. [4]

    An implantable cmos image sensor with self-reset pixels for functional brain imaging,

    K. Sasagawa, T. Yamaguchi, M. Haruta, Y . Sunaga, H. Takehara, H. Takehara, T. Noda, T. Tokuda, and J. Ohta, “An implantable cmos image sensor with self-reset pixels for functional brain imaging,” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices , vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 215–222, 2015

    2015

  5. [5]

    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

    1998

  6. [6]

    Peak-to-average power reduction for ofdm by repeated clipping and frequency domain filtering,

    J. Armstrong, “Peak-to-average power reduction for ofdm by repeated clipping and frequency domain filtering,” Electronics Letters, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 246 – 247, 2002

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    An overview of peak-to-average power ratio reduction techniques for multicarrier transmission,

    S. H. Han and J. H. Lee, “An overview of peak-to-average power ratio reduction techniques for multicarrier transmission,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 56–65, 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

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

    J. Zhang, J. Hao, X. Zhao, S. Wang, L. Zhao, W. Wang, and Z. Yao, “Restoration of clipped seismic waveforms using projection onto convex sets method,” Nature Sci. Rep. , vol. 6, no. 39056, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Restoring lost samples from an oversampled band-limited signal,

    R. Marks, “Restoring lost samples from an oversampled band-limited signal,” IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 752–755, 1983

    1983

  2. [10]

    Error of linear estimation of lost samples in an oversampled band-limited signal,

    R. Marks and D. Radbel, “Error of linear estimation of lost samples in an oversampled band-limited signal,” IEEE transactions on acoustics, speech, and signal processing , vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 648–654, 1984

    1984

  3. [11]

    Clip correction in wireless lan receivers,

    R. Rietman, J.-P. Linnartz, and E. P. de Vries, “Clip correction in wireless lan receivers,” in 2008 European Conference on Wireless Technology, pp. 174–177, IEEE, 2008

    2008

  4. [12]

    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, pp. 1745–1748 vol.3, 1991

    1991

  5. [13]

    J. P. A. P ´erez, S. C. Pueyo, and B. C. L ´opez, Automatic gain control . Springer, 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    A review of automatic gain control theory,

    D. Mercy, “A review of automatic gain control theory,” Radio and Electronic Engineer, vol. 51, pp. 579–590, 1981

    1981

  7. [15]

    On the recovery of a band-limited signal, after instanta- neous companding and subsequent band limiting,

    H. J. Landau, “On the recovery of a band-limited signal, after instanta- neous companding and subsequent band limiting,” Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 351–364, 1960

    1960

  8. [16]

    The recovery of distorted band-limited signals,

    H. Landau and W. Miranker, “The recovery of distorted band-limited signals,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 97–104, 1961

    1961

  9. [17]

    An activity-triggered 95.3 db dr −75.6 db thd cmos imaging sensor with digital calibration,

    J. Yuan, H. Y . Chan, S. W. Fung, and B. Liu, “An activity-triggered 95.3 db dr −75.6 db thd cmos imaging sensor with digital calibration,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits , vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 2834–2843, 2009

    2009

  10. [18]

    Unlimited dynamic range analog-to-digital conversion,

    A. Krishna, S. Rudresh, V . Shaw, H. R. Sabbella, C. S. Seelamantula, and C. S. Thakur, “Unlimited dynamic range analog-to-digital conversion,” 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    On Unlimited Sampling and Reconstruction,

    A. Bhandari, F. Krahmer, and R. Raskar, “On Unlimited Sampling and Reconstruction,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 69, pp. 3827–3839, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    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., pp. 5722–5726, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Unlimited sampling beyond mod- ulo,

    E. Azar, S. Mulleti, and Y . C. Eldar, “Unlimited sampling beyond mod- ulo,” Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, vol. 74, p. 101715, 2025

    2025

  15. [24]

    λ–mimo: Massive mimo via modulo sampling,

    Z. Liu, A. Bhandari, and B. Clerckx, “ λ–mimo: Massive mimo via modulo sampling,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , vol. 71, no. 11, pp. 6301–6315, 2023

    2023

  16. [25]

    Com- putational array signal processing via modulo non-linearities,

    S. Fern ´andez-Mendui˜na, F. Krahmer, G. Leus, and A. Bhandari, “Com- putational array signal processing via modulo non-linearities,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 70, pp. 2168–2179, 2022

    2022

  17. [26]

    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 Trans. Signal Process., vol. 72, pp. 997–1014, 2024

    2024

  18. [27]

    Modulo sampling of FRI signals,

    S. Mulleti and Y . C. Eldar, “Modulo sampling of FRI signals,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 60369–60384, 2024

    2024

  19. [28]

    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 (GlobalSIP), pp. 336– 340, 2018

    2018

  20. [29]

    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

  21. [30]

    Sparse signal recovery from modulo observa- tions,

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

    2021

  22. [31]

    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

  23. [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. 108574, 2022

    2022

  24. [33]

    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 Inter- national Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 4584–4588, 2018

    2018

  25. [34]

    Modulo sampling and recovery in shift- invariant spaces,

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

    2024

  26. [35]

    Modulo sampling in shift-invariant spaces: Recovery and stability enhancement,

    Y . Kvich and Y . C. Eldar, “Modulo sampling in shift-invariant spaces: Recovery and stability enhancement,” 2024

    2024

  27. [36]

    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

    2023

  28. [37]

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

    S. Mulleti, A. Eyar, S. B. Shah, N. Glazer, S. Savariego, O. Cohen, E. Reznitskiy, M. Namer, and Y . C. Eldar, “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

  29. [38]

    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

  30. [39]

    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

  31. [40]

    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), pp. 3498–3503, 2024

    2024

  32. [41]

    Y . C. Eldar and G. Kutyniok, Compressed sensing: theory and applica- tions. Cambridge University Press, 2012. 12

    2012

  33. [42]

    M. J. D. Powell, Approximation Theory and Methods . Cambridge University Press, 1981

    1981

  34. [43]

    Proximal algorithms,

    N. Parikh and S. Boyd, “Proximal algorithms,” Found. Trends Optim., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 127–239, 2014

    2014

  35. [44]

    Compressed sensing with coherent and redundant dictionaries,

    E. J. Candes, Y . C. Eldar, D. Needell, and P. Randall, “Compressed sensing with coherent and redundant dictionaries,” Applied and Compu- tational Harmonic Analysis , vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 59–73, 2011

    2011

  36. [45]

    Stable signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate measurements,

    E. J. Cand `es, J. K. Romberg, and T. Tao, “Stable signal recovery from incomplete and inaccurate measurements,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 1207–1223, 2006

    2006

  37. [46]

    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 Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 489–509, 2006

    2006

  38. [47]

    Spark-level sparsity and the l1 tail minimization,

    C.-K. Lai, S. Li, and D. Mondo, “Spark-level sparsity and the l1 tail minimization,” Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis , vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 206–215, 2018

    2018

  39. [48]

    Tail-fista and applications,

    Y . Luo, C. Ma, S. Li, and Q. Zhao, “Tail-fista and applications,” Digital Signal Processing, vol. 138, p. 104025, 2023

    2023

  40. [49]

    Recursive-Tail-Fista for Sparse Signal Recovery,

    P. Pradhan, S. B. Shah, R. Randhi, and Y . C. Eldar, “Recursive-Tail-Fista for Sparse Signal Recovery,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., pp. 9726–9730, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

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