Infinite-Dimensional Compressed Sensing and Function Interpolation



We introduce and analyse a framework for function interpolation using compressed sensing. This framework—which is based on weighted \(\ell ^1\) minimization—does not require a priori bounds on the expansion tail in either its implementation or its theoretical guarantees and in the absence of noise leads to genuinely interpolatory approximations. We also establish a new recovery guarantee for compressed sensing with weighted \(\ell ^1\) minimization based on this framework. This guarantee conveys several benefits. First, unlike existing results, it is sharp (up to constants and log factors) for large classes of functions regardless of the choice of weights. Second, by examining the measurement condition in the recovery guarantee, we are able to suggest a good overall strategy for selecting the weights. In particular, when applied to the important case of multivariate approximation with orthogonal polynomials, this weighting strategy leads to provably optimal estimates on the number of measurements required, whenever the support set of the significant coefficients is a so-called lower set. Finally, this guarantee can also be used to theoretically confirm the benefits of alternative weighting strategies where the weights are chosen based on prior support information. This provides a theoretical basis for a number of recent numerical studies showing the effectiveness of such approaches.


High-dimensional approximation Interpolation Compressed sensing Structured sparsity Orthogonal polynomials 

Mathematics Subject Classification

41A05 41A10 41A63 65N12 65N15 


  1. 1.
    B. Adcock. Infinite-dimensional \(\ell ^1\) minimization and function approximation from pointwise data. Constr. Approx. (to appear), 2016.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Adcock and A. C. Hansen. Generalized sampling and infinite-dimensional compressed sensing. Found. Comput. Math., 16(5):1263–1323, 2016.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Adcock, R. Platte, and A. Shadrin. Optimal sampling rates for approximating analytic functions from pointwise samples. arXiv:1610.04769, 2016.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    V. A. Antonov and K. V. Holšhevnikov. An estimate of the remainder in the expansion of the generating function for the Legendre polynomials (generalization and improvement of Bernstein’s inequality). Vestnik Leningrad. Univ. Mat., 13:163–166, 1981.MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Bah and R. Ward. The sample complexity of weighted sparse approximation. arxiv:1507.0673, 2015.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Bigot, C. Boyer, and P. Weiss. An analysis of block sampling strategies in compressed sensing. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory (to appear), 2016.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Bourrier, M. E. Davies, T. Peleg, P. Pérez, and R. Gribonval. Fundamental performance limits for ideal decoders in high-dimensional linear inverse problems. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 60(12):7928–7946, 2014.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. J. Candès and Y. Plan. A probabilistic and RIPless theory of compressed sensing. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 57(11):7235–7254, 2011.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. J. Candès, J. Romberg, and T. Tao. Robust uncertainty principles: exact signal reconstruction from highly incomplete frequency information. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 52(2):489–509, 2006.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Chernov and D. Dũng. New explicit-in-dimension estimates for the cardinality of high-dimensional hyperbolic crosses and approximation of functions having mixed smoothness. J. Complexity, 32:92–121, 2016.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Chkifa, A. Cohen, G. Migliorati, F. Nobile, and R. Tempone. Discrete least squares polynomial approximation with random evaluations-application to parametric and stochastic elliptic PDEs. ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal., 49(3):815–837, 2015.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Chkifa, N. Dexter, H. Tran, and C. Webster. Polynomial approximation via compressed sensing of high-dimensional functions on lower sets. Technical Report ORNL/TM-2015/497, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (also available as arXiv:1602.05823), 2015.
  13. 13.
    I.-Y. Chun and B. Adcock. Compressed sensing and parallel acquisition. arXiv:1601.06214, 2016.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Cohen, R. A. DeVore, and C. Schwab. Convergence rates of best \(N\)-term Galerkin approximations for a class of elliptic sPDEs. Found. Comput. Math., 10:615–646, 2010.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Cohen, R. A. DeVore, and C. Schwab. Analytic regularity and polynomial approximation of parametric and stochastic elliptic PDE’s. Analysis and Applications, 9:11–47, 2011.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. L. Donoho. Compressed sensing. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 52(4):1289–1306, 2006.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Doostan and H. Owhadi. A non-adapted sparse approximation of PDEs with stochastic inputs. J. Comput. Phys., 230(8):3015–3034, 2011.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Foucart and H. Rauhut. A Mathematical Introduction to Compressive Sensing. Birkhauser, 2013.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Friedlander, H. Mansour, R. Saab, and I. Yilmaz. Recovering compressively sampled signals using partial support information. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 58(2):1122–1134, 2012.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    W. Gautschi. How sharp is Bernstein’s inequality for Jacobi polynomials? Electron. Trans. Numer. Anal., 36:1–8, 2009.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Gross. Recovering low-rank matrices from few coefficients in any basis. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 57(3):1548–1566, 2011.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. Gross, F. Krahmer, and R. Kueng. A partial derandomization of phaselift using spherical designs. J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 21(2):229–266, 2015.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Hampton and A. Doostan. Compressive sampling of polynomial chaos expansions: Convergence analysis and sampling strategies. J. Comput. Phys., 280:363–386, 2015.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. D. Jakeman, A. Narayan, and T. Zhou. A generalized sampling and preconditioning scheme for sparse approximation of polynomial chaos expansions. arXiv:1602.06879, 2016.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    T. Kühn, W. Sickel, and T. Ullrich. Approximation of mixed order Sobolev functions on the \(d\)-torus: Asymptotics, preasymptotics, and \(d\)-dependence. Constr. Approx., 42(3):353–398, 2015.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    L. Lorch. Alternative proof of a sharpened form of Bernstein’s inequality for legendre polynomials. Appl. Anal., 14:237–240, 1982/3.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    L. Mathelin and K. A. Gallivan. A compressed sensing approach for partial differential equations with random input data. Commun. Comput. Phys., 12(4):919–954, 2012.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    G. Migliorati. Polynomial approximation by means of the random discrete \(L^2\) projection and application to inverse problems for PDEs with stochastic data. PhD thesis, Politecnico di Milano, 2013.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    G. Migliorati. Multivariate Markov-type and Nikolskii-type inequalities for polynomials associated with downward closed multi-index sets. J. Approx. Theory, 189:137–159, 2015.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    G. Migliorati, F. Nobile, E. von Schwerin, and R. Tempone. Analysis of the discrete \(L^2\) projection on polynomial spaces with random evaluations. Found. Comput. Math., 14:419–456, 2014.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    A. Narayan, J. D. Jakeman, and T. Zhou. A Christoffel function weighted least squares algorithm for collocation approximations. arXiv:1412.4305, 2014.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    A. Narayan and T. Zhou. Stochastic collocation on unstructured multivariate meshes. Commun. Comput. Phys., 18(1):1–36, 2015.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    J. Peng, J. Hampton, and A. Doostan. A weighted \(\ell _1\)-minimization approach for sparse polynomial chaos expansions. J. Comput. Phys., 267:92–111, 2014.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    R. Platte, L. N. Trefethen, and A. Kuijlaars. Impossibility of fast stable approximation of analytic functions from equispaced samples. SIAM Rev., 53(2):308–318, 2011.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    H. Rauhut and R. Ward. Sparse recovery for spherical harmonic expansions. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Sampling Theory and Applications, 2011.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    H. Rauhut and R. Ward. Sparse Legendre expansions via l1-minimization. J. Approx. Theory, 164(5):517–533, 2012.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    H. Rauhut and R. Ward. Interpolation via weighted \(\ell _1\) minimization. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 40(2):321–351, 2016.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    G. Szegö. Orthogonal Polynomials. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1975.MATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    G. Tang and G. Iaccarino. Subsampled Gauss quadrature nodes for estimating polynomial chaos expansions. SIAM/ASA J. Uncertain. Quantif., 2(1):423–443, 2014.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    H. Tran, C. Webster, and G. Zhang. Analysis of quasi-optimal polynomial approximations for parameterized PDEs with deterministic and stochastic coefficients. ORNL/TM-2014/468, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (also available as arXiv:1508.01821), 2015.
  41. 41.
    E. van den Berg and M. P. Friedlander. SPGL1: A solver for large-scale sparse reconstruction., June 2007.
  42. 42.
    E. van den Berg and M. P. Friedlander. Probing the Pareto frontier for basis pursuit solutions. SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 2(890–912), 31.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Z. Xu and T. Zhou. On sparse interpolation and the design of deterministic interpolation points. SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 36(4):1752–1769, 2014.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    L. Yan, L. Guo, and D. Xiu. Stochastic collocation algorithms using \(\ell _1\)-minimization. Int. J. Uncertain. Quantif., 2(3):279–293, 2012.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    X. Yang and G. E. Karniadakis. Reweighted \(\ell _1\) minimization method for stochastic elliptic differential equations. J. Comput. Phys., 248:87–108, 2013.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    X. Yu and S. Baek. Sufficient conditions on stable recovery of sparse signals with partial support information. IEEE Signal Process. Letters, 20(5), 2013.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SFoCM 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations