Informative sensing of natural images

The theory of compressed sensing tells a dramatic story that sparse signals can be reconstructed near-perfectly from a small number of random measurements. However, recent work has found the story to be more complicated. For example, the projections based on principal component analysis work better than random projections for some images while the reverse is true for other images. Which feature of images makes such a distinction and what is the optimal set of projections for natural images? In this paper, we attempt to answer these questions with a novel formulation of compressed sensing. In particular, we find that bandwise random projections in which more projections are allocated to low spatial frequencies are near-optimal for natural images and demonstrate using experimental results that the bandwise random projections outperform other kinds of projections in image reconstruction.

[1]  Michael Elad,et al.  Optimized Projections for Compressed Sensing , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.

[2]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  The “independent components” of natural scenes are edge filters , 1997, Vision Research.

[3]  Ting Sun,et al.  Single-pixel imaging via compressive sampling , 2008, IEEE Signal Process. Mag..

[4]  Matthias W. Seeger,et al.  Compressed sensing and Bayesian experimental design , 2008, ICML '08.

[5]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  Edges are the Independent Components of Natural Scenes , 1996, NIPS.

[6]  J. Romberg,et al.  Imaging via Compressive Sampling , 2008, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine.

[7]  David J. Field,et al.  Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images , 1996, Nature.

[8]  Robert D. Nowak,et al.  Finding needles in noisy haystacks , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.

[9]  Jitendra Malik,et al.  A database of human segmented natural images and its application to evaluating segmentation algorithms and measuring ecological statistics , 2001, Proceedings Eighth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. ICCV 2001.

[10]  Robert D. Nowak,et al.  Compressive Sampling Vs. Conventional Imaging , 2006, 2006 International Conference on Image Processing.

[11]  Hyun Sung Chang,et al.  Learning Compressed Sensing , 2007 .

[12]  Emmanuel J. Candès,et al.  Near-Optimal Signal Recovery From Random Projections: Universal Encoding Strategies? , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[13]  J. H. van Hateren,et al.  Modelling the Power Spectra of Natural Images: Statistics and Information , 1996, Vision Research.

[14]  William T. Freeman,et al.  Informative Sensing , 2009, ArXiv.

[15]  Stéphane Mallat,et al.  A Theory for Multiresolution Signal Decomposition: The Wavelet Representation , 1989, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[16]  D. Donoho,et al.  Sparse MRI: The application of compressed sensing for rapid MR imaging , 2007, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[17]  R.G. Baraniuk,et al.  Universal distributed sensing via random projections , 2006, 2006 5th International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks.

[18]  E. Candès,et al.  Sparsity and incoherence in compressive sampling , 2006, math/0611957.

[19]  William T. Freeman,et al.  What makes a good model of natural images? , 2007, 2007 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.