Identifiability in Blind Deconvolution under Minimal Assumptions

Blind deconvolution (BD) arises in many applications. Without assumptions on the signal and the filter, BD is ill-posed. In practice, subspace or sparsity assumptions have shown the ability to reduce the search space and yield the unique solution. However, existing theoretical analysis on uniqueness in BD is rather limited. In an earlier paper of ours, we provided the first algebraic sample complexities for BD with almost all bases or frames. We showed that for BD of vectors in $\mathbb{C}^n$, with two subspace constraints of dimensions $m_1$ and $m_2$, the required sample complexity is $n\geq m_1m_2$. This result is suboptimal, since the number of degrees of freedom is merely $m_1+m_2-1$. We provided analogus results, with similar suboptimality, for BD with sparsity or mixed subspace and sparsity constraints. In this paper, taking advantage of the recent progress on the information-theoretic limits of low-rank matrix recovery, we are finally able to bridge this gap, and derive an optimal sample complexity result for BD with generic bases or frames. We show that for BD of vectors in $\mathbb{C}^n$, with two subspace constraints of dimensions $m_1$ and $m_2$, the required sample complexity is $n > m_1+m_2$. We present the extensions of this result to BD with sparsity constraints or mixed constraints, with the sparsity level replacing the subspace dimension.

[1]  Subhasis Chaudhuri,et al.  Blind Image Deconvolution , 2014, Springer International Publishing.

[2]  Alfred O. Hero,et al.  Blind reconstruction of sparse images with unknown point spread function , 2008, Electronic Imaging.

[3]  Emmanuel J. Candès,et al.  PhaseLift: Exact and Stable Signal Recovery from Magnitude Measurements via Convex Programming , 2011, ArXiv.

[4]  Sunav Choudhary,et al.  Sparse blind deconvolution: What cannot be done , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory.

[5]  Michael Elad,et al.  Optimally sparse representation in general (nonorthogonal) dictionaries via ℓ1 minimization , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  M. Junge,et al.  Stability in blind deconvolution of sparse signals and reconstruction by alternating minimization , 2015, 2015 International Conference on Sampling Theory and Applications (SampTA).

[7]  Thomas Strohmer,et al.  Self-calibration and biconvex compressive sensing , 2015, ArXiv.

[8]  Erwin Riegler,et al.  Information-theoretic limits of matrix completion , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT).

[9]  Tony F. Chan,et al.  Total variation blind deconvolution , 1998, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[10]  Yanjun Li,et al.  Identifiability in Blind Deconvolution With Subspace or Sparsity Constraints , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[11]  Rob Fergus,et al.  Blind deconvolution using a normalized sparsity measure , 2011, CVPR 2011.

[12]  Sunav Choudhary,et al.  Identifiability Scaling Laws in Bilinear Inverse Problems , 2014, ArXiv.

[13]  Mohammad Havaei,et al.  Blind Channel Equalization , 2012, ArXiv.

[14]  Yuejie Chi,et al.  Guaranteed Blind Sparse Spikes Deconvolution via Lifting and Convex Optimization , 2015, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing.

[15]  M. Salman Asif,et al.  Random channel coding and blind deconvolution , 2009, 2009 47th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton).

[16]  S. M. Doherty,et al.  Seismic Data Analysis: Processing, Inversion, and Interpretation of Seismic Data , 2000 .

[17]  Justin K. Romberg,et al.  Blind Deconvolution Using Convex Programming , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.