Compressed sensing for volterra and polynomial regression models

Volterra filtering and polynomial regression are two widely utilized tools for nonlinear system modeling and inference. They are both critically challenged by the curse of dimensionality, which is typically alleviated via kernel regression. However, exciting diverse applications ranging from neuroscience to genome-wide association (GWA) analysis call for parsimonious polynomial expansions of critical interpretative value. Unfortunately, kernel regression cannot yield sparsity in the primal domain, where compressed sampling approaches can offer a viable alternative. Following the compressed sampling principle, a sparse polynomial expansion can be recovered by far fewer measurements compared to the least squares (LS)-based approaches. But how many measurements are sufficient for a given level of sparsity? This paper is the first attempt to answer this question by analyzing the restricted isometry properties for commonly met polynomial regression settings. Additionally, the merits of compressed sampling approaches to polynomial modeling are corroborated on synthetic and real data for quantitative genotype-phenotype analysis.

[1]  H. Rauhut Compressive Sensing and Structured Random Matrices , 2009 .

[2]  Theodore W. Berger,et al.  The Neurobiological Basis of Cognition: Identification by Multi-Input, Multioutput Nonlinear Dynamic Modeling , 2010, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[3]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent. , 2010, Journal of statistical software.

[4]  Shizhong Xu,et al.  An Empirical Bayes Method for Estimating Epistatic Effects of Quantitative Trait Loci , 2007, Biometrics.

[5]  Holger Rauhut,et al.  Compressive Sensing with structured random matrices , 2012 .

[6]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  A Unifying View of Wiener and Volterra Theory and Polynomial Kernel Regression , 2006, Neural Computation.

[7]  Emmanuel J. Candès,et al.  Decoding by linear programming , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[8]  R. Tibshirani Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso , 1996 .

[9]  Robert D. Nowak,et al.  Toeplitz Compressed Sensing Matrices With Applications to Sparse Channel Estimation , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[10]  Georgios B. Giannakis,et al.  Sparsity-aware estimation of nonlinear Volterra kernels , 2009, 2009 3rd IEEE International Workshop on Computational Advances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing (CAMSAP).

[11]  P. Bickel,et al.  SIMULTANEOUS ANALYSIS OF LASSO AND DANTZIG SELECTOR , 2008, 0801.1095.

[12]  V. J. Mathews,et al.  Polynomial Signal Processing , 2000 .

[13]  H. Zou The Adaptive Lasso and Its Oracle Properties , 2006 .

[14]  Anthony Widjaja,et al.  Learning with Kernels: Support Vector Machines, Regularization, Optimization, and Beyond , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks.

[15]  Patrick M. Hayes,et al.  Regions of the genome that affect agronomic performance in two-row barley , 1996 .

[16]  Massimo Fornasier,et al.  Theoretical Foundations and Numerical Methods for Sparse Recovery , 2010, Radon Series on Computational and Applied Mathematics.

[17]  Trevor J. Hastie,et al.  Genome-wide association analysis by lasso penalized logistic regression , 2009, Bioinform..