Active learning versus compressive sampling

Rui Castro, Jarvis Haupt, Robert Nowak

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

1 Scopus citations


Compressive sampling (CS), or Compressed Sensing, has generated a tremendous amount of excitement in the signal processing community. Compressive sampling, which involves non-traditional samples in the form of randomized projections, can capture most of the salient information in a signal with a relatively small number of samples, often far fewer samples than required using traditional sampling schemes. Adaptive sampling (AS), also called Active Learning, uses information gleaned from previous observations (e.g., feedback) to focus the sampling process. Theoretical and experimental results have shown that adaptive sampling can dramatically outperform conventional (non-adaptive) sampling schemes. This paper compares the theoretical performance of Compressive and adaptive sampling for regression in noisy conditions, and it is shown that for certain classes of piecewise constant signals and high SNR regimes both CS and AS are near-optimal. This result is remarkable since it is the first evidence that shows that Compressive sampling, which is non-adaptive, cannot be significantly outperformed by any other method (including adaptive sampling procedures), even in the presence of noise. The performance of CS schemes for signal detection is also investigated.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationIntelligent Integrated Microsystems
StatePublished - Sep 18 2006
EventIntelligent Integrated Microsystems - Kissimmee, FL, United States
Duration: Apr 19 2006Apr 21 2006

Publication series

NameProceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering
ISSN (Print)0277-786X


ConferenceIntelligent Integrated Microsystems
CountryUnited States
CityKissimmee, FL


  • Active Learning
  • Adaptive Sampling
  • Compressive Sampling
  • Noisy Randomized Projections

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Active learning versus compressive sampling'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this