Additive energy, uncertainty principle and signal recovery mechanisms

Given a signal $f:G\to\mathbb{C}$, where $G$ is a finite abelian group, under what reasonable assumptions can we guarantee the exact recovery of $f$ from a proper subset of its Fourier coefficients? In 1989, Donoho and Stark established a result \cite{DS89} using the classical uncertainty principle, which states that $|\text{supp}(f)|\cdot|\text{supp}(\hat{f})|\geq |G|$ for any nonzero signal $f$. Another result, first proven by Santose and Symes \cite{SS86}, was based on the Logan phenomenon \cite{L65}. In particular, the result showcases how the $L^1$ and $L^2$ minimizing signals with matching Fourier frequencies often recovers the original signal. The purpose of this paper is to relate these recovery mechanisms to additive energy, a combinatorial measure denoted and defined by $$\Lambda(A)=\left| \left\{ (x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4) \in A^4 \mid x_1 + x_2 = x_3 + x_4 \right\} \right|,$$ where $A\subset\mathbb{Z}_N^d$. In the first part of this paper, we use combinatorial techniques to establish an improved variety of the uncertainty principle in terms of additive energy. In a similar fashion as the Donoho-Stark argument, we use this principle to establish an often stronger recovery condition. In the latter half of the paper, we invoke these combinatorial methods to demonstrate two $L^p$ minimizing recovery results.

Publication Details

Journal
ArXiv.org
Published
2025-04-20
Primary Topic
Mathematical Analysis and Transform Methods
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Additive energy, uncertainty principle and signal recovery mechanisms

ArXiv.org
Mathematical Analysis and Transform Methods
article

Additive energy, uncertainty principle and signal recovery mechanisms

article en

Abstract

Given a signal $f:G\to\mathbb{C}$, where $G$ is a finite abelian group, under what reasonable assumptions can we guarantee the exact recovery of $f$ from a proper subset of its Fourier coefficients? In 1989, Donoho and Stark established a result \cite{DS89} using the classical uncertainty principle, which states that $|\text{supp}(f)|\cdot|\text{supp}(\hat{f})|\geq |G|$ for any nonzero signal $f$. Another result, first proven by Santose and Symes \cite{SS86}, was based on the Logan phenomenon \cite{L65}. In particular, the result showcases how the $L^1$ and $L^2$ minimizing signals with matching Fourier frequencies often recovers the original signal. The purpose of this paper is to relate these recovery mechanisms to additive energy, a combinatorial measure denoted and defined by $$\Lambda(A)=\left| \left\{ (x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4) \in A^4 \mid x_1 + x_2 = x_3 + x_4 \right\} \right|,$$ where $A\subset\mathbb{Z}_N^d$. In the first part of this paper, we use combinatorial techniques to establish an improved variety of the uncertainty principle in terms of additive energy. In a similar fashion as the Donoho-Stark argument, we use this principle to establish an often stronger recovery condition. In the latter half of the paper, we invoke these combinatorial methods to demonstrate two $L^p$ minimizing recovery results.

ArXiv.org
Affordable and clean energy
Openalex Percentile: Top 38%
Mathematical Analysis and Transform Methods
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.