The recovery of sparse data is at the core of many applications in machine learning and signal processing. While such problems can be tackled using $\ell_1$-regularization as in the LASSO estimator and in the Basis Pursuit approach, specialized algorithms are typically required to solve the corresponding high-dimensional non-smooth optimization for large instances.Iteratively Reweighted Least Squares (IRLS) is a widely used algorithm for this purpose due to its excellent numerical performance. However, while existing theory is able to guarantee convergence of this algorithm to the minimizer, it does not provide a global convergence rate. In this paper, we prove that a variant of IRLS converges \emph{with a global linear rate} to a sparse solution, i.e., with a linear error decrease occurring immediately from any initialization if the measurements fulfill the usual null space property assumption. We support our theory by numerical experiments showing that our linear rate captures the correct dimension dependence. We anticipate that our theoretical findings will lead to new insights for many other use cases of the IRLS algorithm, such as in low-rank matrix recovery.

(see Proposition 3).

Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) and fiber tractography are the only methods to measure the structure of the white matter in the living human brain. The diffusion signal has been modelled as the combined contribution from many individual fascicles of nerve fibers passing through each location in the white matter. Typically, this is done via basis pursuit, but estimation of the exact directions is limited due to discretization. The difficulties inherent in modeling DWI data are shared by many other problems involving fitting non-parametric mixture models. Ekanadaham et al. proposed an approach, continuous basis pursuit, to overcome discretization error in the 1-dimensional case (e.g., spike-sorting).

The problem of finding the sparsest solution to a linear underdetermined system of equations, as it often appears in data analysis, optimal control and system identification problems, is considered. This non-convex problem is commonly solved by convexification via $\ell_1$-norm minimization, also known as basis pursuit. In this work, a class of structured matrices, representing the system of equations, is introduced for which the basis pursuit approach tractably fails to recover the sparsest solution. In particular, we are able to identify matrix columns that correspond to unrecoverable non-zero entries of the sparsest solution, as well as to conclude the uniqueness of the sparsest solution in polynomial time. These deterministic guarantees contrast popular probabilistic ones, and as such, provide valuable insights into the a priori design of sparse optimization problems. As our matrix structure appears naturally in optimal control problems, we exemplify our findings by showing that it is possible to verify a priori that basis pursuit may fail in finding fuel optimal regulators for a class of discrete-time linear time-invariant systems.

Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) and fiber tractography are the only methods to measure the structure of the white matter in the living human brain. The diffusion signal has been modelled as the combined contribution from many individual fascicles of nerve fibers passing through each location in the white matter. Typically, this is done via basis pursuit, but estimation of the exact directions is limited due to discretization [1, 2]. The difficulties inherent in modeling DWI data are shared by many other problems involving fitting non-parametric mixture models. Ekanadaham et al. [3] proposed an approach, continuous basis pursuit, to overcome discretization error in the 1-dimensional case (e.g., spikesorting).

Weaknesses: First of all I should say that I like this paper. The following should be taken more like'issues in need of clarification' or'things a reader might be confused about' rather than'weaknesses'. As far as I can tell, Thm 2 and Prop 4 don't resolve this, and I find the experimental evidence difficult to interpret (more on that below). In particular, I'd be curious if it's possible to get rid of the constant term on the RHS of (9)? First, I'd expect the risk curves (of both l1 and l2 minimisers) to be decreasing in p, isn't that what this is all about? Second, it is claimed in Section 3(i), that the risk of l1-minimisers is unaffected by the norm of beta, but there is a clear difference between the green and the orange curve (BP, beta norm 1 or 0.1).

The paper is a good technical contribution to a phenomenon of widespread interest to the NeurIPS community. While some reviewers had initial concerns about the somewhat strong assumptions (range of validity of parameters, Gaussianity), the technical hurdles to overcome are significant and after the discussion, they were ameliorated.