Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 448

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Iterative Reweighted $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ Methods for Finding Sparse Solutions

Wipf, D., Nagarajan, S.·2010·IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing

Abstract

A variety of practical methods have recently been introduced for finding maximally sparse representations from overcomplete dictionaries, a central computational task in compressive sensing applications as well as numerous others. Many of the underlying algorithms rely on iterative reweighting schemes that produce more focal estimates as optimization progresses. Two such variants are iterative reweighted l1and l2minimization; however, some properties related to convergence and sparse estimation, as well as possible generalizations, are still not clearly understood or fully exploited. In this paper, we make the distinction betweenseparableandnon-separableiterative reweighting algorithms. The vast majority of existing methods are separable, meaning the weighting of a given coefficient at each iteration is only a function of that individual coefficient from the previous iteration (as opposed to dependency on all coefficients). We examine two such separable reweighting schemes: an l2method from Chartrand and Yin (2008) and an l1approach from Cande's (2008), elaborating on convergence results and explicit connections between them. We then explore an interesting non-separable alternative that can be implemented via either l2or l1reweighting and maintains several desirable properties relevant to sparse recovery despite a highly non-convex underlying cost function. For example, in the context of canonical sparse estimation problems, we prove uniform superiority of this method over the minimum l1solution in that, 1) it can never do worse when implemented with reweighted l1, and 2) for any dictionary and sparsity profile, there will always exist cases where it does better. These results challenge the prevailing reliance on strictly convex (and separable) penalty functions for finding sparse solutions. We then derive a new non-separable variant with similar properties that exhibits further performance improvements in empirical tests. Finally, we address natural extensions to group sparsity problems and non-negative sparse coding.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/jstsp.2010.2042413

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Cited by

See all 448

Metadata

Authors
Wipf, D., & Nagarajan, S.
Venue
IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing
Published
2010-04
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
317-329
ISSN
  • 1932-4553 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-0484
OpenAlex
W2161765392
Cited by
448
References
32
FWCI
22.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Iterative Reweighted $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ Methods for Finding Sparse Solutions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/jstsp.2010.2042413
The paper
Wipf, D., & Nagarajan, S. (2010). Iterative Reweighted $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ Methods for Finding Sparse Solutions. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing. https://doi.org/10.1109/jstsp.2010.2042413

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.