Register to reply 
LS solution vs. preaveraging 
Share this thread: 
#1
Jan2213, 09:10 PM

P: 81

Hi,
I have a system of equations [itex]\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{A}\mathbf{c}[/itex] where the entries in [itex]\mathbf{c}[/itex] are small (say, K=10 elements) and the number equations (i.e., elements in [itex]\mathbf{y}[/itex]) is huge (say, N=10000 elements). I want to solve now for [itex]\mathbf{c}[/itex]; this can be done using LS with the Pseudo inverse: [tex]\mathbf{c} = \mathbf{A}^{\dagger} \mathbf{y}[/tex] However, the vector [itex]\mathbf{y}[/itex] is now heavily corrupted by noise (just assume iid Gaussian). I could calculate the mean over M consecutive elements in [itex]\mathbf{y}[/itex] and rows in [itex]\mathbf{A}[/itex] in order to average over the noise. The system would be collapsed to a smaller system with N/M entries which would be solved via LS. Now I ask the question: Is this better than directly using LS with the full system? I doubt because that's the sense of LS. However, I was not able to "proof" this analytically. Any help? Thanks, 


#2
Jan2213, 09:35 PM

P: 4,572

Hey divB.
Can you use the properties of a psuedoinverse to show that this holds? (Recall that a pseudoinverse has the property that C*C'*C = C) 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Matlab  averaging  Math & Science Software  17  
Averaging errors  Precalculus Mathematics Homework  4  
Averaging of velocities!  Introductory Physics Homework  14  
Dice Averaging Dilemna  General Math  18  
Signal averaging  Electrical Engineering  27 