LS Solution vs. Pre-Averaging: Which is More Effective for Noise Reduction?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter divB
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on comparing the effectiveness of Least Squares (LS) solutions versus pre-averaging techniques for noise reduction in a system of equations represented as \(\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{A}\mathbf{c}\). The speaker is attempting to solve for the vector \(\mathbf{c}\) using the pseudo-inverse method, specifically \(\mathbf{c} = \mathbf{A}^{\dagger} \mathbf{y}\), while dealing with noise in the vector \(\mathbf{y}\). The speaker questions whether averaging over consecutive elements in \(\mathbf{y}\) and \(\mathbf{A}\) to reduce noise yields a better solution than applying LS directly to the full system. The consensus indicates that while averaging may reduce noise, it does not necessarily improve the LS solution's accuracy.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Least Squares (LS) regression
  • Familiarity with pseudo-inverse properties
  • Knowledge of Gaussian noise characteristics
  • Basic linear algebra concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the mathematical properties of pseudo-inverses in depth
  • Research techniques for noise reduction in signal processing
  • Learn about the impact of averaging on data integrity in linear systems
  • Investigate alternative methods for solving underdetermined systems
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, data scientists, and engineers working with linear systems and noise reduction techniques, particularly those interested in optimizing solutions for equations affected by Gaussian noise.

divB
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
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,
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hey divB.

Can you use the properties of a psuedo-inverse to show that this holds? (Recall that a pseudo-inverse has the property that C*C'*C = C)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
14K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 83 ·
3
Replies
83
Views
22K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K