Breaking the Weak Recovery Limit in Random Phase Retrieval with Learned Regularizers

We consider the problem of support recovery for sparse binary signals from noisy linear measurements. For sparse Gaussian measurement matrices we identify sufficient conditions on the minimal sample size for maximum-likelihood recovery in the high-SNR regime $ds/p \to \infty$, where $p$ denotes the signal dimension, $s$ the number of non-zero components of the signal, and $d$ the expected number of non-zero components per row of measurement. Combined with known lower bounds, this yields an information-theoretic threshold of order $s\log(p/s) / \log(ds/p)$, making explicit the price of measurement sparsity. In particular, we highlight a regime where the sample-complexity loss from measurement sparsity is logarithmic while the computational gain is nearly linear. Second, we study recovery after sparsifying an originally dense Gaussian design: the observations are generated from the dense design, while estimation uses an independently sparsified design and a rescaled response. In the proportional regime $s=αp$, $d=ψp$, we prove that, for every fixed target error level $δ$ and every slack $\varepsilon>0$, a sample size of order $p/ψ^2$ is sufficient for support recovery for arbitrarily small $ψ$.

Recovery from linear measurements under sparse adversarial corruption is typically formulated as an exact-recovery problem: one seeks structural conditions on $\mathbf{A}$ (e.g., restricted isometry property) guaranteeing unique recovery of $\mathbf{x}^\star$ from $\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{A}\mathbf{x}^\star + \mathbf{e}$ with $\|\mathbf{e}\|_0 \leq q$. However, these guarantees provide no guidance once exact recovery fails. This limitation obscures simple robustness phenomena -- for instance, repeated rows in $\mathbf{A}$ can preserve nontrivial information about $\mathbf{x}^\star$ under sparse corruption. In this paper, we study what information about $\mathbf{x}^\star$ can be \emph{uniformly} recovered from $\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{A}\mathbf{x}^\star + \mathbf{e}$ for arbitrary $\mathbf{A}\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ and \emph{any} $q$-sparse $\mathbf{e}$. We show that the robust information is precisely $\mathbf{x}^\star + \ker(\mathbf{U})$, where $\mathbf{U}$ is the orthogonal projection onto the intersection of rowspaces of all submatrices of $\mathbf{A}$ obtained by deleting $2q$ rows. This clarifies how the row structure of $\mathbf{A}$ governs whether a $q$-sparse corruption allows exact, partial, or only trivial recovery. We further prove every $\mathbf{x}$ minimizing $\|\mathbf{y} - \mathbf{A} \mathbf{x}\|_0$ belongs to $\mathbf{x}^\star + \ker(\mathbf{U})$, yielding a constructive approach to recover this set. For i.i.d. Gaussian matrices, we establish a sharp phase transition between exact and trivial recovery. We sketch two applications: robust network tomography and signal reconstruction from oversampled DCT.

Learned generative priors now supply the regularization in ill-posed imaging inverse problems, and the uncertainty read from their posterior samples is taken as evidence earned from data. When examples of the true image are scarce, as in seismic and medical imaging, the widely adopted recourse is to train such a prior not on truths but on an archive of past reconstructions---prior laundering. We show that the uncertainty it then reports can be overconfident, and that no measurement-side check can reveal it. On the directions a forward operator leaves unresolved, this prior reports not what the data support but the assumption built into the older reconstruction method. More specifically, when the archive holds posterior samples, its population law---averaged over the measurements---is exactly the old regularizer advanced a single expectation--maximization step, frozen on the operator's blind subspace. The freeze leaves no signature in the data. Two truths differing only there induce identical data laws, so no goodness-of-fit test separates them, and self-consistency diagnostics, simulation-based calibration among them, pass whatever the prior believes. In the more realistic case, where the archive keeps a single-best reconstruction rather than posterior samples, the blind credible interval collapses to zero width. We prove these statements and demonstrate the inherited overconfidence on deployed seismic and groundwater imaging against a truth-trained control. We recommend reporting which directions the operator resolves---separating the confidence the data support from belief inherited through the pipeline.