Signal Reconstruction from its
Spectrogram
Radu Balan
IMAHA 2010, Northern Illinois University, April 24, 2010
Overview
1. Problem formulation
2. Reconstruction from absolute value of
frame coefficients
3. Our approach
– Embedding into the Hilbert-Schmidt space
– Discrete Gabor multipliers
– Quadratic reconstruction
4. Numerical example
2/23
1. Problem formulation
• Typical signal processing “pipeline”:
In
Analysis
Processing
Synthesis
Out
Features:
Relative low complexity O(Nlog(N))
On-line version if possible
3/23
The Analysis/Synthesis Components:
x
xH
<·,gi>
c
 c gˆ
iI
i
y
i

y   ci g i
c  l (I )
2
Analysis
ci  h , g i
yH
iI
Synthesis
Example: Short-Time Fourier Transform
ck , f  x, g k , f
t /kb
F
ggk ,kf, (f t()t )ee22ifift
kb))
gg((ttkb
I  (k , f ); k  Z ,0  f  F  1  Z  Z F
H  l 2 (Z )
4/23
x(t+kb+M:t+kb+2M-1)
x(t+kb:t+kb+M-1)
*
*
=
=
g(t)
x(t+kb)g(t)
x(t+(k+1)b)g(t)
fft
f
ck,F-1
ck,0
fft
ck+1,F-1
ck+1,0
Data frame index (k)
5/23
ck,F-1
ck+1,F-1
ck,0
ck+1,0
ifft
ifft
*
*
=
=
ĝ(t)
+
6/23
Problem:
Given the Short-Time Fourier Amplitudes (STFA):
d k , f  x, g k , f 
kb M 1
 x(t ) g (t  kb)e
 2ift / F
t  kb
we want an efficient reconstruction algorithm:
Reduced computational complexity
On-line (“on-the-fly”) processing
ck,f
|.|
dk,f
Reconstruction
x
7/23
• Where is this problem important:
– Speech enhancement
– Speech separation
– Old recording processing
8/23
2. Reconstruction from absolute
value of frame coefficients
• Setup:
– H=En , where E=R or E=C
– F={f1,f2,...,fm} a spanning set of m>n vectors
• Consider the map:
N : E n / ~  R m , N ( x) 
x ~ y   x  zy,
 x, f 
k
1 k  m
for somescalar | z | 1
• Problem 1: When is N injective?
• Problem 2: Assume N is injective, Given c=N(x)
construct a vector y equivalent to x (that is, invert N
9/23
up to a constant phase factor)
N : R / ~ R
n
m
x ~ y   x  zy,
, N ( x) 
 x, f 
k
1 k  m
for somescalar z  1
Theorem [R.B.,Casazza, Edidin, ACHA(2006)]
For E = R :
• if m  2n-1, and a generic frame set F, then N is
injective;
• if m2n-2 then for any set F, N cannot be injective;
• N is injective iff for any subset JF either J or F\J
spans Rn.
• if any n-element subset of F is linearly independent,
then N is injective; for m=2n-1 this is a necessary
and sufficient condition.
10/23
N : C n / ~  R m , N ( x) 
x ~ y   x  zy,
 x, f 
k
1 k  m
for somescalar | z | 1
Theorem [R.B.,Casazza, Edidin, ACHA(2006)]
For E = C :
• if m  4n-2, and a generic frame set F, then N is
injective.
• if m2n and a generic frame set F, then the set of
points in Cn where N fails to be injective is thin (its
complement has dense interior).
11/23
3. Our approach
Recall: gk , f (t )  e2if t kb g(t  kb) , (k, f )  I
H  l 2 (Z ) , I  (k , f ); k  Z ,0  f  F 1  Z  Z F
• First observation:
d
2
k, f
 x, g k , f
2

 tr K x K g k , f
*

K x , K gk , f
HS
K x ( y )  y, x x , K g k , f ( y )  y, g k , f g k , f
E=span{Kgk,f}
x
K
Signal space: l2(Z)
Hilbert-Schmidt
nonlinear
embedding
Kx
Kgk,f
Hilbert-Schmidt: HS(l2(Z))
12/23
• Assume {Kgk,f} form a frame for its span, E.
Then the projection PE can be written as:
PE   , K g k , f
k, f
Qk , f
HS
where {Qk,f} is the canonical dual of {Kgk,f} .
Frame operator
X  S ( X )   X , K gk , f
k, f
HS
K gk , f
Qk , f  S 1 ( K g k , f )
13/23
• Second observation:
since:
gk, f  M f T k g
where M : h  Mh(t )  e 2it / F h(t ) , T : h  Th(t )  h(t  b)
it follows:
K gk , f  f k K g
where  : X  X  MXM * ,  : X  X  TXT *
14/23
• However:
S  S and S  S
 Qk , f    Q0,0
k
f
• Explicitely:
Q 
k , f t ,t
1 2
e
2if ( t1 t 2 ) / F
Q 
0 , 0 t  kb,t  kb
1
2
15/23
Short digression: Gabor Multipliers
• Goes back to Weyl, Klauder, Daubechies
• More recently: Feichtinger (2000), BenedettoPfander (2006), Dörfler-Toressani (2008)
ST FT Multiplier:
m   m  , g  g  d 2
Gabor Multiplier: m  Lattice m( ) , g  g 
Theorem [F’00] Assume {g , Lattice} is a frame for L2(R).
Then the following are equivalent:
1. {<.,g>g,Lattice} is a frame for its span, in HS(L2(R));
2. {<.,g>g,Lattice} is a Riesz basis for its span, in HS(L2(R));
3. The function H does not vanish,
H (e)  Lattice e( ) g , g 
2
, e  DualGroup( Lattice)
16/23
•
Return to our setting. Let
H ( , m)  
e
mf 

2i  k 

F 

kZ f Z F
g, gk, f
2
Theorem Assume {gk,f}(k,f)ZxZF is a frame for l2(Z).


Then Kg ; (k, f )  Z  ZF
1. is a frame for its span in HS(l2(Z)) iff for each
mZF, H(,m) either vanishes identically in ,
or it is never zero;
2. is a Riesz basis for its span in HS(l2(Z)) iff for
each mZF and , H(,m) is never zero.
k,f
17/23
• Third observation. Under the following settings:
– For translation step b=1;
– For window support supp(g)={0,1,2,...,L-1}
– For F2L


• The span of Kg ; (k, f )  Z  ZF is the set
of 2L-1 diagonal band matrices.





Kg  






0
0
0
0
g (0)
0
2
g (0)g (1)
k,f
0
2
0

0
0 g (0)g ( L  1)
0
0
g (0) g ( L  1) 0
g (0) g (1)
g (1)
0
0
0
g ( L  1)
0
0
0
2
0
0















g



18/23
• The reproducing condition (i.e. of the
projection onto E) implies that Q must
satisfy:

Xgk , f , gk , f Qk , f t ,t  X t1 ,t2 , for all X and t1 , t2    band
1 2
k, f
By working out this condition we obtain:
Q 
0 , 0 t ,t 
1

F
1
2it
e
d

0  g ( p)g ( p   )e2ip
p
19/23
• The fourth observation:
We are able now to reconstruct up to L-1 diagonals of Kx.
This means we can estimate
2
xt , xt xt 1 , , xt xt  L 1
Assuming we already estimated xs for s<t,
we estimate xt by a minimization problem:
2
2
2

min x x  K x t ,t  w1 xxˆt 1  K x t ,t 1    wJ xxˆt  J  K x t ,t  J 


for some JL-1 and weights w1,...,wJ.
Remark: This algorithm is similar to Nawab, Quatieri, Lim [’83]
IEEE paper.
20/23
Reconstruction Scheme
• Putting all blocks together we get:
Stage 1
Stage 2
zˆt0
|ck,F-1|2
W0

I
F
F
T


|ck,0|2
zˆtL1
WL-1
Least
Square
Solver
xˆt t
W  ( z 1 )   Q0,0 t ,t  z t
t
21/23
3. Numerical Example
22/23
Conclusions
All is well but ...
• For nice analysis windows (Hamming,
Hanning, gaussian) the set {Kgk,f} DOES
NOT form a frame for its span! The lower
frame bound is 0. This is the (main)
reason for the observed numerical
instability!
• Solution: Regularization.
23/23