Analysis versus synthesis in signal priors

The concept of prior probability for signals plays a key role in the successful solution of many inverse problems. Much of the literature on this topic can be divided between analysis-based and synthesis-based priors. Analysis-based priors assign probability to a signal through various forward measurements of it, while synthesis-based priors seek a reconstruction of the signal as a combination of atom signals. The algebraic similarity between the two suggests that they could be strongly related; however, in the absence of a detailed study, contradicting approaches have emerged. While the computationally intensive synthesis approach is receiving ever-increasing attention and is notably preferred, other works hypothesize that the two might actually be much closer, going as far as to suggest that one can approximate the other. In this paper we describe the two prior classes in detail, focusing on the distinction between them. We show that although in the simpler complete and undercomplete formulations the two approaches are equivalent, in their overcomplete formulation they depart. Focusing on the ℓ1 case, we present a novel approach for comparing the two types of priors based on high-dimensional polytopal geometry. We arrive at a series of theoretical and numerical results establishing the existence of an unbridgeable gap between the two.