Xiteng Liu, PhD

LucidSee Technologies
Toronto, Canada
August 28, 2023

Ethical Collapse in IEEE

Dear IEEE Board of Directors:

I am writing to report on an extensive collapse of ethics in IEEE, which I witnessed and

encountered all by my own experiences. It is very astounding and dismaying. It has been
obstructing the advance of science. Meantime, it wrecked my otherwise splendid career.
An analogy can summarily illustrate my most recent experience: By years of hard works,
I cultivated a new type of orange which is in much higher quality than existing ones. I
count on it to make a wealth. But when I tried to sell it in a market, a market clerk told
me that “You said you want to sell oranges here. But they are not oranges. They are
apples. So you are not allowed to sell here.” It was so obvious a lie. I appealed to his
manager and later to government. Stunningly, everybody there concurred with him.
Fortunately, I had had my oranges appraised by some experts elsewhere prior to going to
that market. All those experts had unanimously valued my oranges in high rates.
For three times, editors of IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing conducted fraudulent
review on my paper with the same obvious lie calling an orange an apple. Even worse,
Board of Governors, IEEE Signal Processing Society defaulted their duty to sustain the
IEEE standard of ethics, embraced and endorsed the obvious lie. In addition, IEEE Ethics
and Member Conduct Committee do not think editor lying in making a decision violates
IEEE Code of Ethics, and refused to investigate. It is so absurd and unbelievable that all
these have happened in the free world of 21st century, especially in the field of science. It
appears that entire IEEE stands by an obvious lie.

This is a big smudge and shame on IEEE, simply because my paper truly presents a
revolutionary achievement, as one of the anonymous reviewers of IEEE ICIP 2023
(International Conference on Image Processing) honestly commented:
“This paper proposes a high-efficiency compressive sensing (HES)
method for image acquisition. The key idea is simple but efficient,
which uses sample representations and Least Square Boost with L2
minimal for image sensing. They have achieved both quality and speed
improvement, which could be a good method for industry applications
for camera and digital devices. The attached link shows more cases to
see the efficiency of this method.” (Exhibit A)

My work is indeed great. It deserves respect of all IEEE members. I cherish it. I do not
like anybody to arbitrarily disparage and malign it. Unfortunately, it has been persistently
and vehemently maligned by some IEEE members with miscellaneous lies ever since.
Full paper, demo software, test data and PPT are all downloadable at www.lucidsee.ca.
List of contents:
I. Editorial misconducts, IEEE Transaction on Signal Processing
(1) Fraudulent reviews with false excuse
(2) Negligence of author petition
II. My paper, core excerpts
(1) Abstract (2) Key figures (3) Conclusion
III. Extensive collapse of ethics in IEEE
(1) Misconduct of Board of Governors, IEEE Signal Processing Society
(2) Misjudgement of IEEE Ethics and Member Conduct Committee
(3) Damage claim and remedy proposal
IV. Exhibits
A. Three reviewer comments of ICIP 2023
B. Comments of Michael Wakin
C. Appeal and Rebuttal
D. IEEE Code of Ethics.

I. Editorial misconducts, IEEE Transaction on Signal Processing

(1) Fraudulent reviews with obviously false excuse
I submitted my paper on high efficiency sensing to the journal on April 8, 2023. It was
assigned to area editor Dr. Michael Wakin (Colorado School of Mines) for prescreening.
I received notice of “immediate reject” on April 26, 2023. Observed the sole excuse to
reject (Exhibit B) obviously false, I filed appeal and rebuttal to Editor-in-Chief (Exhibit
C) on May 9, 2023. I received notice of reject again in which the same false excuse was
reiterated on June 20. In fact, not only was the false excuse clearly refuted by my own
rebuttal, but also was unanimously disproved by the reviewers of IEEE ICIP 2023
(Exhibit A). I filed complaint about the journal’s misconducts to the Board of Governors,
IEEE Signal Processing Society on July 24. I received the third notice of reject from
Editor-in-Chief on June 26, who still stuck to the same false excuse for the third time,
despite his prior knowledge of the review comments of IEEE ICIP 2023, to the extreme
of being unethical and nonprofessional.
It was unconscious of Michael to write the obviously false excuse that “The proposed
idea seems to fall into the category of transform coding (JPEG type),” with the ensuing
arguments totally irrelevant to the proposed idea or transform coding at all (Exhibit B).
Besides the 10 pages of meticulous descriptions of the method, including mathematical
rationale, condition and methodology, computing paradigm, computing effect and
experimental results, the paper provides three figures which respectively illustrate the
computing paradigms of data compression, compressed sensing and high efficiency
sensing. Only by a glimpse at the figures can even a high school student easily tell that
the counterpart of high efficiency sensing is compressed sensing, not data compression. It
truly is oranges and apples. It is impossible for Michael, an expert on compressed sensing,
to err incompetently or inadvertently. Thus, it certainly was intentionally false. Only from
despair which ruins both conscience and consciousness can such an absurd lie stem. It is
a desperate lie. When a toddler calls a donkey a horse, we know it is a funny error. We
can explain and educate. But if a group of biologists insist on calling a deer a horse or
calling an orange an apple, then it must be a malicious lie. Any explanation is futile.
This exactly is what happened here. Fortunately, the anonymous reviewers of IEEE ICIP
2023 had already unanimously disproved the lie in advance and made the malice futile.
Indeed, I am a top expert in transform coding. My work on data compression beats both
Microsoft (JPEG XR) and Google (WebP). However, I am an even better expert at
compressed sensing than data compression. My PhD dissertation Sparse Signal
Representation in Redundant Systems (Department of Mathematics, University of South
Carolina, May 2006) was the earliest PhD thesis systematically relevant to compressed
sensing. It enabled and qualified me to incisively perceive the theoretical flaws of
compressed sensing. Even better, it ushered me to embark on the endeavor to redress the
flaws and eventually culminated in the construction of high efficiency sensing theory.
I have rebutted Michael’s all-false comments in my Appeal and Rebuttal (Exhibit C),
hence no need to repeat here. In his comments, Michael mainly attempted in vain to
defend compressed sensing theory. My paper consists of two main correlated parts: (1)
analysis of flaws of compressed sensing theory (CS), and (2) specification of high
efficiency sensing theory (HES). As the motive and eventual effect, the elaboration of
theoretical rectifications cogently expounds the source of the immense improvement in
technical performance. Only the flaws of CS redressed by HES are analyzed in my paper,
while many other flaws such as those involving RIP are not even mentioned. The core
flaw of CS pinpointed in my paper is that “Compressed sensing massively loses data
quality. Drastic distortion ruins applicability.” Without denial of this core flaw, any
defense of compressed sensing is pointless and futile. Michael implicitly acknowledged
(without denial) both the core flaw of compressed sensing and the revolutionary
performance of high efficiency sensing. Thus, his decision to reject the paper is invalid.

(2) Negligence of author petition

In my Appeal and Rebuttal (Exhibit C), I explicated the bias and antagonism of some
practitioners of compressed sensing theory toward high efficiency sensing theory. The
crushing contrast in technical performance engenders irreconcilable competition between
the two theories, which antagonizes some practitioners of compressed sensing so much as
to lose both ethics and decency. They always disparage by distortions in various lies.
Therefore, currently active practitioners of compressed sensing should be recused from
reviewing my paper, due to conflict of interest in the competition between two theories.
Apparently, my request to recuse practitioners of compressed sensing from reviewing my
paper was neglected by the journal. From the review comments after appeal, I am
dismayed to find that the same false statements were repeated. This reveals that the
journal perfunctorily let Michael himself or somebody equivalent to him via collusion
repeat the false statements once again. Truth may converge, while lies always diverge.
Only from the same source can a lie recur. Both reviews were fraudulent and invalid.
Through this submission experience, I witnessed the deterioration of ethics among some
editors of this journal. I wish this journal would not reject a paper using false excuses
once again in the future. Any excuse for rejection must be true at least, if not convincing.
Fraudulent editorial review violates IEEE Code of Ethics (Exhibit D), involving the
provisions pertaining to integrity, conflict of interest and so on.

In my Appeal, I precautioned that the reputations of both the journal and Dr. Michael
Wakin himself could be compromised, if the mistake cannot be corrected in time.
Obviously, it was neglected too. Even worse, the same mistake was arrogantly repeated
as response again and again for three times. The dismaying arrogance resulted from
defiance of the integrity principle of IEEE Code of Ethics.

II. My paper, core excerpts

Abstract In this paper, we exemplify a new mathematical theory and method for data
prediction, interpolation and acquisition, called “high efficiency sensing.” Compressed sensing
theory is the most sensational topic of scientific research in the past century. The original paper
was unprecedentedly cited over 30,000 times in only 15 years. Compressed sensing purports to
exert data compression at the phase of data acquisition, but it turns out to massively lose data
quality. Based on insight into flaws of compressed sensing theory and crucial discoveries of a
series of new logical phenomena, our high efficiency sensing method radically rectifies
mathematical rationale and immensely improves technical performance in vast dominance. The
core method is simple yet powerful. It runs hundreds of thousand times faster in computation.
Even better, it duplicates data information in various domains altogether while boosting data
dimension. In consequence, prediction and interpolation conform to the waveform of samples
without loss or distortion. The deep copy ensures the high quality of resulting data set. Demo
software and test data are downloadable at website www.lucidsee.ca.
Conclusion High efficiency sensing consummates what compressed sensing theory promises
but fails. It radically rectifies the mathematical rationale in fundamentals. The core method is
simple yet powerful. It immensely improves technical performance in vast dominance. High
efficiency denotes high quality plus high speed. High efficiency sensing culminates in both data
prediction for the future beyond range of data samples and data interpolation within sample
range. Unlike polynomial interpolation methods which compulsively approximate data samples
according to the waveform of a polynomial regardless of the actual waveform of the data
samples, high efficiency sensing computes the actual waveform of samples at first and then
fulfills interpolation in conformation to the waveform. Moreover, it can exactly recover a large
data set from a few samples. This can enormously enhance accuracy and speed of feature
extraction and principal component analysis in machine learning and computer vision.

III. Extensive collapse of ethics in IEEE

For nearly one decade, I have been duelling with the ethical collapse in IEEE. In most
times, it was a fiasco. My new mathematical theory and method called “high efficiency
sensing” reconstructs a signal from its few (25% or less) samples in miraculously high
accuracy. It consummates what compressed sensing theory promises but fails. However,
it has been relentlessly blockaded from publication by IEEE members with malicious lies.
The collapse of ethics in IEEE is extensive and conspicuous, from journal editors to
management leaders. For three times, the editorial board of a major IEEE journal
conducted fraudulent reviews in reliance on an obvious lie. Even worse, the obvious lie
was also embraced and endorsed by IEEE management bodies. This must be corrected. I
will be striving to pursue truth and fairness inside IEEE. If IEEE turns out unable to
honor her own Code of Ethics, I will try whether the court can help her.

(1) Misconduct of Board of Governors, IEEE Signal Processing Society

Because the editorial board repeatedly conducted fraudulent review with the same
obvious lie without any sign of concession, I filed complaint to the Board of Governors
of IEEE Signal Processing Society, which supervises the journal with jurisdiction and
obligation to correct the error on July 24, 2023.
Instead of addressing my grievances, the President Dr. Athina Petropulu (Rutgers
University) and Vice President–Publications Dr. Marc Moonen (KU Leuven) both
shamelessly criticized me of being “disrespectful (extremely)” to the editor-in-chief and
area editor of the journal (Exhibit E), who had relinquished integrity and decency,
disparaged and maligned my great and cherished work with an obvious lie three times.
More indecently, Marc Moonen blocked my email address right after sending out his
offensive message to me. The criticism manifestly expressed their attitude and stance by
which they endorsed the obvious lie. They failed their duty to sustain the IEEE standard
of ethics without paying any effort to intervene and correct the error of the journal.

(2) Misjudgement of IEEE Ethics and Member Conduct Committee

I have been complaining the journal editors of repeatedly making arbitrary decision with
an obvious lie. It was a dishonest misconduct rather than an academic dispute. The IEEE
Code of Ethics reads that “We, the members of the IEEE, do hereby commit ourselves to
the highest ethical and professional conduct.” and that “5. to seek, accept, and offer
honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, to be honest and
realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data, and to credit properly the
contributions of others.” (Exhibit D) Invoking these provisions, I filed complaint to IEEE
Ethics and Member Conduct Committee on August 2, 2023, in which I called on the
Committee to reprimand the journal.

However, the Committee did not even acknowledge it was an ethical error. Instead, they
think “this matter appears to be out of EMCC's scope,” and hence “administratively
forwarded to the Publications section in IEEE.” (Exhibit F) In fact, nobody from the
Publication section in IEEE has contacted me ever since.
(3) Damage claim and remedy proposal
It is a loophole in the IEEE Code of Ethics that leads to my perpetual grievance and
quandary in the efforts to publish my work. There is no explicit provision to restrict
journal editors and conference chairs from making arbitrary decision on accepting or
rejecting a submission. The provision 5 is generally set to restrict author fraud, but not
editor fraud. This loophole enables and emboldens journal editors or conference chairs to
make arbitrary decision with false excuses, and results in extensive collapse of ethics.
(i). Dr. Michael Wakin (Colorado School of Mines) arbitrarily rejected my paper with an
obvious lie tantamount to calling a deer a horse or calling an orange an apple, in purpose
to obstruct the advance of science, abused his power as a IEEE journal editor. I urge the
Board in full tenacity and insistence to suspend both the IEEE membership and editorship
of Dr. Michael Wakin, in wish to evoke and revive the sense of ethics and morale of all
IEEE journal editors and members.

(ii). In 2021, this Board of Director conferred the IEEE Jack Kilby Signal Processing
Medal to Emmanuel Candes, Terry Tao and Justin Romberg “for their groundbreaking
contributions to compressed sensing.” As reported in my paper and confirmed by the
anonymous reviewers of IEEE ICIP 2023, my work on high efficiency sensing distantly
exceeds compressed sensing in both theoretical construction and technical performance.
In fact, as commonly reported in the literature and pinpointed in my paper, compressed
sensing massively loses data quality. Drastic distortion ruins applicability.
Therefore, I hereby call on the Board to rescind the 2021 Jack Kilby Signal Processing
Medal. Otherwise, the Board ought to confer me the medal too for my work on high
efficiency sensing theory and method, which is simple yet powerful, vastly improving
technical performance compared with compressed sensing.

(iii). Resorting to this Board of Directors for damage claims is bound to exhaust
administrative remedies. As previously elaborated, IEEE only explicitly restricts author
fraud, but not editor fraud. This loophole in rule emboldens some journal editors and
conference chairs to make arbitrary decision with false excuses, and in turn leads to
IEEE’s lack of ability to correct editorial errors. On the other hand, the crushing contrast
in technical performance engenders irreconcilable competition between my high
efficiency sensing theory and compressed sensing theory. As a result, some practitioners
of compressed sensing abuse their power as editors or chairs in their attempt to impede
the publication of my paper, as Dr. Michael Wakin did this year.

The first malicious review occurred in 2015 when Dr. Yi Ma, then associate editor of
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, arbitrarily rejected my paper with a similar
obvious lie in disguise of a reviewer (Exhibit G). In the past eight years, my paper has
been maliciously rejected by IEEE journal editors or conference chairs with
miscellaneous lies for dozens of times. This academic blockade has been severely
obstructing the advance of science. Meantime, it derailed and wrecked my otherwise
splendid career. Therefore, I hereby claim damage of eight million dollars (US) as career
compensation from IEEE. This is affordable to IEEE, given its revenue of $467 million.
Exhibit A
IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) 2023, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 8-11 October 2023
https://cmsworkshops.com/ICIP2023/papers/author_response.php 1/4

Paper Number
1004
Paper Title
HIGH EFFICIENCY IMAGE ACQUISITION
Authors
Xiteng Liu

Reviewer 1BDA
Importance/Relevance to ICIP 2023 → Of broad interest
Novelty/Originality → Moderately original
Technical Correctness → Definitely correct
Experimental Validation → Sufficient validation/theoretical paper
Clarity of Presentation → Very clear
Reference to Prior Work → References adequate
Additional comments to author(s)
This paper proposes a high-efficiency compressive sensing (HES) method for
image acquisition. The key idea is simple but efficient, which uses sample
representations and Least Square Boost with L2 minimal for image sensing. They
have achieved both quality and speed improvement, which could be a good method
for industry applications for camera and digital devices. The attached link
has show more cases to see the efficiency of this method.

Reviewer 06C7
Importance/Relevance to ICIP 2023 → Of sufficient interest
Novelty/Originality → Very original
Technical Correctness → Contains minor errors
Experimental Validation → Sufficient validation/theoretical paper
Clarity of Presentation → Clear enough
Reference to Prior Work → References adequate
Additional comments to author(s)
correct on 3th page text formatting under 2.4

Reviewer 02C7
Importance/Relevance to ICIP 2023 → Of sufficient interest
Novelty/Originality → Very original
Technical Correctness → Probably correct
Experimental Validation → Lacking in some respect
Clarity of Presentation → Clear enough
Reference to Prior Work → References adequate
Additional comments to author(s)
The experimental results, PSNR difference, look quite promising, but the
diversity and fidelity of the experiments are somewhat lacking. Including an
ablation study and additional experimental results on the paper, not a website,
could make the paper more complete and refined.

Exhibit B
IEEE Transactions of Signal Processing area editor Dr. Michael Wakin (Colorado School
of Mines) rejected the paper with all false statements and the same desperate lie twice.

(1) Comments of Michael Wakin as area editor on April 26, 2023:

This paper challenges the paradigm of compressed sensing (CS) and claims to
introduce a new compression technique that is superior in performance to CS, avoids
random sampling, and relies only on arguments involving linear algebra.

I regret to say that I have a number of concerns related to the presentation and
comprehension of this paper. First, I want to agree that there are many critiques that can
be made about CS, and this leaves many open avenues for research related to
compression and sensing of signals. However, I find the critiques in this paper to be
variously unclear, imprecise, theoretically incomplete, and/or incorrect. The author
claims to offer insight into “flaws” in the CS theory, but no explicit flaws (as in
theoretically incorrect statements) are revealed. There is a critique of the sparsity level
required for coherence-based CS theory below Theorem 6, but coherence-based theory
is known to not be the strongest theory for CS. Analysis using the RIP, for example,
yields much better guarantees for CS performance. This is not mentioned in the paper.
Random sampling is also poorly critiqued, as it is a known way of generating matrices
that yield the optimal scaling rates in CS. Randomness is indeed not theoretically
necessary, but it is the only known way to tractably generate efficient matrices with the
favorable properties for the CS theory. This does leave open questions for designing
effective deterministic matrices. The author pursues some non-random designs in this
paper, but the ingredients involving the sine/cosine (trigonometric) components of the
DFT and straightforward arguments from least-squares linear algebra do not seem
revelatory, and I do not feel that they are not explained clearly enough for the reader to
follow and implement the technique. The proposed idea seems to fall into the category of
transform coding as opposed to CS, which is an apples-to-oranges comparison since CS
is nonadaptive. The author does not sufficiently clearly situate the work in relation to
other ideas in transform coding. For these reasons I do not feel that the paper should
undergo further review for publication in IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.
(2) Comments of Michael Wakin or equivalent after appeal, June 20, 2023:

When it comes to technical review, I don’t think this paper’s claims are substantiated.
The paper has a section titled “Flaw in theory” that demonstrates insufficient
understanding of what a “theoretical flaw” is, from the perspective of the now well-
established CS area. There are various claims that could be misleading. Compressed-
sensing theory is huge and allows for sparsity=O(measurements) rather than square-
root. There is an impression of cherry-picking weaker results and making blanket
statements about “30000 papers” in CS literature. There are also untrue statements
such as “l1-minimization violates the principle of best n-term approximation of both
approximation theory and data compression, which stresses on the “largest coefficients”
as essential content. The l1-minimal solution to Cx = d deviates far from the largest
coefficients. Instead, it pursues the smallest ones”

Finally, I might be wrong but the feeling is that the algorithmic proposal might have been
said many times before. It is like proposing a JPEG type algorithm by picking the largest
Fourier coefficients etc. Or how the algorithm significantly differs from the traditional
algorithm is unclear.

Exhibit C
Appeal and Rebuttal

Xiteng Liu, PhD

May 9, 2023

Dear Dr. Ma (Editor-in-Chief) and Prof. Matz (Deputy Editor-in-Chief),

My submission T-SP-30464-2023 (IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing) was rejected

by Area Editor Dr. Michael Wakin on April 26, 2023. That was a very wrong decision.
All his comments are untrue, unsupported and unsupportable. Should you read the
manuscript, you would certainly agree with me at heart.

The paper presents a new mathematical method, called “high efficiency sensing (HES),”
which vastly revolutionizes computational imaging, signal acquisition and interpolation.
It radically rectifies mathematical rationale and immensely improves technical
performance, compared with compressed sensing theory.

As commonly reported in the literature, compressed sensing massively loses data quality.
Drastic distortion ruins applicability. In vast dominance, HES achieves nearly lossless.
Michael did not deny the dominantly revolutionary improvement on which the great
value of the submission rest. This invalidates his decision to reject the paper.

Not only are Michael’s comments incorrect and unsupported, but also are beside the point.
More than 90% of his comments are about compressed sensing, which only serves as a
reference to compare, not about high efficiency sensing, the protagonist of the paper. The
comments are also quite arbitrary. For example, the statement “The author claims to offer
insight into “flaws” in the CS theory, but no explicit flaws are revealed,” is strangely
untrue. As a matter of fact, it takes 2 pages for the whole section III to analyze the flaws
of compressed sensing theory in depth and in detail.

Michael’s only-one-sentence comment about HES, “The proposed idea seems to fall into
the category of transform coding as opposed to CS,” is utterly untrue and unsupported.
HES has nothing to do with transform coding, not even close. Instead, high efficiency
sensing is intrinsically related to compressed sensing theory. It consummates what
compressed sensing theory promises but fails. This is exactly the real reason why the
submission was “immediately rejected” with all false excuses by Michael who is a
perennial adherent of compressed sensing theory. It is sentimental bias more than
academic weakness that led to the misjudgments.

The revolutionary improvement of high efficiency sensing inevitably presses some

researchers of compressed sensing into dilemma. Some colleagues choose to block it
from publication by any means within their authority. However, it violates scientific
ethics to hinder the advance of science for ego-driven motives. Besides, it is impossible
to thwart a revolutionary advance of science for good. In fact, some parts of high
efficiency sensing theory have been reported on IEEE, SPIE and SIAM conferences.
Sooner or later, it will be widely accepted and honored by the whole community. What
happens today will become a historical incident in the future.

The ideal reviewers of the submission are the colleagues who used to engage in research
on compressed sensing but have changed research direction. They don’t make a living on
compressed sensing anymore. Not only can they take a serious peer review, but also can
give pertinent and constructive advice to improve the paper.

This revolutionary work has been obstructed from publication for 10 years by some
practitioners of compressed sensing like Michael, usually behind the shield of anonymity.
(Michael is the first one in open identity.) From now on, abuse of power with false
statements will meet counteraction. If necessary, IEEE management and social media
platforms might be involved for real science to get a chance to advance. In that case, the
reputations of both Michael and this journal would possibly be compromised.

The advance of science has never been easy and smooth in human history. The grapple
between science and pseudoscience never stops, and pseudoscience never concedes
voluntarily. I wish everyone of us may pay some effort to push science one step forward.
I believe that every endeavor is rewarding, more or less.
Exhibit D
IEEE Code of Ethics

We, the members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies in affecting
the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal obligation to our profession,
its members and the communities we serve, do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical
and professional conduct and agree:
I. To uphold the highest standards of integrity, responsible behavior, and ethical conduct in
professional activities.
1. to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, to strive to comply with
ethical design and sustainable development practices, to protect the privacy of others, and
to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;
2. to improve the understanding by individuals and society of the capabilities and societal
implications of conventional and emerging technologies, including intelligent systems;
3. to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them
to affected parties when they do exist;
4. to avoid unlawful conduct in professional activities, and to reject bribery in all its forms;
5. to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct
errors, to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data, and
to credit properly the contributions of others;
6. to maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks
for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent
limitations;
II. To treat all persons fairly and with respect, to not engage in harassment or discrimination, and
to avoid injuring others.
7. to treat all persons fairly and with respect, and to not engage in discrimination based on
characteristics such as race, religion, gender, disability, age, national origin, sexual
orientation, gender identity, or gender expression;
8. to not engage in harassment of any kind, including sexual harassment or bullying
behavior;
9. to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious
actions, rumors or any other verbal or physical abuses;
III. To strive to ensure this code is upheld by colleagues and co-workers.
10. to support colleagues and co-workers in following this code of ethics, to strive to
ensure the code is upheld, and to not retaliate against individuals reporting a violation.
Exhibit E
Athina Petropulu athinap@soe.rutgers.edu Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 3:30 PM
To: Xiteng Liu <xitengliu@gmail.com>, "Wing Kin Ma (ELE)" <wkma@ee.cuhk.edu.hk>
Cc: Marc Moonen <Marc.Moonen@esat.kuleuven.be>, Richard Baseil <r.baseil@ieee.org>

Dr. Liu,
I find your message quite disrespectful to an EIC who devoted a lot of his time handling your
paper. If you are not satisfied with Dr. Ma’s very detailed response the next step is for you to
contact Dr. Moonen.
Please refrain from disturbing the others with your messages.
Athina Petropulu

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marc Moonen Marc.Moonen@esat.kuleuven.be Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 4:09 AM

To: Xiteng Liu <xitengliu@gmail.com>
Cc: Marc Moonen <Marc.Moonen@esat.kuleuven.be>, "Wing Kin Ma (ELE)"
<wkma@ee.cuhk.edu.hk>, Michael Wakin<mwakin@mines.edu>

Dr. Liu,
allow me to say that I second President Petropulu's statement that your
messages have been (extremely) disrespectful to EiC Dr. Ma as well as to
the editorial board members who have assessed your paper, in particular Dr.
Wakin. Furthermore, sending your appeal immediately to the full editorial
board and to the IEEE Signal Processing Society leadership is obviously not
done, especially so if the appeal also includes a letter sent by Dr. Ma to
you solely (please read the disclaimer that I myself standardly include at
the bottom of my email messages).

Marc Moonen
IEEE SPS VP-Publications

Exhibit F

Clive Woods clivewoods@southalabama.edu Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 2:58 PM

To: Xiteng Liu <xitengliu@gmail.com>

Dear Dr Liu:
Your message has been administratively forwarded to the Publications section in IEEE as this matter
appears to be out of EMCC's scope. They will follow up with you as necessary.
Sincerely,
Clive Woods
Chair, IEEE/EMCC
Exhibit G

IEEE Transactions on Information Theory - Decision on Manuscript ID IT-14-0868

From: mayi@shanghaitech.edu.cn
To: xiteng@yahoo.com
Date: Monday, February 2, 2015 at 10:58 AM EST

02-Feb-2015

Dear Dr. Liu:

I am writing in regard to manuscript # IT-14-0868 titled "High Quality Signal Recovery" which you
submitted to the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. Based on my own detailed reading of
the paper and the reviewers’ comments found at the bottom of this letter, I regret not being able
to recommend publication of your manuscript. There may be additional comments from the
reviewers as separate files available through your Author Center on the Scholar One Manuscripts
web site, so please check there also to make sure you have received all reviewer comments.
Specifically, the main reasons for rejection of your manuscript are:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The paper consists of many elementary and fundamental mathematical flaws. The most fatal one
is to completely confuse the problem of compressed sensing with the self-claimed problem of
"equation elimination" that the author studied for orthogonal system equations. The paper, in its
current status, is far from the standard of being publishable in this journal, in fact probably not in
any journal or conference.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Thank you for considering the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory for the publication of
your research. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the
submission of future manuscripts.

Sincerely,

Dr. Yi Ma
Associate Editor, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory