Tight Query Complexity Lower Bounds for PCA via Finite Sample Deformed Wigner Law
April 04, 2018 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐ Symposium on the Theory of Computing
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Max Simchowitz, Ahmed El Alaoui, Benjamin Recht
arXiv ID
1804.01221
Category
cs.LG: Machine Learning
Cross-listed
cs.DS,
cs.IT,
math.OC,
stat.ML
Citations
44
Venue
Symposium on the Theory of Computing
Last Checked
3 months ago
Abstract
We prove a \emph{query complexity} lower bound for approximating the top $r$ dimensional eigenspace of a matrix. We consider an oracle model where, given a symmetric matrix $\mathbf{M} \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$, an algorithm $\mathsf{Alg}$ is allowed to make $\mathsf{T}$ exact queries of the form $\mathsf{w}^{(i)} = \mathbf{M} \mathsf{v}^{(i)}$ for $i$ in $\{1,...,\mathsf{T}\}$, where $\mathsf{v}^{(i)}$ is drawn from a distribution which depends arbitrarily on the past queries and measurements $\{\mathsf{v}^{(j)},\mathsf{w}^{(i)}\}_{1 \le j \le i-1}$. We show that for every $\mathtt{gap} \in (0,1/2]$, there exists a distribution over matrices $\mathbf{M}$ for which 1) $\mathrm{gap}_r(\mathbf{M}) = ฮฉ(\mathtt{gap})$ (where $\mathrm{gap}_r(\mathbf{M})$ is the normalized gap between the $r$ and $r+1$-st largest-magnitude eigenvector of $\mathbf{M}$), and 2) any algorithm $\mathsf{Alg}$ which takes fewer than $\mathrm{const} \times \frac{r \log d}{\sqrt{\mathtt{gap}}}$ queries fails (with overwhelming probability) to identity a matrix $\widehat{\mathsf{V}} \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times r}$ with orthonormal columns for which $\langle \widehat{\mathsf{V}}, \mathbf{M} \widehat{\mathsf{V}}\rangle \ge (1 - \mathrm{const} \times \mathtt{gap})\sum_{i=1}^r ฮป_i(\mathbf{M})$. Our bound requires only that $d$ is a small polynomial in $1/\mathtt{gap}$ and $r$, and matches the upper bounds of Musco and Musco '15. Moreover, it establishes a strict separation between convex optimization and \emph{randomized}, "strict-saddle" non-convex optimization of which PCA is a canonical example: in the former, first-order methods can have dimension-free iteration complexity, whereas in PCA, the iteration complexity of gradient-based methods must necessarily grow with the dimension.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
๐ Similar Papers
In the same crypt โ Machine Learning
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer
Died the same way โ ๐ป Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
You Only Look Once: Unified, Real-Time Object Detection
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted