Tight Query Complexity Lower Bounds for PCA via Finite Sample Deformed Wigner Law

TL;DR

This paper establishes tight lower bounds on the number of queries needed to approximate the top eigenspace of a matrix, revealing fundamental limits of algorithms in high-dimensional PCA and differentiating it from convex optimization.

Contribution

It provides the first tight query complexity lower bounds for PCA, matching known upper bounds and highlighting a separation from convex optimization methods.

Findings

Lower bounds depend on the eigengap and dimension

Any algorithm with fewer queries fails to approximate the eigenspace

Results match previous upper bounds, confirming optimality

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) $\mathrm{gap}_r(\mathbf{M}) = \Omega(\mathtt{gap})$ (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 $\langle \widehat{\mathsf{V}}, \mathbf{M} \widehat{\mathsf{V}}\rangle \ge (1 - \mathrm{const} \times \mathtt{gap})\sum_{i=1}^r \lambda_i(\mathbf{M})$. 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.