2020
DOI: 10.13001/ela.2020.5009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Orthogonal Procrustes and norm-dependent optimality

Abstract: This note revisits the classical orthogonal Procrustes problem and investigates the norm-dependent geometric behavior underlying Procrustes alignment for subspaces. It presents generic, deterministic bounds quantifying the performance of a specified Procrustes-based choice of subspace alignment. Numerical examples illustrate the theoretical observations and offer additional, empirical findings which are discussed in detail. This note complements recent advances in statistics involving Procrustean matrix pertur… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Lemma 3.1 is obtained via Theorem 1.4 (Bernstein inequality) in [45]. For comparison, [36] applies Theorem 5.2 [33] to bound A − Ω (see, for example, Eq (14) of [36]) and obtains a bound as C √ ρn for some C > 0. However, C √ ρn is the bound between a regularization of A and Ω as stated in the proof of Theorem 5.2 [33], where such regularization of A is obtained from A with some constraints in Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2 of the supplement material [33] [33] and Theorem 2 [50] as long as ρ ≥ max i,j Ω(i, j) (here, let Ω = E[A] without considering models, a ρ satisfying ρ ≥ max i,j Ω(i, j) is also the sparsity parameter which controls the overall sparsity of a network).…”
Section: Consistency Under Mmsb Our Main Results Under Mmsb Provides ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lemma 3.1 is obtained via Theorem 1.4 (Bernstein inequality) in [45]. For comparison, [36] applies Theorem 5.2 [33] to bound A − Ω (see, for example, Eq (14) of [36]) and obtains a bound as C √ ρn for some C > 0. However, C √ ρn is the bound between a regularization of A and Ω as stated in the proof of Theorem 5.2 [33], where such regularization of A is obtained from A with some constraints in Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2 of the supplement material [33] [33] and Theorem 2 [50] as long as ρ ≥ max i,j Ω(i, j) (here, let Ω = E[A] without considering models, a ρ satisfying ρ ≥ max i,j Ω(i, j) is also the sparsity parameter which controls the overall sparsity of a network).…”
Section: Consistency Under Mmsb Our Main Results Under Mmsb Provides ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2) is the classic matrix approximation problem in linear algebra, named as the Procrustes problem (Schönemann, 1966;Cape, 2020). The solution to (3.2) is referred to as Orthogonal Procrustes Transformation (OPT) and has a closed form:…”
Section: Privacy-preserving Distributed Svdmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It implies that as a metric on linear space, dist(U, Ũ ) is equivalent to U − Ũ O * 2 (or min O∈O k U − Ũ O 2 ) up to some universal constant. The optimization problem involved in is named as the orthogonal procrustes problem and has been well studied (Schönemann, 1966;Cape, 2020). • (U, Ũ ) = ( Ũ , U ) for all U, Ũ ∈ O d×k .…”
Section: E Definitions On Subspace Distancementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For the sake of concreteness, one may without loss of generality take the first entry in each column of b U to be nonnegative. When A exhibits large negative eigenvalues, it is sometimes useful in practice (and for organizing theory) to index the leading eigenvalues alternatively in the mannerλ 1 ≥ λ 2 ≥ … ≥ λ p > 0 and Àλ p + 1 ≥ Àλ p + 2 ≥ … ≥ Àλ d > 0.4 In low-dimensional examples one could alternatively minimize with respect to the maximum absolute entry norm or the maximum Euclidean row norm, as highlighted inCape (2020). Such an approach, necessarily requiring numerical optimization in the absence of a general closed-form analytic solution, would be particularly suitable when certain parametrized, structured orthogonal transformations are of application-specific interest.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%