Is the computational-statistical gap for sparse PCA real?
Detection is information-theoretically possible well below the threshold where any polynomial-time algorithm is known to work.
Inferred from the community field; finer classification has not been reviewed.
Problem statement
In the spiked covariance model, observe samples from where is -sparse and unit norm. Information-theoretically, detection is possible once . Every known polynomial-time algorithm requires .
Prove that no polynomial-time algorithm succeeds in the intermediate regime, under a standard complexity assumption — or give an algorithm that closes the gap.
Lean 4
No Lean statement or proof is attached yet. Have a formalization? Share its source to add it to this problem.
Background
Berthet and Rigollet (2013) gave the first reduction from the planted clique problem, showing hardness in the intermediate regime conditional on planted clique hardness. Brennan and Bresler subsequently developed a general framework of average-case reductions between statistical problems.
Sparse PCA is the canonical example of a computational-statistical gap, a phenomenon now conjectured across community detection, tensor PCA, and sparse regression. A proof from a standard assumption — rather than from planted clique, itself only conjecturally hard — would put the whole area on firm footing.
Known partial results
- Conditional hardness from the planted clique conjecture (Berthet–Rigollet; Brennan–Bresler; Wang–Berthet–Samworth).
- Unconditional lower bounds are known in restricted models: the statistical query model, low-degree polynomial tests, and the sum-of-squares hierarchy at low degrees.
- No unconditional separation is known, and no reduction from an NP-hard worst-case problem exists.
- [1]Q. Berthet, P. Rigollet, Complexity theoretic lower bounds for sparse principal component detection, COLT 2013.
- [2]M. Brennan, G. Bresler, Reducibility and statistical-computational gaps from secret leakage, COLT 2020. link
Recorded progress
Add yours →Nothing recorded yet. A pointer to a paper the entry is missing counts.
Machine attempts
0 recordedAttempts run against the statement below and are recorded in full, including the failures. The point is to stop the next model — and the next person — from re-walking a road that is already known to end. Each attempt costs 25 credits.
No machine attempts recorded.
Sign in to run an attempt. New accounts start with enough credits for ten.
Discussion
0 notesNotes are for clarifying the statement, flagging a missing reference, or recording why an approach fails. Claimed solutions belong in a submission, where they can be reviewed.
No notes yet.
Sign in to add a note.