Nonconvex Factorization and Manifold Formulations are Almost Equivalent in Low-rank Matrix Optimization

Overview

• This paper explores the geometric landscape connection between two widely studied approaches for low-rank matrix optimization: the manifold formulation and the factorization formulation.
• The authors establish a "sandwich relation" on the spectrum of Riemannian and Euclidean Hessians at first-order stationary points, leading to an equivalence between the two formulations in terms of first-order and second-order stationary points, as well as strict saddles.
• The paper also discusses similarities and differences in the landscape connection under the positive semidefinite (PSD) case and the general case.
• The geometric landscape connection provides a theoretical explanation for the similar empirical performance of factorization and manifold approaches observed in the literature.

Plain English Explanation

The paper examines the relationship between two different mathematical approaches for solving low-rank matrix optimization problems. The first approach is called the "manifold formulation," which treats the low-rank matrices as points on a curved surface. The second approach is called the "factorization formulation," which represents the low-rank matrices as the product of two smaller matrices.

The authors show that these two formulations are closely connected in terms of their geometric properties. Specifically, they establish a "sandwich relation" between the curvatures (Hessians) of the two formulations at points where the gradient is zero. This means that the curvatures of the two formulations are "sandwiched" between two values, with the curvature of the manifold formulation being bounded above and below by the curvature of the factorization formulation.

As a result of this sandwich relation, the authors demonstrate that the two formulations have the same set of stationary points (where the gradient is zero) and the same set of strict saddle points (where the curvature is negative in some directions). This provides a geometric explanation for why the two formulations often perform similarly in practice when used to solve low-rank matrix optimization problems.

The paper also discusses how the landscape connection differs between the positive semidefinite (PSD) case and the general case, and how the sandwich relation can be used to transfer other geometric properties between the two formulations.

Technical Explanation

The paper starts by considering the geometric landscape connection between the manifold and factorization formulations for low-rank positive semidefinite (PSD) and general matrix optimization problems.

The authors establish a "sandwich relation" on the spectrum of the Riemannian Hessian (curvature) of the manifold formulation and the Euclidean Hessian of the factorization formulation at first-order stationary points (FOSPs). Specifically, they show that the eigenvalues of the Riemannian Hessian are bounded above and below by the eigenvalues of the Euclidean Hessian.

As a consequence of this sandwich relation, the authors prove an equivalence between the set of FOSPs, second-order stationary points (SOSPs), and strict saddles in the manifold and factorization formulations. This means that the two formulations have the same critical points and saddle points.

The authors also demonstrate that the sandwich relation can be used to transfer other quantitative geometric properties, such as strong convexity and Lipschitz continuity, from one formulation to the other.

The paper then discusses the similarities and differences in the landscape connection under the PSD case and the general case. In the general case, the authors also provide a landscape connection between two factorization formulations: the unregularized and the regularized versions.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a strong theoretical foundation for understanding the geometric connections between the manifold and factorization formulations in low-rank matrix optimization problems. The authors' establishment of the "sandwich relation" and the resulting equivalence of critical points and saddle points is a significant contribution to the field.

One potential limitation of the research is that it focuses primarily on the theoretical analysis and does not extensively discuss the practical implications or applications of the geometric landscape connection. While the authors mention that the connection provides a geometric explanation for the similar empirical performance of the two formulations, they do not delve deeply into how this insight can be leveraged in specific use cases.

Additionally, the paper does not address the computational complexity or algorithmic considerations of the manifold and factorization formulations. It would be valuable to understand how the geometric landscape connection might impact the design and implementation of optimization algorithms for these problems.

Further research could explore the practical applications of the geometric landscape connection, such as in areas like phase retrieval, low-rank matrix optimization, and machine learning. Investigating the implications for algorithm design and performance would also be a fruitful avenue for future work.

Conclusion

This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the geometric landscape connection between the manifold and factorization formulations in low-rank matrix optimization. The authors' establishment of the "sandwich relation" and the resulting equivalence of critical points and saddle points offers a strong theoretical foundation for understanding the similarities and differences between these two widely used approaches.

The insights gained from this research can potentially lead to improved optimization algorithms and better understanding of the underlying geometry of low-rank matrix problems. By leveraging the geometric landscape connection, researchers and practitioners may be able to develop more efficient and effective solutions for a wide range of applications in machine learning, signal processing, and beyond.