This post will focus on the dual certificate argument for matrix recovery problems via nuclear norm minimization. $ \newcommand{\abs}[1]{| #1 |} \newcommand{\ind}{\mathbf{1}} \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\lVert #1 \rVert} \newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}} \newcommand{\ip}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle} \newcommand{\T}{\mathsf{T}} \newcommand{\Proj}{\mathcal{P}} \newcommand{\Tr}{\mathrm{Tr}} \newcommand{\A}{\mathcal{A}} $

Setup

Fix an unknown $M \in \R^{n_1 \times n_2}$ with rank $r$. Suppose that we have knowledge of both a linear operator $\A : \R^{n_1 \times n_2} \longrightarrow \R^{m}$ and its measurements $b := \A(M)$ of the unknown matrix. In what follows, for any matrix $Z$, let $\sigma_1(Z) \geq \sigma_2(Z) \geq ... \geq \sigma_r(Z) > 0$ denote the singular values of $Z$, $\norm{Z}_* = \sum_{i=1}^{r} \sigma_i(Z)$ denote the nuclear norm, and $\norm{Z} = \sigma_1(Z)$ denote the operator (spectral) norm.

When $r \ll \min(n_1, n_2)$, a standard heuristic to recover $M$ from the measurements is to solve the following optimization program $$ \begin{equation} \min_{X \in \R^{n_1 \times n_2}} \;\; \norm{X}_* \text{ s.t. } \A(X) = b \:. \label{eq:opt_prog} \end{equation} $$ A natural question to ask is: What properties of $\A$ and $M$ ensure that $M$ is the unique minimizer of $\eqref{eq:opt_prog}$?

Many researchers have successfully answered this question for a variety of $\A$'s and $M$'s. In this post, I will outline the structural part of one type of proof strategy to answer such a question, known as coming up with a dual certificate. This should provide some context for reading the proofs.

Subdifferential of the nuclear norm

A starting point is to first characterize the subdifferential of the nuclear norm. This is important because the subdifferential encompasses the set of all descent directions of $\norm{M}_*$.

Let $M = U\Sigma V^*$ denote the SVD of $M$, with $\Sigma = \mathrm{diag}(\sigma_1(M), ..., \sigma_r(M))$. We first argue that $$ \begin{equation} \partial \norm{M}_* = \{ UV^* + W : P_U W = 0, W P_V = 0, \norm{W} \leq 1 \} := G_1 \:. \label{eq:nuc_norm_subdiff} \end{equation} $$ Here, $P_U$ is the orthogonal projector onto the columns of $U$ and similarly for $P_V$. By the variational characterization of the nuclear norm, $\norm{M}_* = \sup_{\norm{Z} \leq 1} \ip{M}{Z}$, where $\ip{M}{Z} := \Tr(Z^* M)$. Hence by the standard rules for subgradients of suprema, we know that $$ \partial \norm{M}_* = \{ Z : \ip{M}{Z} = \norm{M}_*, \norm{Z} \leq 1 \} := G_2 \:. $$ We now check that $G_1 = G_2$. If $UV^* + W \in G_1$, then $$ \ip{M}{UV^* + W} = \ip{M}{UV^*} + \ip{M}{W} = \Tr(\Sigma) = \norm{M}_* \:. $$ On the other hand, for any $x \in \R^{n_2}$, $$ (UV^* + W)x = (UV^* + W)(P_V x + P_V^\perp x) = UV^* P_V x + WP_V^\perp x \:. $$ Taking norms squared, $$ \norm{UV^* P_V x + WP_V^\perp x}^2_2 = \norm{UV^* P_V x}^2_2 + \norm{W P_V^\perp x}^2_2 \leq \norm{P_V x}^2_2 + \norm{P_V^\perp x}^2_2 = \norm{x}^2_2 \:, $$ which shows that $\norm{UV^* + W} \leq 1$, and hence $G_1 \subseteq G_2$.

The $G_2 \subseteq G_1$ direction is trickier. I do not know an elementary way to show it. Look here for a more complete proof.

The tangent space of $M$

We now give a more succient characterization of $\partial \norm{M}_*$ in terms of the tangent space of $M$. Let $u_1, ..., u_r$ denote the columns of $U$ and $u_{r+1}, ..., u_{n_1}$ denote an orthonormal basis for $U^\perp$. Also, let $v_1, ..., v_r$ and $v_{r+1}, ..., v_{n_2}$ denote the same thing for $V$ and $V^\perp$, respectively. Define the subspace $T^\perp \subseteq \R^{n_1 \times n_2}$ as $$ T^\perp := \mathrm{span}\{ u_i v_j^* \}_{i,j=r+1}^{n_1,n_2} \:. $$ Since $\{u_i v_j\}_{i,j=1}^{n_1, n_2}$ is an orthonormal basis for $\R^{n_1 \times n_2}$, we have that $\mathrm{dim}(T^\perp) = (n_1-r)(n_2-r)$ and the orthogonal projector $\Proj_{T}^\perp$ is $$ \Proj_{T}^\perp(Z) = P_{U^\perp} Z P_{V^\perp} = (I - P_U) Z (I - P_V) \:. $$ The orthogonal complement of $T^\perp$, call it $T$, is the subspace spanned by $$ T = \mathrm{span}\{ u_i y^* + x v_j^* : 1 \leq i,j \leq r, x \in \R^{n_1}, y \in \R^{n_2} \} \:. $$ We have that $\dim(T) = n_1n_2 - \dim(T^\perp) = (n_1+n_2)r - r^2$, and also $$ \Proj_{T}(Z) = Z - \Proj_{T}^\perp(Z) = P_U Z + Z P_V - P_U Z P_V \:. $$ The tangent space $T$ plays a key role in the analysis. To see this, we can rewrite $\partial \norm{M}_*$ as $$ \begin{equation} \partial \norm{M}_* = \{ Z : \Proj_{T}(Z) = UV^*, \norm{\Proj_{T}^\perp(Z)} \leq 1 \} \:. \label{eq:nuc_norm_subdiff_1} \end{equation} $$ To see this, by $\eqref{eq:nuc_norm_subdiff}$, if $Z = UV^* + W \in \partial \norm{M}_*$, then $\Proj_{T}(W) = 0$ and hence $\Proj_{T}(Z) = UV^*$ and $\Proj_{T}^\perp(Z) = W$. But we know $\norm{W} \leq 1$, so we get $\norm{\Proj_{T}^\perp(Z)} \leq 1$. That is, $Z$ satisfies $\eqref{eq:nuc_norm_subdiff_1}$. On the other hand, showing that any $Z$ satisfying $\eqref{eq:nuc_norm_subdiff_1}$ satisfies $\eqref{eq:nuc_norm_subdiff}$ as well goes along the same line of reasoning.

Sufficient conditions for unique recovery

The key structural argument is Lemma 3.1 of Candès and Recht.

Lemma: Suppose there exists a $Y \in \mathrm{Im}(\A^*)$ such that $$ \Proj_{T}(Y) = UV^*, \qquad \norm{\Proj_{T}^\perp(Y)} < 1 \:. $$ Also suppose the restriction of $\A$ on $T$, call it $\A\big|_{T} : T \longrightarrow \R^{m}$ is injective. Then $M$ is the unique minimizer of $\eqref{eq:opt_prog}$.

Proof: Write any feasible point as $M + \Delta$, where $\A(\Delta) = 0$. Let $Z = UV^* + W$ be any element in $\partial \norm{M}_*$. Write $Y = \Proj_{T}(Y) + \Proj_{T}^\perp(Y) = UV^* + \Proj_{T}^\perp(Y)$, and rearrange terms to conclude that $UV^* = Y - \Proj_{T}^\perp(Y)$. By definition of subgradient, $$ \begin{align} \norm{M + \Delta}_* &\geq \norm{M}_* + \ip{UV^* + W}{\Delta} \nonumber\\ &= \norm{M}_* + \ip{Y - \Proj_{T}^\perp(Y) + W}{\Delta} \nonumber\\ &= \norm{M}_* + \ip{Y}{\Delta} + \ip{W - \Proj_{T}^\perp(Y)}{\Delta} \nonumber\\ &\stackrel{(a)}{=} \norm{M}_* + \ip{W - \Proj_{T}^\perp(Y)}{\Delta} \nonumber\\ &\stackrel{(b)}{=} \norm{M}_* + \ip{\Proj_{T}^\perp(W) - \Proj_{T}^\perp(Y)}{\Delta} \nonumber\\ &= \norm{M}_* + \ip{W}{\Proj_{T}^\perp(\Delta)} + \ip{\Proj_{T}^\perp(Y)}{\Proj_{T}^\perp(\Delta)} \nonumber\\ &\geq \norm{M}_* + \ip{W}{\Proj_{T}^\perp(\Delta)} - \norm{\Proj_{T}^\perp(Y)} \norm{\Proj_{T}^\perp(\Delta)}_*, \label{eq:basic_inequality} \end{align} $$ where (a) uses the fact that $Y \in \mathrm{Im}(\A^*)$ and $\Delta \in \mathrm{kern}(\A)$, and hence $\ip{Y}{\Delta} = 0$, and (b) uses the fact that $W \in T^\perp$.

By the duality of the nuclear norm with the operator norm, we can choose a matrix $F$ which satisfies $\norm{F} \leq 1$ and $\ip{F}{\Proj_{T}^\perp(\Delta)} = \norm{\Proj_{T}^\perp(\Delta)}_*$. We can check that $\norm{\Proj_{T}^\perp(F)} \leq 1$, since $$ \norm{\Proj_{T}^\perp(F)} = \norm{P_{U^\perp} F P_{V^\perp}} \leq \norm{P_{U^\perp}} \norm{F} \norm{P_{V^\perp}} \leq 1 \:. $$ Hence, $UV^* + \Proj_{T}^\perp(F) \in \partial \norm{M}_*$. Using the inequality derived in $\eqref{eq:basic_inequality}$, we conclude $$ \begin{align*} \norm{M + \Delta}_* - \norm{M_*} &\geq \ip{\Proj_{T}^\perp(F)}{\Proj_{T}^\perp(\Delta)} - \norm{\Proj_{T}^\perp(Y)} \norm{\Proj_{T}^\perp(\Delta)}_* \\ &= \ip{F}{\Proj_{T}^\perp(\Delta)} - \norm{\Proj_{T}^\perp(Y)} \norm{\Proj_{T}^\perp(\Delta)}_* \\ &= \norm{\Proj_{T}^\perp(\Delta)}_* - \norm{\Proj_{T}^\perp(Y)} \norm{\Proj_{T}^\perp(\Delta)}_* \\ &= (1 - \norm{\Proj_{T}^\perp(Y)} ) \norm{\Proj_{T}^\perp(\Delta)}_* \:. \end{align*} $$ It remains to interpret this inequality. Since $\norm{\Proj_{T}^\perp(Y)} < 1$, whenever $\Proj_{T}^\perp(\Delta) \neq 0$, $\norm{M + \Delta}_* > \norm{M}_*$ and hence $M + \Delta$ is not a minimizer. On the other hand, whenever $\Proj_{T}^\perp(\Delta) = 0$, we have $\Delta \in \mathrm{kern}(\A\big|_{T})$. But we assumed that $\A\big|_{T}$ was injective, and hence $\Delta = 0$. $\square$

Constructing the dual certificate

The lemma above gives a proof strategy. If one can come up with a $\lambda \in \R^{m}$ such that $\A^*(\lambda)$ satisfies the hypothesis of the lemma, and additionally prove the injectivity condition, then one has certified the optimality of $M$. This, of course, is much easier said than done. I will leave you with a few references where this is the proof strategy. This is nowhere near an exhaustive list.

• Exact matrix completion via convex optimization.
• The power of convex relaxation: near-optimal matrix completion.
• Quantum state tomography via compressed sensing.
• Recovering low-rank matrices from few coefficients in any basis.
• A simpler approach to matrix completion.