Optimality of the Johnson-Lindenstrauss Lemma

For any integers $d, n \geq 2$ and $1/({\min\{n,d\}})^{0.4999} < \varepsilon<1$, we show the existence of a set of $n$ vectors $X\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ such that any embedding $f:X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$ satisfying $$\forall x,y\in X,\ (1-\varepsilon)\|x-y\|_2^2\le \|f(x)-f(y)\|_2^2 \le (1+\varepsilon)\|x-y\|_2^2$$ must have $$m = \Omega(\varepsilon^{-2} \lg n).$$ This lower bound matches the upper bound given by the Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma [JL84]. Furthermore, our lower bound holds for nearly the full range of $\varepsilon$ of interest, since there is always an isometric embedding into dimension $\min\{d, n\}$ (either the identity map, or projection onto $\mathop{span}(X)$). Previously such a lower bound was only known to hold against linear maps $f$, and not for such a wide range of parameters $\varepsilon, n, d$ [LN16]. The best previously known lower bound for general $f$ was $m = \Omega(\varepsilon^{-2}\lg n/\lg(1/\varepsilon))$ [Wel74, Lev83, Alo03], which is suboptimal for any $\varepsilon = o(1)$.Comment: v2: simplified proof, also added reference to Lev8

Time lower bounds for nonadaptive turnstile streaming algorithms

We say a turnstile streaming algorithm is "non-adaptive" if, during updates, the memory cells written and read depend only on the index being updated and random coins tossed at the beginning of the stream (and not on the memory contents of the algorithm). Memory cells read during queries may be decided upon adaptively. All known turnstile streaming algorithms in the literature are non-adaptive. We prove the first non-trivial update time lower bounds for both randomized and deterministic turnstile streaming algorithms, which hold when the algorithms are non-adaptive. While there has been abundant success in proving space lower bounds, there have been no non-trivial update time lower bounds in the turnstile model. Our lower bounds hold against classically studied problems such as heavy hitters, point query, entropy estimation, and moment estimation. In some cases of deterministic algorithms, our lower bounds nearly match known upper bounds

Sparser Johnson-Lindenstrauss Transforms

We give two different and simple constructions for dimensionality reduction in $\ell_2$ via linear mappings that are sparse: only an $O(\varepsilon)$-fraction of entries in each column of our embedding matrices are non-zero to achieve distortion $1+\varepsilon$ with high probability, while still achieving the asymptotically optimal number of rows. These are the first constructions to provide subconstant sparsity for all values of parameters, improving upon previous works of Achlioptas (JCSS 2003) and Dasgupta, Kumar, and Sarl\'{o}s (STOC 2010). Such distributions can be used to speed up applications where $\ell_2$ dimensionality reduction is used.Comment: v6: journal version, minor changes, added Remark 23; v5: modified abstract, fixed typos, added open problem section; v4: simplified section 4 by giving 1 analysis that covers both constructions; v3: proof of Theorem 25 in v2 was written incorrectly, now fixed; v2: Added another construction achieving same upper bound, and added proof of near-tight lower bound for DKS schem

Coresets-Methods and History: A Theoreticians Design Pattern for Approximation and Streaming Algorithms

We present a technical survey on the state of the art approaches in data reduction and the coreset framework. These include geometric decompositions, gradient methods, random sampling, sketching and random projections. We further outline their importance for the design of streaming algorithms and give a brief overview on lower bounding techniques