《绝地求生》武器宝箱曝光 可以开出整套黄金武器

The rapid advancement of technology across various scientific fields has greatly simplified data collection. In many practical applications, however, there are limitations to measurements that can lead to incomplete data. This can be caused by geographic, climatic, or other factors that determine whether a measurement between two points can be obtained, and as such some data may be missing[1, 2]. For instance, in protein structure prediction, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy experiments yield spectra for protons that are close together, resulting in incomplete known distance information[3]. Similarly, in sensor networks, we may have mobile nodes with known distances only from fixed anchors [4, 5]. In these and other scenarios, the fundamental problem is determining the configuration of points based on partial information about inter-point distances. This problem is known as the Euclidean distance geometry (EDG) problem, which has numerous applications throughout the applied sciences [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15].

To formulate this problem mathematically, some notation is in order. Let $\{\bm{p}_{i}\}_{i=1}^{n}\subset\mathbb{R}^{r}$ denote a set of $n$ points in $\mathbb{R}^{r}$. We define the $n\times r$ matrix $\bm{P}=[\bm{p}_{1},\bm{p}_{2},\cdots,\bm{p}_{n}]^{\top}$, which has the points as rows. There are two essential mathematical objects related to $\bm{P}$. The first object is the Gram matrix $\bm{X}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$, defined as $\bm{X}=\bm{P}\bm{P}^{\top}$. By construction, $\bm{X}$ is symmetric and positive semi-definite. The second object is the squared distance matrix $\bm{D}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$, defined entry-wise as $D_{ij}=\|\bm{p}_{i}-\bm{p}_{j}\|^{2}_{2}$. The reason for working with the squared distance matrix instead of the distance matrix will become clear later. Computing $\bm{D}$ given $\bm{P}$ is conceptually straightforward. However, the inverse problem of determining $\bm{P}$ from $\bm{D}$ is less obvious. To address this problem, we need to precisely define what it means to identify $\bm{P}$. Since rigid motions and translations preserve distances, there is no unique $\bm{P}$ corresponding to a given squared distance matrix $\bm{D}$. From here on, we assume the points are centered at the origin, i.e., for $\bm{1}$ as a column vector of ones, $\bm{P}^{\top}\bm{1}=\bm{0}$. This implies that $\bm{X}\bm{1}=\bm{P}\bm{P}^{\top}\bm{1}=\bm{0}$. We refer to $\bm{P}$ and $\bm{X}$ with this relationship as the centered point and centered Gram matrix, respectively. Since the Gram matrix is invariant under rigid motions, these assumptions allow for a one-to-one correspondence between $\bm{D}$ and $\bm{X}$.

When we have access to all the distances, a central result in [16] provides the following one-to-one correspondence between $\bm{D}$ and a centered $\bm{X}$:

where $\mathrm{diag}(\cdot)$ inputs an $n\times n$ matrix and returns a column vector with the entries along the diagonal, and $\bm{J}=\bm{I}-\frac{1}{n}\bm{1}\bm{1}^{\top}$. Once $\bm{X}$ is reconstructed using the above formula, $\bm{P}$ can be computed from the $r$-truncated eigendecomposition of $\bm{X}$. It is important to note that, as previously mentioned, $\bm{P}$ is unique up to rigid motions. This procedure for computing $\bm{P}$ from a full squared distance matrix $\bm{D}$ is known as classical multidimensional scaling (Classical MDS) [17, 16, 18, 19], and for the truncated eigendecomposition $\bm{X}=\bm{U}\bm{\Lambda}\bm{U}^{\top}$ with $\bm{U}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times r}$ and $\bm{\Lambda}\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$,

We note that $\bm{X}\bm{1}=\bm{0}$ also implies that $\bm{U}^{\top}\bm{1}=\bm{0}$. In many practical scenarios, the distance matrix may be incomplete, making classical MDS inapplicable for determining the point configuration. However, notice that $\mathrm{rank}(\bm{X})\leq r$, and one can show that $\mathrm{rank}(\bm{D})\leq r+2$ [20]. This implies that when $r\ll n$, which is often the case in practice, $\bm{X}$ and $\bm{D}$ are low-rank matrices. This allows us to utilize a rich library of tools from low-rank matrix completion. With this in mind, one technique is to directly apply matrix completion techniques on $\bm{D}$[21]. Let $\Omega\subset\{(i,j)\mid 1\leq i<j\leq n\}$ denote the set of sampled indices corresponding to the strictly upper-triangular part of the distance matrix. Note that, since a distance matrix is hollow and symmetric, it suffices to consider the samples in the upper-triangular part; that is, if $D_{ij}$ is sampled, $D_{ji}$ is also assumed to be sampled. A matrix completion approach would consider the following optimization program to recover $\bm{D}$:

where $\|\cdot\|_{*}=\sum_{i}\sigma_{i}$ denotes the nuclear norm, which serves as a convex surrogate for rank[22]. The main idea of these tools is that, under some assumptions, the nuclear norm minimization program reconstructs the true low-rank squared distance matrix exactly with high probability from $\mathcal{O}(nr\log^{2}(n))$ randomly sampled entries [23, 24, 25, 26, 27]. Another set of techniques [28, 29] focus on recovering the point configuration by using the Gram matrix as an optimization variable, and using only partial information from the entries in $\bm{D}$. Specifically, these works consider the following optimization program for the EDG problem:

where the constraints follow from the relation of $\bm{X}$ and $\bm{D}$ in (1) and (2). Due to the challenge of working with the constraints imposed by distance matrices, i.e., an entrywise triangle inequality that must be satisfied in order to remain a distance matrix, this work will follow the latter approach of optimizing over the Gram matrix. We note that, in contrast to completing the square distance matrix $\bm{D}$ which has rank at most $r+2$, employing a minimization approach based on a Gram matrix that has rank at most $r$ implicitly enforces the constraints of the Euclidean distances. Recent works have indicated that this approach can achieve better sampling complexity than direct distance matrix completion[28, 29, 30].

We note that theoretical guarantees for (5) have been established in [31, 28], but still suffer from the lack of scalability of convex techniques. A non-convex Lagrangian formulation was also proposed in [28], yielding strong numerical results but lacking local convergence guarantees. The work in [32] uses a Riemannian manifold approach to develop a conjugate gradient algorithm for estimating the underlying Gram matrix. The theoretical analysis therein shows that the squared distance matrix iterates globally converge to the true squared distance matrix at the sampled entries under three assumptions. However, the relationship between the problem parameters, such as the sampling scheme and sampled entries, and the third assumption remains unclear, as noted in Remark III.8 of the paper. In [30], the authors introduce a Riemannian conjugate gradient method with line search for the EDG problem. The paper provides a local convergence analysis for the case where the entries of the distance matrix are sampled according to the Bernoulli model given a suitable initialization. The initialization method used is known as rank reduction, which begins with initial points embedded in a higher-dimensional space than the target dimension. While [30] demonstrates strong empirical results for this initialization via tests on synthetic data for sensor localization, there are no provable guarantees provided for the initialization. In [33], an asymmetric projected gradient algorithm is proposed that adapts the pseudogradient of an earlier version of this work, seen in [34], using a Burer-Monteiro factorization. Recovery guarantees are provided, but the recovery is established without reference to the restricted isometry of a random measurement operator, indicating a difference in approach to convergence guarantees. Furthermore, the rate of convergence is sublinear in the attractive basin near the solution, and the recovery guarantees scale quadratically with respect to standard incoherence in the matrix completion literature, rather than the EDG-specific incoherence described in detail in this work.The work in [35] proposes a non-convex algorithm for the EDG problem based on the reweighted least squares framework. It considers the case where distance entries are observed uniformly at random and establishes that with $O(\nu r\log(n)$ distance entries, where $\nu$ is the incoherence parameter (see Section 3 for the definition of a weaker form of incoherence used in this paper), are sufficient for local convergence to the ground Gram matrix. However, [35] does not provide a provable initialization scheme or robustness guarantees for the proposed algorithm. We note that the analysis in [35] achieves optimal sample complexity, matching the lower bound established in [36]. However, their results rely on a stronger incoherence condition than ours. In fact, under our milder incoherence assumption, their sample complexity aligns with ours up to constant factors.

In this section, we will provide some minor background necessary to understand the work done in the following sections. A discussion of dual bases in linear algebra and first-order Riemannian methods can be found in Appendix?G.

In pathological cases, the ground truth matrix $\bm{X}$ may exhibit a sparse representation in the basis $\{\bm{w}_{\bm{\alpha}}\}_{\bm{\alpha}\in\mathbb{I}}$, which could lead to challenges in its recovery from sampled measurements. While the concept of incoherence is well-established in the standard matrix completion literature, the condition specific to the EDG problem slightly differs in structure and admits a natural geometric interpretation. This section is devoted to a detailed examination of this geometric perspective. We will state more formally the incoherence assumptions in Section?5, but we will first introduce one of the conditions below. We say that a rank-$r$ Gram matrix $\bm{X}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ is $\nu$-incoherent with respect to $\{\bm{w}_{\bm{\alpha}}\}_{\bm{\alpha}\in\mathbb{I}}$ if the following statement holds:

We remark that the above is inspired by the standard incoherence condition, which states that

The standard incoherence assumption, shown in (12), is prevalent throughout matrix completion literature and is a measure of “entrywise diffuseness” in the ground truth matrix. Further discussion of standard matrix incoherence can be seen in [25].

The incoherence condition introduced in (11) can be interpreted in terms of the underlying point cloud data. For the specific case of the EDG problem, (11) can be expanded as follows for $\bm{\alpha}=(i,j)$ with $i<j$:

The incoherence condition can then equivalently be stated as

The next Lemma provides the lower and upper bounds for $\nu$.

Next, we aim to state the incoherence condition in terms of the points. Using (13) and noting the relation in (3), and recalling that $\bm{X}=\bm{U}\bm{\Lambda}\bm{U}^{\top}$ with matrix $\bm{\Lambda}:=\mathrm{diag}\left(\lambda_{1}\,\cdots\,\lambda_{r}\right)$, $\bm{u}_{i}=\bm{\Lambda}^{-1/2}\bm{p}_{i}$. Note that classical MDS only recovers a point cloud up to rotation, and that the vectors $\bm{p}_{i}$ referred to here are those recovered through MDS. As such, this exact relationship, $\bm{u}_{i}=\bm{\Lambda}^{-1/2}\bm{p}_{i}$, might not be held for any $\bm{P}$ that generates $\bm{X}$. However, as we discuss below, the relevant quantities of interest are invariant to an orthogonal transformation. We now consider $\bm{u}_{i}^{\top}\bm{u}_{j}$:

This indicates that our incoherence condition can be reinterpreted as

We first start our interpretation for the case where $\bm{\Lambda}$ is the identity matrix. In this setting, for any pair $(i,j)$, the expression $\left(\bm{p}_{i}-\bm{p}_{j}\right)^{\top}\left(\bm{p}_{i}-\bm{p}_{j}\right)$ is the squared Euclidean distance between the points $\bm{p}_{i}$ and $\bm{p}_{j}$. Hence, the incoherence can be directly linked to the maximum distance among the points. We now provide an interpretation of (14) in the general case. The quantity therein suggests that incoherence serves as a measure of how the displacement vectors $\bm{p}_{i}-\bm{p}_{j}$ align with the principal components of the embedding. In particular, for a fixed choice of $\bm{\Lambda}$, varying the matrix $\bm{U}$ leads to different sets of points. If the displacement vectors tend to align with directions corresponding to the smallest principal components (i.e., those with the lowest variance), the incoherence is expected to be high. Conversely, if they align more with the dominant components (those with the highest variance), the incoherence tends to be low. In essence, high incoherence indicates that certain pairs of points are stretching significantly in directions where the embedding space has low variance.

Let us now assume that $\mu$ is isotropic, that is $\bm{\Sigma}=\bm{I}$. Furthermore, as we are interested in point clouds satisfying $\bm{P}^{\top}\bm{1}=\bm{0}$, we consider mean zero distributions. As such, we can say that for isotropic distributions and for independent $\bm{p}_{i},~\bm{p}_{j}\sim\mu$ with $\mathbb{E}[\mu]=0$ that

where the second and fourth lines follow from the independence of $\bm{p}_{i}$ and $\bm{p}_{j}$, the third line follows from the fact that $\mathbb{E}[\mu]=0$, and the seventh line follows from the fact that $\mu$ is isotropic, i.e. $\bm{\Sigma}=\bm{I}$.

Next, we show that we can upper bound $K$ by $C\lambda_{1}({\bm{\Sigma}})=C$ for an isotropic, sub-Gaussian $\mu$ and some absolute constant $C>0$. We will use a moment generating function bound to prove this. First, from Definition 3.4.1 in [50], we have that $\|\bm{p}_{i}\|_{\psi_{2}}=\sup_{\|\bm{u}\|_{2}=1}\|\bm{u}^{\top}\bm{p}_{i}\|_{\psi_{2}}$. Using the moment-generating technique, we can see that

This gives us the bound $K\leq C$ for some absolute constant $C>0$.

We can now see that $\|\bm{D}\|_{\infty}\leq 2r+4C^{2}\sqrt{r}\log{n}$ with high probability for a sub-Gaussian isotropic distribution. Furthermore, from Lemma?3.2 we know that $\lambda_{r}(\bm{X})=cn$ for some $\mathcal{O}(1)$ constant $c>0$. As such, we can see that the incoherence constant can be upper-bounded using (16) by

This indicates that, with high probability, the incoherence constant remains in a regime where it does not degrade the recovery guarantees established in Section?5 for data generated from sub-Gaussian distributions. We note that this result is very similar to the condition derived in [25] for the incoherence of matrices in the random orthogonal model. If it is further assumed that the distribution is bounded in such a way that $\|\bm{D}\|_{\infty}\leq Cr$ for some $\mathcal{O}(1)$ constant $C$, e.g., if $\mu$ is supported in a ball of radius $r^{1/2}$, then this further reduces the incoherence constant to $\nu=\mathcal{O}(1)$.

We note that the analysis in this section exclusively pertained to data generated from isotropic measures. These techniques can be extended to centered and bounded anisotropic sub-Gaussian measures, and one can show the resulting bound for $\nu=\mathcal{O}(\kappa\log{n}/\sqrt{r})$, where $\kappa$ is the condition number of $\bm{X}$. We provide a proof of this result in Lemma?F.3.

With the goal of translating the standard matrix completion problem to Gram matrix completion of a ground truth matrix $\bm{X}\in\mathbb{S}$, where $\mathbb{S}=\{\bm{Y}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}|\bm{Y}=\bm{Y}^{T},\bm{Y}\bm{1}=\bm{0}\}$, the most direct adaptation of the work conducted in [51] would be defining an objective function by analogy to (27) as follows:

However, a notable challenge arises: computing the Euclidean gradient of the objective function necessitates unavailable information in the form $\langle\bm{X},\bm{v}_{\bm{\alpha}}\rangle$ from $\mathcal{R}_{\Omega}^{\ast}(\bm{X})$ as

where $\nabla_{\bm{Y}}$ denotes the gradient with respect to $\bm{Y}$. This is inaccessible given the problem statement, as each $\bm{v}_{\bm{\alpha}}$ depends on every $\bm{w}_{\bm{\alpha}}$ as $\bm{v}_{\bm{\alpha}}=\sum_{\bm{\alpha}\in\mathbb{I}}\bm{H}^{\bm{\alpha}\bm{\beta}}\bm{w}_{\bm{\alpha}}$. To circumvent this difficulty, there has been exploration into self-adjoint alternatives to $\mathcal{R}_{\Omega}$ [52, 28, 48]. The novel surrogate introduced in this work, denoted $\mathcal{M}_{\Omega}$, allows for the definition of an objective function in analogy to (27).

We now define $\mathcal{M}_{\Omega}:\mathbb{S}\to\mathbb{S}$. This operator samples indices from $\mathbb{I}$ with uniform Bernoulli probability $p$, and is defined as follows:

where $C_{\bm{\alpha}\bm{\alpha}}=p$ for all $\bm{\alpha}$, and $C_{\bm{\alpha}\bm{\beta}}=1$ for all $\bm{\alpha}\neq\bm{\beta}$. This diagonal re-scaling is introduced to make sure that $\mathbb{E}[\mathcal{M}_{\Omega}]=p^{2}\mathcal{I}$. Previous literature introduced an unscaled form of this operator, i.e. $C_{\bm{\alpha}\bm{\alpha}}=1$, computed as $\mathcal{R}^{\ast}_{\Omega}\mathcal{R}_{\Omega}$ [48]. This operator does not concentrate around the identity operator, demonstrated in Lemma?B.1, and as such a re-scaled form of the operator must be considered. The new operator is self-adjoint, and as such we can define the following objective function for the EDG problem using this operator:

This object is a true quadratic form with a symmetric operator, and its Euclidean gradient is given solely by $\mathcal{M}_{\Omega}(\bm{Y}-\bm{X})$. As such, it can be approached identically to (27) following the principles outlined in Appendix?G. To perform this first-order retraction method from the tangent space at a point $\bm{X}_{l}\in\mathcal{N}_{r}$, we define the retraction map, known as the hard thresholding operator $\mathcal{H}_{r}:\mathbb{T}_{l}\to\mathcal{N}_{r}$, as follows:

where $\bm{U}_{i}$ is the $i$-th eigenvector of $\bm{Y}$ corresponding to eigenvalue with the $i$-th largest magnitude $\lambda_{i}(\bm{Y})$. We note that for matrices $\bm{Y}$ with $\mathrm{rank}(\bm{Y})\geq r$ that $\mathrm{rank}\left(\mathcal{H}_{r}(\bm{Y})\right)=r$. We can now define Algorithm?1, the main object of study in this work: