By the assumption E[esXi1i2⋯iKu1i1u2i2⋯uKiK]≤exp(u1i12u2i22⋯uKiK2σ2s2/2). Then follow the line of the proof of Hoeffding’s inequality to obtain
Minimizing over s, the right-hand side becomes e−t2/(2σ2). Similarly we obtain P(X(u1,…,uK)≤−t)≤e−t2/(2σ2), and the statement is obtained by taking the union of the two cases. ∎
Assume that for each fixed uk∈Sk (k=1,…,K), we have
Then the spectral norm \bigl{|}\!\bigl{|}\!\bigl{|}\mathcal{X}\bigr{|}\!\bigr{|}\!\bigr{|} can be bounded as follows:
with probability at least 1−δ and K0=log(3/2).
We use a covering number argument. Let C1,…,CK be ϵ-covers of Sn1−1,…,SnK−1. Then since Sn1−1×⋯×SnK−1 is compact, there is a maximizer (u1∗,…,uK∗) of (1) and using the ϵ-covers, we can write
where uˉk∈Ck and ∥δk∥≤ϵ for k=1,…,K by the definition. Now
Take ϵ=K0/K then the sum inside the parenthesis can be bounded as follows:
Since the ϵ-covering number ∣Ck∣ can be bounded by ϵ/2-packing number, which can be bounded by (2/ϵ)nk, using the union bound we obtain
Finally, we take t=8σ2((∑knk)log(2K/K0)+log(2/δ)) to obtain our claim. ∎
We note that a similar bound was proved in Nguyen et al. (2010). We believe that our proof is more concise and simple.
Assume that each entry Xi1⋯iK is conditionally independent given ϵ=(ϵi)i=1M and distributed as
where we used the fact that ∑i1⋯∑iKu1i12⋯uKiK2=1. Therefore, we have
2 Implication for sampling without replacement
with probability at least 1−δ and K0=log(3/2).
This is analogous to the proof of Lemma 4 in Rohde and Tsybakov (2011). Let W1,…,WM be tensors that each are an indicator of the observed positions. Then X=∑j=1MϵjWj. Since each entry is observed maximally once, we have
Taking expectation over the choice of Wj(j=1,…,M), we obtain