2
$\begingroup$

Consider a series of random matrices $X_n\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$ consisting of i.i.d. entries, each with zero mean and variance $1/m$, and let $a_n,b_n\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times1}$ be two deterministic (or random and independent on $X$) vectors, say with bounded norm.

I want to find the structure of some "nice"/"simple" "limit" function, $f_n$, of the following term $$ a_n^T\left(X_nX_n^T+I_n\right)^{-1}b_n-f_n\to0 $$ almost surely, as $n,m\to\infty$ with fixed ratio.

EDIT: Due to Ofer's answer and comments I will consider some specific choice of $a_n$: $$ \frac{1}{n}w_n^TX_n^T\left(X_nX_n^T+I_n\right)^{-1}b_n-f_n\to0 $$ Since $w_n^TX_n^T = \sum_{i=1}^mw_{i}x_i^T$ where $x_i$ is $i$th raw of $X_n$, we can write that \begin{align} \frac{1}{n}w_n^TX_n^T\left(X_nX_n^T+I_n\right)^{-1}b_n = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^mw_{i}x_i^T\left(X_nX_n^T+I_n\right)^{-1}b_n \end{align} We know that $X_nX_n^T = \sum_{i=1}^mx_ix_i^T$. Let $\left[X_nX_n^T\right]_i = X_nX_n^T-x_ix_i^T$. Thus, \begin{align} \frac{1}{n}w_n^TX_n^T\left(X_nX_n^T+I_n\right)^{-1}b_n &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^mw_{i}x_i^T\left(X_nX_n^T+I_n\right)^{-1}b_n\\ &=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^mw_{i}\frac{x_i^T\left(\left[X_nX_n^T\right]_i+I_n\right)^{-1}b_n}{1+x_i^T\left(\left[X_nX_n^T\right]_i+I_n\right)^{-1}x_i} \end{align} Now, since $x_i$ is independent on $\left(\left[X_nX_n^T\right]_i+I_n\right)^{-1}$, we know that (a.s.) $$ x_i^T\left(\left[X_nX_n^T\right]_i+I_n\right)^{-1}x_i-\int (1+x)^{-1} \rho(dx)\to0 $$ where $\rho$ is the limit density of eigenvalues of $XX^T$. The same is true for the numerator. So, the speculation is that $f_n$ behaves like \begin{align} f_n &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^mw_{i}\frac{x_i^Tb_n\int (1+x)^{-1} \rho(dx)}{1+\int (1+x)^{-1} \rho(dx)}\\ &=\frac{\int (1+x)^{-1} \rho(dx)}{1+\int (1+x)^{-1} \rho(dx)}\frac{1}{n}w_n^TX_n^Tb_n \end{align}

Update: Numerical calculations suggests that the above "limit" is not true, although, I can't really say that I completely understand where the rub is.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

For $a_n=b_n$ with $\|a_n\|=\|b_n\|$, the result is standard (and can be found for example in papers of Bai and Silverstein, usually as a technical lemma in the appendix...): let $\rho$ be the limit density of eigenvalues of $XX^T$ (the Pastur-Marchenko law). Then the limit you seek is asymptotically the normalized trace of $(XX^T+I)^{-1}$, i.e., $A:=\int (1+x)^{-1} \rho(dx)$.

If $a_n\neq b_n$ it requires a bit more work, but the answer should be $A\cdot \langle a_n,b_n\rangle$. The reasoning is similar: the expression you have is $\sum \lambda_i \alpha_i \beta_i$ where $\alpha_i$ are the coefficients of $a_n$ in the eigenbase of $XX^T$. This will concentrate near its mean (to prove that, use results on the eigenvectors as in Silverstein's paper from the mid 90's on eigenvectors of covariance matrices; everything is much simpler in the Gaussian case), which will give the expression I wrote.

$\endgroup$
16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In general of course you do not have a decomposition. However, let's see in your case. Let's take $b_n=\alpha a_n+b_n'$ where $b_n'$ is orthogonal to $a_n$. To make notation simple, assume the norm of $a_n$ and of $b_n'$ to be $1$. You are trying to compute $a_n^T V b_n'$ where $V$ is your matrix of the form $UDU^T$. At least in the Gaussian case, $U$ is Haar distributed and independent of $D$. Let $W$ be the unitary matrix such that $Wa_n=e_1$ and $Wb_n'=e_2$. Then you are trying to compute the (1,2) element of $WUD(WU)^T$. But $WU$ is again Haar distributed, so law is same as $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 28, 2013 at 11:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (1,2) element of $UDU^T$, which is $\sum_j U_{1j} U_{2j} D_j$. But this has mean $0$ and is of order $1/\sqrt{n}$. Are you sure about your matlab simulation? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 28, 2013 at 11:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The version with $w^T XX^T$ is trivial: write $w^TXX^T=w^T (XX^T-I)+ w^T$. Now use the previous answer for the second term (first term is trivial). $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 28, 2013 at 18:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The Gaussion assumption was to illustrate the point, it is not really needed and the answer will be the same. In any case, what you have is a diagonal matrix (DB) multiplied left and right by vectors that are randomly rotated, in this case by (essentially independent) rotations. This is very similar to the original problem. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 28, 2013 at 19:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I suggest email for further communication. My answers related to the square (n=m) case. In the rectangular case you need to adapt, but D can still be taken diagonal. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 29, 2013 at 17:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .