That is, we only need to verify that ∥Πx∥2 is approximately accurate for the unit sphere in V. So, we will only build a net over the unit sphere in V:
Fix ε∈(0,2), and dimension d≥1. Then there exists a set Nε with ∣Nε∣≤(ε6)d such that, for all x with ∥x∥2=1 there exists some y∈Nε such that ∥x−y∥2≤ε.
Proof. Consider a greedy algorithm that constructs Nε:
Start with Nε={}
While there exists any x with ∥x∥2=1 such that ∥x−y∥2>ε for all y∈N, add x to Nε
Then Nε clearly satisfies the correctness property – all x on the unit ball must be ε-close to some y∈Nε. We just have to bound ∣Nε∣. Note that for all yi,yj∈Nε, we have ∥yi−yj∥2>ε, or else one of those y vectors would not have been added by the greedy algorithm.
Note that a ball of radius r in Rd has volume crd, where c=Γ(2d+1)πd/2 does not depend on r (link).
We now make the Volume Argument. We consider placing balls of radius 2ε on all yi∈Nε:
B(y1,2ε),…,B(y∣Nε∣,2ε)
Since these balls do not intersect, and since the volume of each ball is c(2ε)d, these balls have total volume equal to ∣Nε∣c(2ε)d. Next, since the union of these disjoint balls all fits within a ball of radius 1+2ε≤3, we must have
∣Nε∣c(2ε)d≤c3d
Rearranging this, we get ∣Nε∣≤(ε6)d.
■
Theorem 2 does not care what d-dimensional space is considered, be it Rd or a d-dimensional linear subspace of Rn.
We will use it to make nets over the unit ball of V.
The Volume Argument used in the proof does not really use the fact that ∥x∥2=1, and instead actually bounds the size of net over the whole ball of ∥x∥2≤1.
So, if you need an argument that uses a net over the whole interior of the ball, the same bound of ∣Nε∣≤(ε6)d is correct.
The same proof when constrained to a more typical ε∈(0,1) achieves a different constant ∣Nε∣≤(ε4)d, which may appear in other works.
Let ∥x∥2=1 and let Nε be an ε-Net for the unit ball. Then, there exists a sequence y0,…,yn,…∈Nε such that x=∑i=0∞αiyi where 0≤αi≤εi and α0=1.
Proof. By construction of the net, we know there exists some y0∈Nε such that ∥x−y0∥≤ε. That is, the residual r0:=x−y0 has norm c1:=∥r0∥≤ε. Then, again by the net, we know that some y1∈Nε has ∥c1r0−y1∥≤ε. That is, the residual r1:=c1r0−y1 has norm c2:=∥r1∥≤ε. Repeating this process, we get x=y0+r0=y0+c1(y1+r2)=y0+c1(y1+c2(y2+…))=y0+c1y1+c1c2y2+c1c2c3y3+… Since each ci∈[0,ε], we get that αi:=c1c2…ci∈[0,εi].
Here, we present a proof of Theorem 1, but which uses sample complexity O(ε2dlog(1/ε)+log(1/δ)) instead of the tighter rate O(ε2d+log(1/δ)) promised in theorem statement. This proof, however, is very simple and just uses Lemma 1 and the triangle inequality:
Proof. Let ε0:=4ε. Let Nε0 be an ε0-Net for the unit ball, so that ∣Nε0∣≤(ε24)d and so that union bounding JL over all y∈Nε0 requires sketching dimension k=Ω(ε2log(∣Nε0∣/δ))=Ω(ε2dlog(1/ε)+log(1/δ)). Namely, we have ∥Πyi∥∈(1±ε0) since ∥y∥2=1 for all y∈Nε0.
Let x be any vector with ∥x∥2=1, and let x=∑i=0∞αiyi be its Net Expansion. Then, we have
since 1−ε01+ε0≤1+4ε0=1+ε for ε∈[0,1], we get ∥Πx∥2≤1+ε. Similarly, by the reverse triangle inequality ∥a+b∥≥∥a∥−∥b∥, ∥Πx∥≥∥Πy0∥−∥∥i=1∑∞αiΠyi∥∥≥∥Πy0∥−i=1∑∞αi∥Πyi∥≥(1−ε0)−(1+ε0)i=1∑∞ε0i=(1−ε0)−(1+ε0)1−ε0ε0 So we get ∥Πx∥≥(1−ε0)−ε01−ε01+ε0≥1−3ε0≥1−ε. That is, we overall find
We now present a sharper analysis that achieves the rate of k=Ω(ε2d+log(1/δ)):
We do this by decreasing the precision of the net from an ε-Net to a 21-Net, which therefore needs a new tighter rounding argument. To understand how this works, we ask why the proof via triangle inequality has to use a net with precision O(ε). Suppose the JL matrix preserved the norm of all y∈Nε perfectly, then that proof bounds
∥x∥≤i=0∑∞αi∥yi∥≤i=0∑∞εi=1+ε
This proof, even for a perfectly accurate JL matrix, still overestimates the norm of x because the triangle inequality is loosing vital information. Specifically, note that ∥a+b∥2=∥a∥2+∥b∥2 only if a and b are perfectly orthogonal. If we somehow had a net Nε such that y1,…,y∞ were orthogonal, then the triangle inequality proof would be tight.
However, that's trivially not the case here. For instance, by the pigeonhole principle we guarantee that y1,…,y∞ has infinitely many repeated vectors, since ∣Nε∣<∞, and so those repeated vectors are deeply non-orthogonal.
So, we need to find a new way to preserve ∥x∥ in terms of y1,…,y∞, and that approach follows by examining the unique properties of the ℓ2 norm, namely that
∥a−b∥22=∥a∥22+∥b∥22−2a⊺b
Or, equivalently,
a⊺b=21(∥a∥22+∥b∥22−∥a−b∥22)
We then can preserve all three terms on the right to relative error by union bounding JL over a, b, and a−b, and So, we can expand ∥x∥22=(∑iαiyi)⊺(∑iαiyi) as a large sum of inner products, preserve all the corresponding norms by JL, and recover a relative error guarantee with a coarser net and (1+ε)-accurate JL.
Let ε0=24ε. Let N2 be a 21-Net for the unit ball, so that ∣N2∣≤12d. We union bound JL over all pairs y,y′∈N2, so that both ∥Πy∥2∈(1±ε0) and ∥Π(y−y′)∥2∈(1±ε0)∥y−y′∥2 hold for all y,y′∈N2. This requires sketching dimension k=Ω(ε02log(∣N2∣/δ))=Ω(ε2d+log(1/δ)).
Let x be any vector with ∥x∥2=1, and let x=∑i=0∞αiyi be its Net Expansion. Then, we have
And the lower bound similarly is ∥Πx∥22≥1−24ε0. So, we have ∥Πx∥2≤1+24ε0≤1+24ε0=1+ε and ∥Πx∥2≥1−24ε0≤1−24ε0=1−ε (see this on Desmos), which completes the proof.