Concentration Probability
Fast and Sparse Johnson-Lindenstrauss Transforms
Applying a Johnson-Lindenstrauss embedding faster than a dense k-by-d matrix: the Ailon-Chazelle fast transform, the dual BCH and RIP-based refinements, sparse matrices with order log(1/delta)/epsilon nonzeros per column, and the Larsen-Nelson theorem that no embedding, linear or not, beats order log(n)/epsilon^2 dimensions on worst-case point sets.
Prerequisites
Learning position
Place this page in a reading path.
concentration-probability | layer 4 | tier 2. This page has 3 direct prerequisites and 0 published dependents.
What next
Sparse Recovery and Compressed SensingThis is the first curated or graph-derived continuation from the current page.
Evidence badge
Source-grounded pageThis page has no public Lean mapping yet. Use the evidence page to inspect how claim status labels work.
Why This Matters
The Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma answers a dimension question: points in fit into dimensions with every squared pairwise distance kept within a factor . It leaves two questions open. How fast can the map be applied, and can be smaller?
The Gaussian proof produces a dense matrix, so embedding one point costs arithmetic operations. With , and that is about operations per point before any constant factor. Two lines of work cut this cost. Fast transforms apply a randomized Hadamard transform and then a cheap projection, which costs about . Sparse transforms put only nonzeros in each column, so the cost scales with the number of nonzero input coordinates instead of with .
The dimension question was settled in 2017. Larsen and Nelson built point sets on which every map with the JL guarantee, linear or not, needs dimensions over almost the whole range of where such a bound can hold. The random-projection dimension is therefore not an artifact of the union-bound proof.
Mental Model
Three numbers describe a JL construction:
- Rows . The target dimension. The lower bounds at the end of this page say cannot drop below order for worst-case inputs.
- Time per point. Dense Gaussian or sign matrices cost . Fast transforms cost plus a term that grows with . Sparse transforms cost .
- Column sparsity . The number of nonzeros per column. In a stream where one coordinate of changes at a time, updating the sketch costs .
The obstacle is a sparse input. If and the matrix is sparse, then is one sparse column, and its squared norm averages too few terms to land within of . Fast transforms first spread the mass of over all coordinates. Sparse transforms instead put exactly entries of size in each column, so for every basis vector and all error comes from coordinates that share a row; of order keeps those collisions small.
Formal Setup
JL guarantee
Let with and . A map has the -JL guarantee on if
The map may be nonlinear and may depend on .
Distributional JL property
A distribution over real matrices has the distributional JL property if for every fixed ,
For such distributions exist with . This is the JL lemma in the form stated as Lemma 1 of Kane and Nelson 2014, who credit it to Johnson and Lindenstrauss.
Taking and a union bound over the difference vectors turns any distributional JL construction into an -JL map for each fixed of size , with . All known upper-bound proofs of the JL lemma take this route (Larsen and Nelson 2017, Section 1.1). Versions stated with squared or unsquared norms differ by a constant rescaling of . Below, is the number of nonzero coordinates of , and running times count arithmetic operations for one input vector after the random matrix has been sampled.
Why a Sparse Matrix Alone Fails
Achlioptas showed that a matrix whose entries are with probability and a scaled otherwise still gives the JL guarantee (Achlioptas 2003). That saves a factor of three. Ailon and Chazelle explain why independent sparsification cannot go much further: a sparse matrix distorts sparse vectors (Ailon and Chazelle 2009, Section 1.1).
Take with independent entries that are with probability and with probability , so every entry has mean and second moment and . For , is the first column of . That column is identically zero with probability . If , the estimate equals with probability at least , while its target is . For a flat input with for every , each row sums about nonzero terms of equal size, and once is large enough the estimate concentrates. The fix is to make every input flat first.
The Fast Johnson-Lindenstrauss Transform
Fast Johnson-Lindenstrauss Transform (Ailon-Chazelle)
Statement
Let for a suitable global constant , and let , where:
- is a diagonal matrix with independent uniform entries;
- is the normalized Walsh-Hadamard matrix, , with the inner product of binary expansions taken mod 2;
- is with independent entries, each with probability and with probability , where .
With probability at least both of the following hold:
- for every ;
- computing takes operations.
This is the Euclidean case of Lemma 1 in Ailon and Chazelle (SIAM J. Comput. 2009), first presented at STOC 2006. The same lemma with embeds into in operations. The paper writes part 1 with a normalizing factor ; the factor used here is the one fixed by . Section 2 of the paper assumes throughout; without it, the flattening step below gives the level in place of . When is known, success can be tested, and independent repetitions raise the success probability to .
Intuition
is orthogonal, so it changes no norm. A vector and its Walsh-Hadamard transform cannot both be concentrated on few coordinates, and the random signs in make it unlikely that is concentrated for any of the fixed inputs. After this rotation every input looks like the flat vector from the previous section, which is the good case for the sparse projection .
Proof Sketch
Step 1: flattening. Fix a unit vector and let . Each coordinate is with independent signs . For ,
and Markov's inequality with gives for every threshold . Choosing and taking a union bound over the coordinates of , with because , gives with probability at least .
Step 2: projecting a flat vector. Condition on that event. The squared norm is a sum of independent row terms, each with mean . Because no coordinate of carries more than of the squared mass, the moments of each row term are controlled at sparsity , and a Chernoff bound gives failure probability small enough for a union bound over once .
Step 3: time. costs . costs by the recursive Walsh-Hadamard transform. costs its number of nonzeros, a count with mean when , and never more than . Markov's inequality turns the mean into a constant-probability bound.
Why It Matters
Whenever , one point costs instead of . Ailon and Chazelle used it for approximate nearest neighbors: for points in and any they build a randomized structure of size that answers -approximate nearest neighbor queries in time with high probability (Theorem 1 of the journal version).
Failure Mode
The cost holds only while the second term is smaller. At fixed , means is at most of order ; Krahmer and Ward summarize the construction as fast only for about points. The term is paid in full even when , which rules the construction out for streaming updates. The guarantee is for a set fixed before the randomness is drawn, with success probability . The Walsh-Hadamard matrix needs to be a power of two, so inputs are padded with zeros.
Refinements of the Fast Transform
Dual BCH codes: time
Ailon and Liberty say a distribution over matrices has the Johnson-Lindenstrauss property if every unit and every satisfy for global constants .
Fast JL via Rademacher Series on Dual BCH Codes (Ailon-Liberty)
Statement
Fix a constant . For all and with there is a distribution over matrices with this Johnson-Lindenstrauss property such that can be computed in time for every . Sampling uses random bits, and the same holds for embeddings into . The constants depend on (Ailon and Liberty, Discrete Comput. Geom. 2009; statement and proof constants read in the author-hosted conference version).
With and a union bound, this gives an -JL map for a fixed -point set at cost per point, provided .
Intuition
Two substitutions. The random sparse becomes a deterministic code matrix that is 4-wise independent: in any 4 rows, the entries of a uniformly random column are independent random signs, up to scaling. That makes its operator norm small. The flatness of the input becomes flatness, which a few rounds of randomized Hadamard transforms deliver.
Proof Sketch
Write , where uses independent sign diagonals, is a fresh sign diagonal, and is built from copies of a dual BCH code matrix that is 4-wise independent in this sense. For , the quantity is the norm of a Rademacher series in the signs of . Talagrand's inequality for such series gives , with median within of and, by Cauchy-Schwarz, . Four-wise independence gives . The Hausdorff-Young bound applied over the rounds gives with probability . Hence and the tail is . Running the Hadamard rounds blockwise on blocks whose size is polynomial in brings the time from to .
Why It Matters
Up to this removes the -dependent term of the original fast transform and beats both it and the dense map. For very small the factor replaces .
Failure Mode
The cap is binding. In the worked example below, exceeds , so the theorem does not apply. The constant in the bound grows exponentially in .
Removing the cap on the number of points
Ailon and Liberty (SODA 2011; ACM Trans. Algorithms 2013) take to be rows chosen at random from the unnormalized Hadamard matrix and a random sign diagonal. For , a set of vectors in the Euclidean unit ball, and , with constant probability every satisfies
and one vector costs . The proof extends the Rudelson-Vershynin restricted isometry analysis of partial Fourier matrices, which replaces a Rademacher process by a Gaussian one through a comparison inequality and bounds the Gaussian process with Dudley's entropy integral (empirical processes and chaining). Their abstract states the reach: point sets of size up to , against for the dual BCH construction and for the original transform. The price is the and factors in .
From restricted isometry to JL: random column signs
The restricted isometry property of order with constant asks that for every -sparse .
RIP Matrices with Random Column Signs Are JL Embeddings (Krahmer-Ward)
Statement
Fix , , and a finite set with . Let and let have the restricted isometry property of order with constant . Let be uniform on and . With probability exceeding ,
Intuition
Sort the coordinates of by magnitude. The few large coordinates form a sparse vector, which RIP handles deterministically. The remaining coordinates are small, and their interaction with the large block and with each other is a sum with random signs, which concentrates.
Proof Sketch
Normalize , put in decreasing arrangement, and cut it into blocks of size . Expand into three parts.
- Within-block terms. Each block is -sparse, so RIP bounds their sum by with no randomness.
- First block against the rest. For fixed signs on the first block this is a linear form with . Hoeffding gives a tail .
- Remaining cross-block terms. These form a Rademacher chaos with zero diagonal, and , controlled by a Hanson-Wright-type chaos bound.
The norm estimates use two facts: RIP of order gives for disjoint blocks, and a decreasing arrangement gives . A union bound over with combines the three parts.
Why It Matters
Every RIP bound becomes a JL bound. A random partial Hadamard or partial Fourier matrix has RIP of order and constant once . With random signs and the set of pairwise differences, rows give an -JL map computable in time. Krahmer and Ward call the construction unrestricted: has no cap of the form or . More than rows saves nothing over the identity map, so still limits to . This improves the of Ailon and Liberty to , the optimal dependence up to the factor.
Failure Mode
The signs must be independent of . A fixed with has a nontrivial null space and maps those vectors to , so RIP alone never implies JL for an arbitrary set. The polylogarithmic factor in inherited from structured RIP bounds remains.
Sparse JL Matrices
Dasgupta, Kumar, and Sarlós (STOC 2010) gave a JL distribution into with nonzeros per column, fewer than the rows once . Set and . Replicate each input coordinate times with weight , then send each of the copies to one uniformly random row with a random sign. For any fixed , with probability the resulting satisfies , and costs (their Theorem 1). The hashing step alone is analyzed for inputs with , and ; replication supplies that flatness. The same hashing construction appears in the feature hashing work of Weinberger, Dasgupta, Langford, Smola and Attenberg (ICML 2009); Dasgupta, Kumar, and Sarlós note that the concentration bound claimed there was false because of an error in applying Talagrand's inequality.
Sparser Johnson-Lindenstrauss Transforms (Kane-Nelson)
Statement
For there are , and a distribution over matrices with exactly nonzero entries in every column, each equal to , such that for every
Two placements work. In the graph construction each column puts its nonzeros in distinct random rows. In the block construction the rows are split into blocks of rows and each column picks one random row per block. Hash locations and signs need only -wise independence (for the graph construction, almost -wise independent permutations), and one of the two can be sampled with random bits. Computing costs (Kane and Nelson, J. ACM 2014; conference version SODA 2012).
With : , , and one point costs .
Intuition
Write with the nonzero pattern and the signs. Because every column has exactly entries of size , the diagonal part of equals exactly. All error comes from collisions, pairs that share a row:
Proof Sketch
Start with a fixed pattern in which any two columns share rows (the code-based analysis). Then for a block-diagonal with zero trace, and . The Hanson-Wright moment bound
with , an even integer when is a power of , and Markov's inequality give once (Frobenius term) and (operator term). The event gives . A deterministic code with the required overlap forces slightly larger; the random-hashing analysis bounds directly by counting the graphs that index its monomials and reaches .
Why It Matters
In a turnstile stream, an update changes the sketch by , which costs instead of for a dense matrix or for a Hadamard-based one. Kane and Nelson use this to speed up the streaming regression and low-rank approximation algorithms of Clarkson and Woodruff (their Section 6). The output lives in , not behind a median estimator, so it can feed nearest-neighbor search or gradient-based training on hashed features.
Failure Mode
The sparsity cannot drop much further. Kane and Nelson show that, for and below a constant depending on , their graph and block constructions need even with fully random hash functions (Theorems 18 and 19), and that the Dasgupta-Kumar-Sarlós scheme needs (Theorem 16). Nelson and Nguyen (STOC 2013) show that some -point set forces many nonzeros per column in every JL matrix on it. Their Theorem 10 concerns unit vectors in with at most nonzeros each and pairwise inner products at most in absolute value. For , with a fixed constant, and , it gives . When also , this reads (their Corollary 11), which matches Kane-Nelson up to . On a dense input, and the cost is only a factor below the dense matrix.
How Small Can Be?
The upper bound is : the identity map gives , and projecting onto the span of gives at most . Lower bounds came in four steps.
- Johnson and Lindenstrauss (1984) proved for below a constant, as recounted by Larsen and Nelson.
- Alon (2003) proved, via a rank bound for perturbed identity matrices: if have all pairwise distances in with , then (Alon 2009, Proposition 3.1, proved in Alon 2003). An -JL map sends to points whose pairwise distances lie within a factor of , so after rescaling the proposition applies to those images with in place of whenever . For the simplex and , Larsen and Nelson state the resulting bound as dimensions (Larsen and Nelson 2016, Section 1). They credit it to Levenshtein and Alon and note that it also follows from the Welch bound (Larsen and Nelson 2017, Section 1). For the simplex the loss is real: Reed-Solomon codes embed it into dimensions (Larsen and Nelson 2016, Section 1).
- Larsen and Nelson (ICALP 2016) removed the loss for linear maps.
- Larsen and Nelson (FOCS 2017) removed it for all maps.
The JL Dimension Is Optimal for Linear Maps (Larsen-Nelson 2016)
Statement
There is an absolute constant such that for every , every and every , some -point set has the following property: every linear map with the -JL guarantee on has
Intuition
Include the basis vectors, which force every column of to have norm near , so . Include many Gaussian vectors . For any fixed matrix, fluctuates at scale , and some hits a large fluctuation. The JL guarantee caps the fluctuation, which caps , and a trace-to-Frobenius ratio bounds the rank from below.
Proof Sketch
Let with a set of Gaussian vectors (arXiv version). Discretize candidate matrices by a net of size in Frobenius norm at scale . By Latała's lower-tail form of Hanson-Wright, a Gaussian satisfies with probability at least . With and a union bound over , every meets such a . The JL guarantee on bounds that deviation by , so
Since has rank at most , Cauchy-Schwarz on its eigenvalues gives , and here.
Why It Matters
Every known JL construction is linear, and linearity is required in turnstile streaming and compressed sensing. This theorem rules out a better linear map even with full knowledge of , for example one chosen after a first pass over the data.
Failure Mode
The hard instance here is nearly orthogonal, and nearly orthogonal sets admit nonlinear embeddings into dimensions when (Larsen and Nelson 2017, Section 1.1). So this theorem alone leaves room for nonlinear maps.
Optimality of the Johnson-Lindenstrauss Lemma (Larsen-Nelson 2017)
Statement
For all integers and every with
there is a set with such that every map with the -JL guarantee on has
In particular, if also , then and (Larsen and Nelson, FOCS 2017, pp. 633-638, Theorem 2).
Intuition
Build many point sets that differ in which coordinates each point touches, in a way any JL map must preserve. If were small, the embedded sets could be written down in too few bits to tell all the original sets apart.
Proof Sketch
Hard family. Take and, for with , let . Then if and otherwise. Each member of the family is a sequence with .
What a JL map preserves. Translate so . Then preserves squared norms within , and the polarization identity gives . A gap of separates from after embedding, so the embedded sequence determines every .
Encoding. Round embedded points to nets of convex bodies in (a volume argument covers an origin-symmetric convex body by translated copies of ) and encode each embedded sequence in bits, injectively. The family has members. In the simple case ,
The paper removes the in the denominator and handles general .
Why It Matters
Distributional JL plus a union bound is optimal: no nonlinear, data-dependent embedding improves the dimension for worst-case inputs. The necessary condition for any bound of this form follows from the upper bound , and the theorem matches it up to the factor. Larsen and Nelson conjecture the optimal dimension is for all and . The revised arXiv version (Section 1.2) reports that Alon and Klartag proved the lower bound over the full parameter range, removing the condition.
Failure Mode
The bound is about the worst -point set. Sets of low dimension, or the simplex at very small , embed into fewer dimensions. The earlier hard instances were nearly orthogonal and could not have given this result, because of the Reed-Solomon embeddings noted above; the encoding argument needs the different family.
A separate fact concerns the distributional form. Any distribution with the distributional JL property needs rows (Larsen and Nelson 2017, Section 1.1, citing Jayram-Woodruff and Kane-Meka-Nelson). That rules out better oblivious linear constructions with the union bound, but not a map chosen after seeing . The two Larsen-Nelson theorems close that gap.
Worked Example: Cost per Point
Take , , , natural logarithms, and every hidden constant set to , so and . Real constants are larger; the ratios are the point. Here slightly exceeds , against the fast transform's assumption , but and , so the orders of its terms do not change.
| Construction | Operation count per point | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Dense Gaussian | ||
| Achlioptas signs, one third nonzero | ||
| Fast JL transform | ||
| Sparse JL, dense input | ||
| Sparse JL, input with 1000 nonzeros |
Four readings follow.
- The fast transform is about times cheaper than the dense matrix here because is far below . It stays in that regime until , about points.
- The dual BCH construction does not apply: .
- On a dense input, sparse JL is about times more expensive than the fast transform. On an input with nonzeros it is about times cheaper.
- No construction can use fewer than order dimensions on a worst-case million-point set; here , so the lower bound is of order times an unknown constant.
Common Confusions
The lower bound does not say every point set needs order log n over epsilon squared dimensions
Larsen-Nelson exhibit one hard set per . Many sets need far fewer dimensions: a set inside a -dimensional subspace embeds isometrically into , and the simplex at very small embeds into fewer than dimensions through Reed-Solomon codes. The theorem says the union-bound dimension cannot be improved uniformly over all sets.
Which paper proved which lower bound
Johnson and Lindenstrauss (1984) proved . Alon (2003) proved with the simplex. Larsen and Nelson proved for linear maps at ICALP 2016 and for arbitrary maps at FOCS 2017, not STOC. Citing the 1984 paper for the factor, or the 2016 paper for nonlinear maps, misattributes the result.
The fast transform is not O(d log d) unconditionally
The Ailon-Chazelle cost is . The second term is dropped only when it is smaller than . The later refinements trade this term for a cap on (dual BCH codes) or for extra factors in (partial Hadamard with random signs).
A random sparse matrix is not automatically a sparse JL transform
Independent sparsification with sends to with probability at least . The sparse JL constructions fix exactly nonzeros per column with of order ; that structure makes the diagonal part of exact. Sparsity also buys time only on sparse inputs.
RIP does not imply JL without random signs
A matrix with the restricted isometry property can still annihilate any vector in its null space. Krahmer-Ward needs column signs drawn independently of the point set. The other direction, from distributional JL to RIP, is the theorem of Baraniuk et al. (2008) discussed on the RIP page.
Where This Appears in Learning Theory and ML
- Nearest-neighbor search. The fast transform was introduced for approximate nearest neighbors, and random projection before search is the motivation on semantic search and embeddings.
- Sketching for regression and low-rank approximation. Sparse JL matrices cut the update cost of streaming least squares and low-rank approximation.
- Feature hashing. Hashing features into buckets with random signs is the one-nonzero-per-column case; the Dasgupta-Kumar-Sarlós and Kane-Nelson analyses state when it preserves Euclidean geometry and how many nonzeros are needed. The analyses need hash families with limited independence, not the collision-resistant functions of cryptographic hashing.
- Compressed sensing. Krahmer-Ward make every RIP measurement matrix a JL map after randomizing column signs. They note an application to cross validation: if hold-out measurements satisfy JL, then estimates the recovery error . See sparse recovery and compressed sensing.
- Compression arguments. Any analysis that compresses points to dimensions while keeping all squared distances within pays on worst-case inputs, whatever the map. A dimension-reduction step inside a generalization or privacy argument cannot beat this rate without assumptions on the data.
Summary
- Dense JL maps cost per point with .
- Ailon-Chazelle: costs with probability at least for a fixed -point set.
- Ailon-Liberty: time for via dual BCH codes; time with and no cap on of the form .
- Krahmer-Ward: RIP of order and constant plus random column signs gives JL with probability exceeding .
- Kane-Nelson: nonzeros per column with the optimal , cost ; Nelson-Nguyen show this is tight up to when .
- Lower bounds: Alon 2003 ; Larsen-Nelson ICALP 2016 for linear maps; Larsen-Nelson FOCS 2017 for all maps when .
Exercises
Problem
Let have independent entries equal to with probability and with probability . Take , , , and . Bound the probability that . Then compute every coordinate of for the normalized Walsh-Hadamard matrix and a random sign diagonal .
Problem
For the fast transform with and , and all hidden constants equal to , find the number of points at which the term overtakes .
Problem
Let satisfy the -JL guarantee on a set containing , , and with , and assume . Show that is within of . For which is the choice meaningful?
Problem
(a) Show that a nonzero symmetric positive semidefinite matrix of rank satisfies . (b) Let be unit vectors in with for . Deduce . (c) Explain why this gives only and what the linear-map lower bound adds.
Problem
In the code-based sparse JL analysis, with and , and the moment bound holds for even . With , where is a power of so that is an even integer, and , find conditions on and that give .
References
Fast transforms:
- Ailon & Chazelle, "Approximate nearest neighbors and the fast Johnson-Lindenstrauss transform" (STOC 2006, pp. 557-563)
- Ailon & Chazelle, "The Fast Johnson-Lindenstrauss Transform and Approximate Nearest Neighbors" (SIAM J. Comput. 39(1), 2009, pp. 302-322), Lemma 1 and Theorem 1
- Ailon & Liberty, "Fast Dimension Reduction Using Rademacher Series on Dual BCH Codes" (Discrete Comput. Geom. 42(4), 2009, pp. 615-630); Theorem 2.2 and Lemmas 4.1, 5.1 and 5.2 read in the author-hosted conference version
- Ailon & Liberty, "An Almost Optimal Unrestricted Fast Johnson-Lindenstrauss Transform" (SODA 2011, pp. 185-191; ACM Trans. Algorithms 9(3), 2013; statement read in arXiv:1005.5513, Theorem 3.1)
- Krahmer & Ward, "New and Improved Johnson-Lindenstrauss Embeddings via the Restricted Isometry Property" (SIAM J. Math. Anal. 43(3), 2011, pp. 1269-1281), Theorem 3.1 and Section 6
- Achlioptas, "Database-friendly random projections: Johnson-Lindenstrauss with binary coins" (J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 66(4), 2003, pp. 671-687)
Sparse transforms:
- Dasgupta, Kumar & Sarlós, "A Sparse Johnson-Lindenstrauss Transform" (STOC 2010, pp. 341-350), Theorems 1-3
- Kane & Nelson, "Sparser Johnson-Lindenstrauss Transforms" (J. ACM 61(1), 2014; SODA 2012, pp. 1195-1206), Theorems 7, 13, 16, 18, 19 in arXiv:1012.1577v6
- Nelson & Nguyen, "Sparsity Lower Bounds for Dimensionality Reducing Maps" (STOC 2013, pp. 101-110), Theorem 10 and Corollary 11 in arXiv:1211.0995
- Weinberger, Dasgupta, Langford, Smola & Attenberg, "Feature hashing for large scale multitask learning" (ICML 2009, pp. 1113-1120)
Lower bounds:
- Johnson & Lindenstrauss, "Extensions of Lipschitz mappings into a Hilbert space" (Contemporary Mathematics 26, 1984, pp. 189-206)
- Alon, "Problems and results in extremal combinatorics, I" (Discrete Mathematics 273, 2003, pp. 31-53)
- Alon, "Perturbed Identity Matrices Have High Rank: Proof and Applications" (Combinatorics, Probability and Computing 18(1-2), 2009, pp. 3-15), Proposition 3.1
- Larsen & Nelson, "The Johnson-Lindenstrauss Lemma Is Optimal for Linear Dimensionality Reduction" (ICALP 2016, LIPIcs 55, 82:1-82:11)
- Larsen & Nelson, "Optimality of the Johnson-Lindenstrauss Lemma" (FOCS 2017, pp. 633-638), Theorem 2 and Conjecture 1; arXiv:1609.02094v2 Section 1.2 for later work
Next Topics
- Sparse recovery and compressed sensing: where RIP matrices, now also JL maps, are used for recovery
- Semantic search and embeddings: random projection before nearest-neighbor search
- Empirical processes and chaining: Dudley's integral, the tool behind the unrestricted fast transform
- Epsilon-nets and covering numbers: the covering bounds used in both Larsen-Nelson proofs
Last reviewed: September 14, 2026
Cite this page
Sneiderman, Robby. "Fast and Sparse Johnson-Lindenstrauss Transforms." TheoremPath, reviewed 2026-09-14. https://theorempath.com/topics/fast-and-sparse-johnson-lindenstrauss
- Canonical URL
- https://theorempath.com/topics/fast-and-sparse-johnson-lindenstrauss
- Author
- Robby Sneiderman, TheoremPath
- Last reviewed
- 2026-09-14
- What this is
- A reference page on TheoremPath. Written and maintained by the named author. Not peer reviewed and not refereed by any venue. Each claim below carries its own verification status.
- Terms
- All rights reserved. Non-commercial quotation with attribution permitted.
Canonical graph
Required before and derived from this topic
These links come from prerequisite edges in the curriculum graph. Editorial suggestions are shown here only when the target page also cites this page as a prerequisite.
Required prerequisites
3- Measure Concentration and Geometric Functional Analysislayer 3 · tier 1
- Hanson-Wright Inequalitylayer 3 · tier 2
- Restricted Isometry Propertylayer 3 · tier 2
Derived topics
0No published topic currently declares this as a prerequisite.