English

The smallest singular value of random combinatorial matrices

Probability 2020-11-02 v5 Combinatorics

Abstract

Let QnQ_n be a random n×nn\times n matrix with entries in {0,1}\{0,1\} whose rows are independent vectors of exactly n/2n/2 zero components. We show that the smallest singular value sn(Qn)s_n(Q_n) of QnQ_n satisfies P{sn(Qn)εn}Cε+2ecnε0, \mathbb{P}\Big\{s_n(Q_n)\le \frac{\varepsilon}{\sqrt{n}}\Big\} \le C\varepsilon + 2 e^{-cn} \quad \forall \varepsilon \ge 0, which is optimal up to the constants C,c>0C,c>0. This improves on earlier results of Ferber, Jain, Luh and Samotij, as well as Jain. In particular, for ε=0\varepsilon=0, we obtain the first exponential bound in dimension for the singularity probability P{Qnis singular}2ecn. \mathbb{P}\big\{Q_n \,\,\text{is singular}\big\} \le 2 e^{-cn}. To overcome the lack of independence between entries of QnQ_n, we introduce an arithmetic-combinatorial invariant of a pair of vectors, which we call a Combinatorial Least Common Denominator (CLCD). We prove a small ball probability inequality for the combinatorial statistic i=1naivσ(i)\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_iv_{\sigma(i)} in terms of the CLCD of the pair (a,v)(a,v), where σ\sigma is a uniformly random permutation of {1,2,,n}\{1,2,\ldots,n\} and a:=(a1,,an),v:=(v1,,vn)a:=(a_1,\ldots,a_n), v:=(v_1,\ldots,v_n) are real vectors. This inequality allows us to derive strong anti-concentration properties for the distance between a fixed row of QnQ_n and the linear space spanned by the remaining rows, and prove the main result.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.2007.06318,
  title  = {The smallest singular value of random combinatorial matrices},
  author = {Tuan Tran},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.06318},
  year   = {2020}
}

Comments

27 pages + two appendices. Section 2.6 was rewritten. We also added an appendix by Jain, Sah and Sawhney. Update: We were recently informed that Proposition 3.4 has been proved earlier by Bero Roos [New inequalities for permanents and hafnians and some generalizations, arXiv:1906.06176v2]. As such we removed the proof of Proposition 3.4 and cited Bero Roos' paper instead

R2 v1 2026-06-23T17:04:25.134Z