Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 675

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Optimal Hard Threshold for Singular Values is \(4/\sqrt {3}\)

Open access
Gavish, Matan, Donoho, David L.·2014·IEEE Transactions on Information Theory

Abstract

We consider recovery of low-rank matrices from noisy data by hard thresholding of singular values, in which empirical singular values below a threshold λ are set to 0. We study the asymptotic mean squared error (AMSE) in a framework, where the matrix size is large compared with the rank of the matrix to be recovered, and the signal-to-noise ratio of the low-rank piece stays constant. The AMSE-optimal choice of hard threshold, in the case of n-by-n matrix in white noise of level σ, is simply (4/√3)√nσ ≈ 2.309√nσ when σ is known, or simply 2.858 · ymedwhen σ is unknown, where ymedis the median empirical singular value. For nonsquare, m by n matrices with m ≠ n the thresholding coefficients 4/√3 and 2.858 are replaced with different provided constants that depend on m/n. Asymptotically, this thresholding rule adapts to unknown rank and unknown noise level in an optimal manner: it is always better than hard thresholding at any other value, and is always better than ideal truncated singular value decomposition (TSVD), which truncates at the true rank of the low-rank matrix we are trying to recover. Hard thresholding at the recommended value to recover an n-by-n matrix of rank r guarantees an AMSE at most 3 nrσ2. In comparison, the guarantees provided by TSVD, optimally tuned singular value soft thresholding and the best guarantee achievable by any shrinkage of the data singular values are 5 nrσ2, 6 nrσ2, and 2 nrσ2, respectively. The recommended value for hard threshold also offers, among hard thresholds, the best possible AMSE guarantees for recovering matrices with bounded nuclear norm. Empirical evidence suggests that performance improvement over TSVD and other popular shrinkage rules can be substantial, for different noise distributions, even in relatively small n.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tit.2014.2323359

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Cited by

See all 675

Metadata

Authors
Gavish, M., & Donoho, D. L.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory
Published
2014-08
Volume
60
Issue
8
Pages
5040-5053
ISSN
  • 0018-9448 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9654
OpenAlex
W2963780177
Cited by
675
References
32
FWCI
24.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Optimal Hard Threshold for Singular Values is \(4/\sqrt {3}\). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tit.2014.2323359
The paper
Gavish, M., & Donoho, D. L. (2014). The Optimal Hard Threshold for Singular Values is \(4/\sqrt {3}\). IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. https://doi.org/10.1109/tit.2014.2323359

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.