Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper analyzes why high-dimensional ambient Gaussian noise causes unlabeled projection pursuit to catastrophically minimize empirical kurtosis along spurious, signal-free directions. The authors evaluate subspace restriction via known forward operators versus data-driven principal subspace estimation to restore signal recoverability in a controlled two-component model. They find that fourth-moment search requires significantly harsher operator scaling ($\varsigma^{-8}$) than covariance-spike estimation ($\varsigma^{-4}$), exhibiting an empirical threshold ratio collapse onto $n/p^2$ with an exponent near the theoretical $1/8$ at fixed search dimensions that jumps to $0.325$ when dimension varies.
Adding uninformative ambient dimensions completely breaks kurtosis-based projection pursuit, proving that high-order unsupervised discovery fundamentally requires second-order subspace pre-filtering to avoid hallucinating structure in pure Gaussian noise.
Projection pursuit searches for a direction along which the data look least Gaussian. When the observation space contains a large Gaussian complement, the empirical objective can be minimized by a direction that carries no signal, with empirical kurtosis as low as at the truth. Sample splitting exposes rather than repairs this failure. Appending coordinates independent of the latent regime degrades the search while leaving Bayes recoverability unchanged. Restricting the search to the column space of a known forward operator removes the failure exactly on the negative-kurtosis branch. Estimating a principal subspace from the data is the alternative. In a controlled two-component model, the leading sufficient scalings differ in the gain with which the operator transmits the discriminant: $ς^{-4}$ for covariance-spike estimation and $ς^{-8}$ for fourth-moment search. At fixed search dimension, the measured threshold ratio collapses onto $n/p^2$ with exponent $0.156$, close to the predicted $1/8$. This is an empirically supported scaling motivated by sufficient bounds, not a proved asymptotically tight law. When the search dimension is varied, the measured exponent is $0.325$, substantially larger than $1/8$, and the tested range does not identify its functional form. The crossing location also depends on calibration and model configuration. Under a downstream excess-error criterion, the scaling largely disappears.