Seeded generator — where it appears
Named by 8 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A rank that is not a property of the tensor
The same eight real numbers have rank three over the reals and rank two over the complexes, and a random 2 × 2 × 2 tensor has rank two with probability exactly π/4. Neither sentence has an analogue for matrices, where the rank is one number and a random matrix has the largest one.
One draw in twenty
Sixteen draws gave generalised cross-validation a worst case of 12%. A thousand draws at each of five noise levels give it a second answer on four to six in every hundred, ten to seven million times worse than the oracle, while its median stays among the best of five rules. The quasi-optimality criterion, told nothing either, never costs more than 1.41 in five thousand draws. The share settles by a thousand draws, and letting the search look further down more than triples it.
Sketching what is never unfolded
A range finder multiplies its matrix by a few random vectors. For a mode-k unfolding those vectors have nᵈ⁻¹ entries, so the random object is the size of the tensor divided by n — and by six indices it is larger than the tensor it is sketching.
What a single draw cannot report
With no oversampling the construction's error is 11.6 to 50 times the best representation of the same rank, and the spread across five seeds runs from 16 to 146 per cent of the mean. Sixteen extra columns bring the excess to between 2.0 and 2.9 at every rank measured and the spread to between 4 and 20 per cent — and the second number is the one a single run cannot report and the one that decides whether the first is a measurement.
The variation that comes with a seed
A randomised low-rank approximation's error moves by 31% between draws and by 10⁻¹⁵ between partitionings of one draw. In the one field on this site whose answer already comes as a band, the machine is inside the width of the line — and it is still there.
The tail a sample never reaches
Hager's estimator is exactly right on four random matrices in five, and that share is stable — between 80.5 and 87.5 per cent across nine sizes. The worst underestimate is not stable at all: it falls every time more matrices are drawn, from 0.746 at sixty to 0.377 at four hundred, and the matrix built to defeat the estimator sits five times below anything four hundred draws found.
Two columns see what one walk cannot
The condition estimator every library ships walks from the all-ones vector, and a matrix whose largest column cancels against that vector hides from it: at n = 24 it reports five per cent of the truth. The block estimator behind MATLAB's condest walks with two vectors, the second random. On the same matrix at three sizes it is exact on every one of twenty seeds. On four hundred random 8 × 8 matrices it is exact on 96.5 per cent where the single walk is exact on 83.0, and its worst case, 0.596, is reached in the first fifty draws and not lowered by the next 1,550. The single walk's worst was still falling at 1,600. Four vectors are exact on all 400.
A first vector nobody can build against
The matrix built to fool a condition estimator is built against one vector, the all-ones vector its walk starts from, and the block estimator escaped it by adding a second, random one. Starting the single walk from random signs instead escapes it on every one of forty seeds at every size from 8 to 48, for the same 4.3 products, and loses nothing on random matrices — 86.5 per cent exact at size 8 against 84.0 from all ones, with tails that cross between sizes. The obvious way to build against a random start, a hidden column on few rows whose signs a random vector cancels half the time, fails on every seed: the hidden column writes itself into the walk's first product and turns the walk towards it. What the block of two's second vector buys is ten points of exact share, not the escape.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Condition-estimationCondition numberCounterexampleLower boundMatrix normOversamplingProbabilistic boundsRandomised SVDWorst-case analysisLow-rank approximationRun-to-run variationSilent failure