The collection

Every essay — page 16

Essays 361 to 384 of 586, in the same order.

When the index is a tuple

A discretisation on a d-dimensional grid has n^d unknowns, so its matrix has n²ᵈ entries — a number with no physical meaning. What such a matrix usually is instead is a sum of d Kronecker products of n × n matrices, and nothing has been approximated: assembling it was the mistake. Then the same word is carried one step further, to arrays with three or more indices, and every theorem this site has relied on about rank stops being true. The best approximation may not exist, the rank depends on the field the entries are read over, and there is no decomposition that is orthogonal and diagonal at once. What survives is not the definition but the algorithm: take the SVDs of the reshapes, and existence, computability and a quasi-optimality factor all come back.

024681010⁻¹¹10⁻⁹10⁻⁷10⁻⁵10⁻³10⁻¹rank kept in every moderelative errordashes above: √(Σ tail²), the upper bounddashes below: max tail, a floor under the bestsolid: what the projection returnssmooth: pinned to the upper boundrank 10 error1.1·10⁻¹¹its upper bound1.1·10⁻¹¹the lower bound6.3·10⁻¹²error ⁄ bound1error ⁄ lower1.7inside the boundand sitting on it

A decomposition made only of SVDs

Everything the definition of tensor rank loses comes back if the SVD's algorithm is carried across instead of its definition — take the leading left singular subspace of every unfolding and project onto all of them.

8 figures · Multilinear rank, essay 1
smooth97.7%hilbert94.5%wave26.6%noise0.4%share of the core's energy on its 6 superdiagonal entrieskeeping only them: 0.152 against 7.94·10⁻⁶keeping only them: 0.235 against 1.77·10⁻⁶keeping only them: 0.857 against 1.34·10⁻¹⁵keeping only them: 0.998 against 0.842orthogonal, and not diagonalsmooth on-diagonal0.98hilbert on-diagonal0.94wave on-diagonal0.27noise on-diagonal0.0044worst slice pair3.5·10⁻¹⁶the slices are orthogonalthe core is not diagonal

The orthogonality that cannot be diagonal

A matrix decomposition hands over orthonormal factors and a diagonal middle at once.

7 figures · Multilinear rank, essay 2
123456710¹10²10³10⁴10⁵number of indicesnumbersentries: 6^dstored: 4n(d − 1)exponential against linearentries at d = 64.7·10⁴numbers stored120ratio389slope against d24‖T − Tₜₜ‖ ⁄ ‖T‖1.4·10⁻¹⁵one line is n^dthe other is a constant per index

The format that does not notice the dimension

A Tucker core is r^d numbers, so the format that repaired the definition still cannot go past five indices.

7 figures · Tensor train, essay 1
110¹10²10³10⁴10⁻¹⁴10⁻¹¹10⁻⁸10⁻⁵10⁻²10¹sweeprelative error, and the largest term's sizerising: the swamp's largest rank-one termfalling, slowly: its errorfalling, once: a fit with an answera plateau with a rising floorswamp error0.0014swamp term10term growth2.2benign error9.7·10⁻¹⁵benign term growth1the error alone cannot tellthe size of the terms can

An iteration that walks out of the set

Every sweep of alternating least squares is the exact minimiser of its own subproblem, so the objective can only fall.

5 figures · Alternating least squares, essay 1
6 × 6 × 6, rank 3 · 9 ≥ 81.00002 × 2 × 2, rank 3 · 6 < 80.02076 × 6 matrix, rank 3 · no condition0.1089worst agreement between two runs about the factors, 0 to 1every run fits to 3·10⁻¹³every run fits to 1.2·10⁻¹¹every run factorises to 2.4·10⁻¹⁵ and none agrees with anotherthe only thing that improvestensor, Kruskal holds1tensor, Kruskal fails0.021matrix0.11worst residual1.2·10⁻¹¹three successful fitsone recoverable answer

A factorisation that is unique for once

A rank-r factorisation of a matrix is never unique — AB is (AM)(M⁻¹B) for any invertible M, so no factor means anything on its own.

7 figures · Uniqueness, essay 1
15913172110¹10⁶10¹¹10¹⁶10²¹10²⁶number of indicesnumbers storedthe tensor: n^dthe core: r^d + dnrthe train: (d − 2)nr² + 2nrthe curse, movedentries at d = 2010²⁶core1.1·10¹²train5920core ⁄ train1.9·10⁸entries ⁄ core9.5·10¹³the definition is repairedthe size is not

A compression of 10¹⁴ that still does not fit

A Tucker core of a twenty-index array at rank four is 1.1·10¹² numbers against the tensor's 1.05·10²⁶ — a compression by a factor of 9.5·10¹³ that is still nearly nine terabytes.

6 figures · Multilinear rank, essay 3
110¹10²10⁴10⁶10⁸10¹⁰10¹²n, points along one axismultiplicationsa dense factorisationthrough the eigenbasis6 decompositions of an n × nunknowns1.6·10⁴multiplications9.4·10⁵dense factorisation2.5·10¹²fitted exponent7‖Ax − b‖ ⁄ ‖b‖1.8·10⁻¹⁵nothing of size n^dis ever factorised

Five indices are cheaper than two

The same 4,096 unknowns cost 1.049·10⁶ multiplications indexed as a 64 × 64 grid and 1.966·10⁵ indexed as six axes of four.

6 figures · Kronecker, essay 3
-13-11-9-7-5-3-102468log₁₀ of the accuracy asked forlargest train rank0.30 of rank per decadea cost that is typed inentries216stored at 10⁻²90stored at 10⁻¹²288rank per decade0.3worst error ⁄ tolerance0.83the storage is chosena constant of rank a decade

The digit that costs more than the tensor

Ask a three-index reciprocal tensor on six points a side for seven digits and its train is 288 numbers against 216 entries.

6 figures · Tensor train, essay 2
01210⁻¹⁶10⁻¹³10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁷10⁻⁴10⁻¹terms fitted1 − the largest cosine between two fitted terms3 — the tensor's rank45below this line, two terms are the same termthe residual says nothing3 terms, collinearity0.524 terms, collinearity15 terms, collinearity13 terms, error2.1·10⁻¹⁴4 terms, error10⁻¹³4 terms, sweeps76one term too manyand two of them cancel

One term too many

A tensor built from three rank-one terms, fitted with four, reaches a relative error of 1.0·10⁻¹³ in seventy-six sweeps.

5 figures · Alternating least squares, essay 4
10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁸10⁻⁶10⁻⁴10⁻²10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁸10⁻⁶10⁻⁴10⁻²1λ, the ridge on every subproblemerror, and the largest rank-one termthe terms a swamp was growingthe error it costs a fit that has an answerthe error it costs one that has nota bound, at its own priceterms, no ridge6.7terms, heaviest1.2sweeps, no ridge3000sweeps, heaviest69benign error at λ0.089terms still the right terms1the plateau is boundedand the answer is biased by exactly λ

The repair that costs exactly itself

A ridge on every subproblem is the standard cure for a swamp and it works — the terms stop at 1.61 instead of climbing past 6.7, and a run that never finished finishes in 798 sweeps.

6 figures · Alternating least squares, essay 3
01210¹10²10³the three kinds of runsweep at which the test firesno answer to reachbadly conditionedordinaryhollow: never fired, drawn where the run endedwhat it fires on, and whenthreshold0.25boundary, fired6boundary, median sweep22collinear, fired6collinear, median sweep759ordinary, fired0the value does not separate themand the sweep does

The test that is a deadline

The quantity that separates a boundary from slow convergence fires on every run that has nothing to reach, at sweep 21 of four thousand, and on no ordinary fit.

6 figures · Alternating least squares, essay 2
at rank threelowest across tensors1highest across tensors1at rank fourlowest across tensors0.056highest across tensors0.25234500.20.40.60.81rank fittedagreement among the starts that reach itsix planted tensorsdashed: the true rankeach line one tensor, fitted at ranks two to fivefive starting points at every rank

The rank a sweep can vouch for

To decide a tensor's rank, fit it at one rank after another and stop where something changes.

6 figures · Alternating least squares, essay 5
no noisesweeps to stop49final error2.5·10⁻¹⁴1% noisesweeps to stop6000largest term, ÷ data0.67110¹10²10³10⁻¹⁸10⁻¹⁵10⁻¹²10⁻⁹10⁻⁶10⁻³1sweeprelative change in the error, per sweepthe stopping test1% noiseno noise: stops at 10⁻¹⁴the clean run stops; the noisy one crawlsits terms stay the size they were

A fit that has an answer and cannot stop

Fit a noisy rank-three tensor with four terms and the prediction was that the spare term would find real structure in the noise and stop pairing off with the others.

6 figures · Alternating least squares, essay 6
start 1, errorreaches2.8·10⁻¹³stopped by δ = 0.010.0099stopped by δ = 0.0010.0098stopped by δ = 10⁻⁴2.6·10⁻¹³110¹10²10³10⁻¹²10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁸10⁻⁶10⁻⁴10⁻²sweeprelative errorδ = 0.01δ = 0.001δ = 10⁻⁴δ = 10⁻⁵a plateau is a still errorand a still error is what the test asks for

A still error is not a settled one

A CP fit with one term too many on a noisy tensor never meets the usual stopping test, and its error has settled by sweep 150.

5 figures · Alternating least squares, essay 7
share of rank nn = 2 (π/4 = 0.785)0.79n = 30.5n = 80.004234567891010⁻⁴10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹1n, the size of each sliceshare with rank n0 of 4000dashed: e to the minus 0.087 n squaredthe lower rank stops being typical in practice

The rank that stops being typical

A random 2 × 2 × 2 tensor has rank two with probability π/4 and rank three otherwise, and the sentence has no analogue for matrices.

6 figures · Tensor rank, essay 3
fit ÷ distance, less oneleast excess over the distance1.8·10⁻⁴greatest0.01510⁻²10⁻¹110⁻²10⁻¹1distance to the double-eigenvalue surfaceerror the fit settles atdashed: equalitytwo routes to one number

A fit with no answer to find

Half of all random 3 × 3 × 2 tensors, and most larger ones, have no rank-three decomposition, because their pencil has a complex pair.

6 figures · Tensor rank, essay 4
term size ÷ normτ 0.01, smallest term ratio3.8τ 0.003, smallest term ratio6.9τ 0.001, smallest term ratio1210⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹110¹stop when the error is within τ of the distancelargest term ÷ tensor's normmedianthree times the normgrey: one line per drawone per cent is not early enough

A stop that knows the distance

A rank-two fit to a random 2 × 2 × 2 tensor of rank three settles at the tensor's distance to the boundary of the rank-two set while its terms grow without limit, and the distance can be computed without fitting.

5 figures · Tensor rank, essay 5
per unit of perturbationtrue move, θ = 10⁻³200ALS off by, θ = 10⁻³200ALS off by, θ = 17.9·10⁻⁴10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹110¹10²10³angle θ between two columns of the third factorchange ÷ perturbation110⁻¹10⁻²10⁻³true decomposition's moveALS's distance from itKruskal: unique at every θ hereθ closes to the leftunique, and not determined

Unique, and not determined

Kruskal's condition says a CP decomposition is unique, and it says it as a yes or a no.

5 figures · Uniqueness, essay 2
110¹10²10³10⁴10⁵angle θsweeps to arrive10.310⁻¹0.0310⁻²the cap, 3,000tensor 1tensor 2tensor 3open: its own testdotted: slope of 1/θ²within one perturbation, no capa hundredth of a radian, tens of thousands of sweeps

The iteration pays the square

A rank-three tensor whose third factor has two columns at an angle θ is unique by Kruskal's condition at every angle above zero, and its decomposition moves by about 1/θ perturbations when the tensor is perturbed.

5 figures · Uniqueness, essay 3
110¹10⁻²10⁻¹110¹largest term ÷ tensor's norm(error − distance) ÷ C4 × the balance μ2 × the balance μ1 × the balance μ0.5 × the balance μ0.25 × the balance μdashed: the unbounded fit's law · dotted: size threethe penalty walks the same curve

The penalty walks the same curve

A rank-two fit to a random 2 × 2 × 2 tensor of rank three has no best answer: its error falls towards the tensor's distance to the boundary along a law, d + C/s², while its terms grow without limit.

6 figures · Tensor rank, essay 6

The matrix that is a graph

Every matrix in the fields before this one arrives as a matrix. A graph does not: it arrives as vertices and edges, two different matrices can be built from it that answer different questions, and what anybody wants back is a partition, a ranking or a count — a discrete answer, computed by continuous arithmetic. So a rounding here does not make the answer slightly wrong, it makes it a different answer: a connected graph reported as two pieces, a leaderboard whose middle places are decided by one uncrawled link, a determinant that is known in advance to be a whole number and stops being one at sixteen vertices while the elimination that produced it stays backward stable throughout. Two things this field has that nothing else on the site does. The Laplacian's null vector is exact — the rows are cancellations of integers, so L·1 is zero rather than nearly zero. And there is a two-sided bound that is proved rather than estimated, from one matrix–vector product.

the matrix, measuredvertices40edges223‖L·1‖∞0zero eigenvalues1components, by search1λ₂1.5laid out at its own eigenvectorsand the row sums are exactly zero

A matrix with no numbers in it

A graph arrives as vertices and edges. Two different matrices can be built from it, they answer different questions, and one of them has a null vector that is exact — the only object in these essays whose kernel is known before anything runs.

7 figures · Graph laplacian, essay 1
10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹110¹12345678910conductance, and the two bounds on itpathcyclegridbarbelltwo blockshypercubepreferentialstarcompletethe bar is the inequalitythe dot is the graph

Two Laplacians of one graph

The combinatorial Laplacian D − A and the normalised one, which conjugates it by the inverse square roots of the degrees, are built from the same object, are not similar to each other, and answer different questions.

7 figures · Graph laplacian, essay 2
1611162126110¹10²10³degree of the grounded vertexcondition number of what is left1, the best choicea parameter nobody setsvertices tried30best κ1at degree29worst κ898at degree1spread898one row and column deletedand it matters which

The vertex nobody solves for

A Laplacian is singular, so every solve with one has to remove its kernel first.

6 figures · Graph laplacian, essay 3
0481216202410⁻²10⁻¹1vertices on the smaller sideconductance of the prefix cut0.00752, the best prefixthe rounding stepλ₂0.14cuts considered23best conductance0.0075at k =12worst prefix1the dashed curve is the eigenvectorthe solid one is what it costs

The vector that has to be rounded

A spectral partition is an eigenvector, and an eigenvector is a real vector.

5 figures · Spectral partition, essay 1