Tensor network ranks
Abstract
In problems involving approximation, completion, denoising, dimension reduction, estimation, interpolation, modeling, order reduction, regression, etc, we argue that the near-universal practice of assuming that a function, matrix, or tensor (which we will see are all the same object in this context) has \emph{low rank} may be ill-justified. There are many natural instances where the object in question has high rank with respect to the classical notions of rank: matrix rank, tensor rank, multilinear rank --- the latter two being the most straightforward generalizations of the former. To remedy this, we show that one may vastly expand these classical notions of ranks: Given any undirected graph , there is a notion of -rank associated with , which provides us with as many different kinds of ranks as there are undirected graphs. In particular, the popular tensor network states in physics (e.g., \textsc{mps}, \textsc{ttns}, \textsc{peps}) may be regarded as functions of a specific -rank for various choices of . Among other things, we will see that a function, matrix, or tensor may have very high matrix, tensor, or multilinear rank and yet very low -rank for some . In fact the difference is in the orders of magnitudes and the gaps between -ranks and these classical ranks are arbitrarily large for some important objects in computer science, mathematics, and physics. Furthermore, we show that there is a such that almost every tensor has -rank exponentially lower than its rank or the dimension of its ambient space.
Cite
@article{arxiv.1801.02662,
title = {Tensor network ranks},
author = {Ke Ye and Lek-Heng Lim},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.02662},
year = {2019}
}
Comments
37 pages, 7 figures