MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768739050 · doi:10.1093/imaiai/iay019

Near-optimal sample complexity for convex tensor completion

2018· preprint· en· W2768739050 on OpenAlexafffund
Navid Ghadermarzy, Yaniv Plan, Özgür Yılmaz

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation and Inference A Journal of the IMA · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsTensor (intrinsic definition)MinimaxCombinatoricsMatrix normRank (graph theory)Norm (philosophy)Matrix completionRegular polygonLow-rank approximationMathematical optimizationPure mathematicsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We study the problem of estimating a low-rank tensor when we have noisy observations of a subset of its entries. A rank-$r$, order-$d$, $N \times N \times \cdots \times N$ tensor, where $r=O(1)$, has $O(dN)$ free variables. On the other hand, prior to our work, the best sample complexity that was achieved in the literature is $O\left(N^{\frac{d}{2}}\right)$, obtained by solving a tensor nuclear-norm minimization problem. In this paper, we consider the ‘M-norm’, an atomic norm whose atoms are rank-1 sign tensors. We also consider a generalization of the matrix max-norm to tensors, which results in a quasi-norm that we call ‘max-qnorm’. We prove that solving an M-norm constrained least squares (LS) problem results in nearly optimal sample complexity for low-rank tensor completion (TC). A similar result holds for max-qnorm as well. Furthermore, we show that these bounds are nearly minimax rate-optimal. We also provide promising numerical results for max-qnorm constrained TC, showing improved recovery compared to matricization and alternating LS.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformation and Inference A Journal of the IMASame topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207