Discreteness of Asymptotic Tensor Ranks (Extended Abstract)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tensor parameters that are amortized or regularized over large tensor powers, often called "asymptotic" tensor parameters, play a central role in several areas including algebraic complexity theory (constructing fast matrix multiplication algorithms), quantum information (entanglement cost and distillable entanglement), and additive combinatorics (bounds on cap sets, sunflower-free sets, etc.). Examples are the asymptotic tensor rank, asymptotic slice rank and asymptotic subrank. Recent works (Costa-Dalai, Blatter-Draisma-Rupniewski, Christandl-Gesmundo-Zuiddam) have investigated notions of discreteness (no accumulation points) or "gaps" in the values of such tensor parameters. We prove a general discreteness theorem for asymptotic tensor parameters of order-three tensors and use this to prove that (1) over any finite field (and in fact any finite set of coefficients in any field), the asymptotic subrank and the asymptotic slice rank have no accumulation points, and (2) over the complex numbers, the asymptotic slice rank has no accumulation points. Central to our approach are two new general lower bounds on the asymptotic subrank of tensors, which measures how much a tensor can be diagonalized. The first lower bound says that the asymptotic subrank of any concise three-tensor is at least the cube-root of the smallest dimension. The second lower bound says that any concise three-tensor that is "narrow enough" (has one dimension much smaller than the other two) has maximal asymptotic subrank. Our proofs rely on new lower bounds on the maximum rank in matrix subspaces that are obtained by slicing a three-tensor in the three different directions. We prove that for any concise tensor, the product of any two such maximum ranks must be large, and as a consequence there are always two distinct directions with large max-rank.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".