Low-rank approximation and quasi-optimality
Prove a Frobenius tail certificate for HOSVD and compare its guarantee with TT-SVD and exact matrix truncation.
On this page
The question for today
What you’ll understand
- Derive the HOSVD sum-of-squared-tails error bound.
- Distinguish the √d HOSVD and √(d−1) TT-SVD approximation factors.
- Construct a strictly suboptimal HOSVD example without claiming its competitor is globally optimal.
A fast tensor compression can be useful without being the best possible approximation of its rank. Quasi-optimality quantifies that difference by comparing its error with the smallest attainable error in a specified format. The comparison requires a field, a norm, and rank constraints: here we use real arrays, Frobenius norm, and rank upper bounds. HOSVD and TT-SVD inherit matrix tail estimates, but they combine them across different families of unfoldings and therefore have different constants.
Orthogonal mode projections give an error certificate
For each mode n, let Pₙ project onto the leading rₙ left singular vectors of its original unfolding. Let τₙ be the Frobenius norm of the discarded singular-value tail. The HOSVD approximation applies all these mode projections. Telescope its residual by projecting modes one after another. Because different mode projections commute and are orthogonal, the successive lost pieces are mutually orthogonal; each piece has norm at most the corresponding unprojected mode residual τₙ.
Pythagoras therefore bounds the squared total error by the sum of τₙ squared. The same original unfolding yields a lower bound on every feasible multilinear-rank approximation: its mode-n matrix rank is at most rₙ, so the matrix Eckart–Young theorem forces error at least τₙ. Taking the largest tail gives a computable lower certificate. No tensor optimization algorithm is needed to establish either inequality.
A useful bound does not assert global optimality
The rank-bounded Tucker set is closed because each unfolding rank condition is described by vanishing matrix minors. A minimizing sequence is bounded near the fixed target tensor and has a convergent subsequence in finite dimension, proving attainment. This differs from the nonclosed CP-rank set. The HOSVD bound compares with that attained minimum, but nothing in its independent mode choices jointly optimizes the selected subspaces.
For an order-three tensor with entries at (1, 1, 1), (1, 2, 2), and (2, 1, 2), all equal to one, the leading directions in modes one and two are e₁, while mode three chooses e₂. Their product coordinate (1, 1, 2) has value zero, so the rank-(1, 1, 1) HOSVD approximation is zero. Keeping just the first nonzero coordinate already gives a smaller error. This counterexample has no leading singular-value ties, so the failure is not a tie-breaking accident.
Train truncations use cuts rather than single modes
TT-SVD performs sequential SVDs of reshaped remainders and controls discarded errors through orthogonal factors. For fixed TT bond bounds on a d-way tensor with d ≥ 2, the Frobenius error is bounded by the square root of the sum of squared optimal discarded tails of its d − 1 original prefix–suffix unfoldings. Each such tail is at most the best error under those TT bounds, giving a √(d − 1) quasi-optimal factor.
The original-cut tail bounds are certificates; the actual sequential matrices change as earlier projections are applied. To budget a total absolute tolerance ε, it is sufficient to make each of the d − 1 local discarded Frobenius tails at most ε/√(d − 1). This is a bound on an entire tail norm, not a threshold on each individual singular value. Comparing HOSVD and TT guarantees still requires their different rank constraints and mode ordering, rather than choosing whichever constant looks smaller.
Work it through
Verify a strictly suboptimal HOSVD result
For the displayed three-entry tensor, truncate each mode to rank one. Compute the HOSVD error and compare the candidate e₁ ⊗ e₁ ⊗ e₁.
The first two unfoldings have row squared norms two and one, with orthogonal rows; their leading directions are e₁. In the third unfolding the row squared norms are one and two, so its leading direction is e₂.
The selected product coordinate is (1, 1, 2), whose tensor entry is zero. Thus the HOSVD projection is zero and its error is √3, attaining the sum-of-squared-tails bound because every discarded tail equals one.
The candidate e₁ ⊗ e₁ ⊗ e₁ retains one of the three orthogonal entries and leaves two, giving error √2 < √3. This proves suboptimality, without proving that this particular competitor is globally best.
Independent leading mode choices can discard all selected interaction content. The HOSVD guarantee remains valid even when its result is strictly suboptimal.
The living notebook
Explore the model
Interactive lab · matrix
The exact matrix guarantee behind tensor tail bounds
For each run Pause and Reset, then set both controls. Choose a = 2 and b = 0; predict singular values 2 and 1, so the best rank-one Frobenius matrix error is 1 and relative error is 1/√5. In a fresh run choose a = 0.5 and b = 0; the discarded singular value is 0.5. The lab reports the selected final matrix spectrum, not a tensor HOSVD or TT-SVD; higher-order bounds combine several such matrix certificates.
- Area scale · det A
- 1.4
- Singular values · σmax, σmin
- 1.597, 0.876
- Condition number · κ₂(A)
- 1.823
The selected matrix is A = [[a,b],[0,1]]. Playback interpolates geometry between the identity and A; readouts always describe A. Its determinant is a and its singular values come from AᵀA. Positive a makes every supported matrix invertible. This two-dimensional family is not a general eigensolver or a learned network. Parameter changes pause playback and recompute the model at the current elapsed time. Reset restores both parameters and returns time to zero. Playback starts paused. Adjust either parameter, then choose Play or Step.
Look forMatrix truncation supplies exact one-view tail errors, while tensor formats require compatible choices across several views.
Pause & reason
Check your understanding
Your turn
Try it yourself
A four-way tensor has HOSVD discarded tail norms (0.3, 0.4, 0, 0). Bound its actual HOSVD error and its best multilinear-rank error, and give an error-ratio certificate sharper than the generic factor two.
Take a moment to make a prediction or work it out on paper. Open a hint when you need one.
Give me a hint
Combine the largest-tail lower bound with the sum-of-squared-tails upper bound. Do not replace either bound with an exact error claim.
Compare with the solution
The squared tail sum is 0.09 + 0.16 = 0.25, so the HOSVD error is at most 0.5. Every feasible approximation has error at least the largest tail, 0.4, and the best one has error at most the HOSVD error. Thus 0.4 ≤ E* ≤ EHOSVD ≤ 0.5. Dividing the upper bound by the positive lower bound gives EHOSVD/E* ≤ 1.25, sharper here than √4 = 2. These certificates do not assert that either error equals its endpoint bound or that a CP-rank approximation obeys the same constraints.
Keep the idea
Take it with you
- HOSVD error is bounded by the root sum of squared discarded mode tails.
- Quasi-optimality gives a comparison guarantee rather than exact tensor optimality.
- TT-SVD uses d−1 separation cuts, so its hypotheses and constant differ from HOSVD.
Read further
Original sources and deeper explanations to follow at your own pace.
Optional progress, saved in this browser when available. Revisit any lesson at any time.
Lesson not marked complete.