Computing images of polynomial maps

Corey Harris; Mateusz Michałek; Emre Can Sertöz

doi:10.1007/s10444-019-09715-8

Advances in Computational Mathematics

pp 1–21 | Cite as

Computing images of polynomial maps

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Corey Harris
Mateusz Michałek
Emre Can Sertöz

Open Access

Article

First Online: 08 August 2019

60 Downloads

Abstract

The image of a polynomial map is a constructible set. While computing its closure is standard in computer algebra systems, a procedure for computing the constructible set itself is not. We provide a new algorithm, based on algebro-geometric techniques, addressing this problem. We also apply these methods to answer a question of W. Hackbusch on the non-closedness of site-independent cyclic matrix product states for infinitely many parameters.

Keywords

Polynomial maps Constructible set Matrix product states

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)

Primary 14Q15 Secondary 68U05 15A69

Download to read the full article text

Notes

Acknowledgments

Open access funding provided by Max Planck Society. We thank Wolfgang Hackbusch for posing the question which motivated this work and for the stimulating discussions. We are grateful to Bernd Sturmfels and Michael Joswig for many suggestions and encouraging remarks.

Funding information

MM was supported by Polish National Science Center project 2013/08/A/ST1/00804 affiliated at the University of Warsaw.

Appendix: Matrix product states

We recall here two representations of tensors that are inspired from physics [23]. The corresponding notions have found applications in deep learning where they are called tensor train or tensor ring decompositions [22, 28, 29, 32].

The symbol $\mathbb {K}$ denotes the field $\mathbb {C}$ or $\mathbb {R}$. For any $a \in \mathbb {Z}_{>0}$, the vector space $\mathbb {K}^{a}$ comes with the standard basis $e_{1},\dots ,e_{a}$. Therefore, a tensor $T\in \mathbb {K}^{a_{1}}\times \dots \times \mathbb {K}^{a_{q}}$ may be represented as

$$ T=\sum\limits_{1\leq i_{j}\leq a_{j}} \lambda_{i_{1},\dots,i_{q}} e_{i_{1}}\otimes\dots\otimes e_{i_{q}}, $$

which is also written

$$ T[i_{1},\dots,i_{q}]=\lambda_{i_{1},\dots,i_{q}}. $$

Definition A.1 (Site-independent (cyclic) matrix product state)

Fix integers r > 0, k > 0, q > 1, and matrices $M_{i}\in \mathbb {K}^{r\times r}$ for $i=1,\dots ,k$. Let $T\in (\mathbb {K}^{k})^{\otimes q}$ be a tensor given by

$$ T[i_{1},\dots,i_{q}]:=\text{tr}(M_{i_{1}}M_{i_{2}}{\cdots} M_{i_{q}}). $$

The set of all tensors that allow such a representation will be denoted by $\text {IMPS}(r,k,q)\subset (\mathbb {K}^{k})^{\otimes q}$.

Example A.1

Let us consider the case of matrices (q = 2). Here elements of IMPS(r, k, 2) can be viewed as matrices M such that $M[i_{1},i_{2}]=\text {tr}(M_{i_{1}}M_{i_{2}})$. This is equivalent to a factorization of M = A ⋅ A^t for some matrix $A\in \text {Hom}(\mathbb {K}^{r},\mathbb {K}^{k^{2}})$. In particular, M ∈IMPS(r, k, 2) if and only if M is symmetric and has ranked at most k². It follows that IMPS(r, k, 2) is closed.

When q = 2, the tensor T corresponds to a symmetric matrix. However, for q > 2, the tensor T will not be a symmetric tensor in general, though the identity $T[i_{1},\dots ,i_{q}]=T[i_{q},i_{1},\dots ,i_{q-1}]$ continues to hold. In other words, the tensor has cyclic symmetries with respect to the order of the product of the matrices.

Definition A.1 can be regarded as a symmetrization of the following definition of a cyclic matrix product state, where the underlying graph for the tensor network is a cycle.

Fix an integer q > 1 and tuples of positive integers $\mathfrak {a} = (a_{1},\dots ,a_{q})$, $\mathfrak {b}=(b_{1},\dots ,b_{q})$. We set a_q+ 1 = a₁. Then the locus $\text {MPS}(\mathfrak {a},\mathfrak {b},q) \subset \mathbb {K}^{b_{1}}\otimes {\dots } \otimes \mathbb {K}^{b_{q}}$ is given by the following definition.

Definition A.3 (Cyclic matrix product state)

A tensor $T \in \mathbb {K}^{b_{1}}\otimes {\dots } \otimes \mathbb {K}^{b_{q}}$ is in $\text {MPS}(\mathfrak {a},\mathfrak {b},q)$ if there exist matrices

$$ M_{i,j}\in \text{Hom}_{\mathbb{K}}(\mathbb{K}^{a_{j}},\mathbb{K}^{a_{j+1}}),\quad j=1,\dots,q, i = 1,\dots,b_{j}, $$

such that

$$ T[i_{1},\dots,i_{q}]:=\text{tr}(M_{i_{1},1}M_{i_{2},2}{\cdots} M_{i_{q},q}). $$

Example A.4

The situation for q = 2 is analogous to Example A.2. In this case, we have M ∈MPS((a₁, a₂), (b₁, b₂), 2) if and only if M = AB where $A\in \text {Hom}({\mathbb {K}^{b}_{1}},\mathbb {K}^{a_{1}a_{2}})$ and $B\in \text {Hom}(\mathbb {K}^{a_{1}a_{2}},\mathbb {K}^{b_{2}})$. This can happen if and only if the rank of the matrix M is at most a₁a₂. Therefore, $\text {MPS}(\mathfrak {a},\mathfrak {b},2)$ is always closed.

Proposition A.5

The sets IMPS and MPS may be represented as

1.

$\text {IMPS}(r,k,q)=\{f^{\otimes q}(\mathfrak {M}_{r,\dots ,r}) \mid f\in \text {Hom}(\mathbb {K}^{r\times r},\mathbb {K}^{k})\}$.
2.

$\text {MPS}(\mathfrak {a},\mathfrak {b},q)=\{(f_{1}\otimes {\dots } \otimes f_{q})(\mathfrak {M}_{a_{1},\dots ,a_{q}}) \mid f_{i} \in \text {Hom}(\mathbb {K}^{a_{i} \times a_{i+1}},\mathbb {K}^{b_{i}})\}$.

Proof

The proofs of both statements are similar. We prove the first one, as it is more important for this paper. We will be interpreting elements of $\text {Hom}(\mathbb {K}^{r\times r},\mathbb {K}^{k})$ as r² × k matrices. First, we note that there is a natural bijection φ between k-tuples of r × r matrices $\mathcal {M}:=(A_{1},\dots ,A_{k})$ and matrices $\varphi (\mathcal {M})\in \text {Hom}(\mathbb {K}^{r\times r},\mathbb {K}^{k})$. For 1 ≤ i ≤ k, the i th column of $\varphi (\mathcal {M})$ is the representation of A_i as a vector of length r².

Write $M_{i}={\sum }_{p,q=1}^{r} a_{i,p,q} e_{p,q}$, where e_{p, q} is the matrix with 1 in its (p, q)th entry and zeros everywhere else. Note that $\varphi (\mathcal {M})(e_{p,q})=a_{i,p,q}$.

We prove the claim by showing that the tensor T ∈IMPS(r, k, q) associated to $\mathcal {M}$ equals $\varphi (\mathcal {M})(\mathfrak {M}_{r,\dots ,r})$. Indeed, we have

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} T &=&\sum\limits_{1\leq i_{j}\leq k} \text{tr}(M_{i_{1}}{\cdots} M_{i_{q}}) e_{i_{1}}\otimes\dots\otimes e_{i_{q}} \\ &=& \sum\limits_{1\leq i_{j}\leq k}\left( \sum\limits_{1\leq p_{j}\leq r} a_{i_{1},p_{1},p_{2}}a_{i_{2},p_{2},p_{3}}\cdots a_{i_{q-1},p_{q-1},p_{q}}a_{i_{q},p_{q},p_{1}}\right)e_{i_{1}}\otimes\dots\otimes e_{i_{q}}, \end{array} $$

where in all sums 1 ≤ j ≤ q. We can simplify further:

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} T&= &\sum\limits_{\begin{array}{llll}1\leq i_{j}\leq k \\ 1\leq p_{j}\leq r \end{array}}(a_{i_{1},p_{1},p_{2}}e_{i_{1}})\otimes\cdots\otimes (a_{i_{q},p_{q},p_{1}}e_{i_{q}}) \\ &=&\sum\limits_{1\leq p_{j}\leq r}\left( \sum\limits_{1\leq i_{1}\leq k}a_{i_{1},p_{1},p_{2}}e_{i_{1}}\right)\otimes\cdots\otimes \left( \sum\limits_{1\leq i_{q}\leq k}a_{i_{q},p_{q},p_{1}}e_{i_{q}}\right) \\ &=&\sum\limits_{1\leq p_{j}\leq r}\varphi(\mathcal{M})(e_{p_{1},p_{2}})\otimes\cdots\otimes\varphi(\mathcal{M})(e_{p_{q},p_{1}}) \\ &=&\varphi(\mathcal{M})^{\otimes q}(\mathfrak{M}_{r,\dots,r}). \end{array} $$

□

References

1.
Buczyńska, W., Wiśniewski, J.: On the geometry of binary symmetric models of phylogenetic trees. J. Europ. Math. Soc. 9(3), 609–635 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
2.
Buhrman, H., Christandl, M., Zuiddam, J.: Nondeterministic quantum communication complexity: The cyclic equality game and iterated matrix multiplication, arXiv:1603.03757
3.
Chen, C., Lemaire, F., Li, L., Maza, M., Pan, W., Xie, Y.: The ConstructibleSetTools and ParametricSystemTools modules of the RegularChains library in maple. In: International Conference on Computational Sciences and Its Applications, 2008, ICCSA’08, pp 342–352. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
4.
Chor, B., Hendy, M., Holland, B., Penny, D.: Multiple maxima of likelihood in phylogenetic trees: an analytic approach. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17(10), 1529–1541 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.
Cox, D., Little, J., O’Shea, D.: Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms. Springer (1992)Google Scholar
6.
Drton, M., Sullivant, S.: Algebraic statistical models. Stat. Sin., 1273–1297 (2007)Google Scholar
7.
De Silva, V., Lim, L.: Tensor rank and the ill-posedness of the best low-rank approximation problem. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 30(3), 1084–1127 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
8.
Grayson, D.R., Stillman, M.E.: Macaulay2, a software system for research in algebraic geometry. Available at http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/
9.
Ganter, B.: Algorithmen zur formalen Begriffsanalyse, Beiträge zur Begriffsanalyse (Darmstadt, 1986), pp 242–254. Bibliographisches Inst., Mannheim (1987)Google Scholar
10.
Geiger, D., Meek, C., Sturmfels, B.: On the toric algebra of graphical models. Ann. Stat. 34(3), 1463–1492 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
11.
Hackbusch, W.: Tensor Spaces and Numerical Tensor Calculus. Springer Science & Business Media (2012)Google Scholar
12.
Hauenstein, J., Ikenmeyer, C., Landsberg, J.M.: Equations for lower bounds on border rank. Exp. Math. 22(4), 372–383 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
13.
Hampe, S., Joswig, M., Schröter, B.: Algorithms for Tight Spans and Tropical Linear Spaces, arXiv:1612.03592
14.
Hopcroft, J., Kerr, L.: On minimizing the number of multiplications necessary for matrix multiplication. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 20(1), 30–36 (1971)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
15.
Landsberg, J.M.: The border rank of the multiplication of 2x2 matrices is seven. J. Am. Math. Soc. 19(2), 447–459 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
16.
Landsberg, J.M.: Tensors: Geometry and Applications. American Mathematical Society (2012)Google Scholar
17.
Landsberg, J.M., Michałek, M.: On the geometry of border rank decompositions for matrix multiplication and other tensors with symmetry. SIAM J. Appl. Algebra Geom. 1(1), 2–19 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
18.
Landsberg, J.M., Qi, Y., Ye, K.: On the geometry of tensor network states. Quant. Inf. Comput. 12(3-4), 346–354 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
19.
Monagan, M., Geddes, K., Heal, K., Labahn, G., Vorkoetter, S., McCarron, J., DeMarco, P.: Maple 10 Programming Guide. Maplesoft, Waterloo (2005)Google Scholar
20.
Michałek, M.: Geometry of phylogenetic group-based models. J. Algebra 339 (1), 339–356 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
21.
Michałek, M.: Toric varieties in phylogenetics. Dissertationes mathematicae 2015(511), 1–86 (2015)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
22.
Oseledets, I.V.: Tensor-train decomposition. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 33(5), 2295–2317 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
23.
Perez-Garcia, D., Verstraete, F., Wolf, M., Cirac, J.: Matrix product state representations. Quant. Inf. Comput. 7(5), 401–430 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
24.
Qi, Y., Michałek, M., Lim, L.-H.: Complex tensors almost always have best low-rank approximations, to appear in Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acha.2018.12.003
25.
Shafarevich, I.: Basic Algebraic Geometry, 1. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
26.
Sturmfels, B., Sullivant, S.: Toric ideals of phylogenetic invariants. J. Comput. Biol. 12(2), 204–228 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
27.
Szalay, S., Pfeffer, M., Murg, V., Barcza, G., Verstraete, F., Schneider, R., Legeza, Ö.: Tensor product methods and entanglement optimization for ab initio quantum chemistry. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 115(19), 1342–1391 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.
Khrulkov, V., Hrinchuk, O., Oseledets, I: Generalized tensor models for recurrent neural networks, arXiv:1901.10801
29.
Khrulkov, V., Novikov, A., Oseledets, I: Expressive power of recurrent neural networks, arXiv:1711.00811
30.
Winograd, S.: On multiplication of 2 × 2 matrices. Linear Algebra Appl. 4(4), 381–388 (1971)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
31.
Wu, W.-T.: A zero structure theorem for polynomial equations solving, MM Research Preprints, 1(2) (1987)Google Scholar
32.
Zhao, Q., Zhou, G., Xie, S., Zhang, L., Cichocki, A: Tensor ring decomposition, arXiv:1606.05535

Copyright information

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

Corey Harris
- 1
Mateusz Michałek
- 1
- 2
- 3
Email authorView author's OrcID profile
Emre Can Sertöz
- 1

1.Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the SciencesLeipzigGermany
2.Institute of Mathematics of the Polish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland
3.Aalto UniversityEspooFinland

Computing images of polynomial maps

Abstract

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding information

References

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cite article