Structured Tensor Approximation from Lateral Slice Sampling via Basis and Manifold Priors

Jeongmin Chae; Selin Bac; Shaama Mallikarjun Sharada; Urbashi Mitra; Usama Saleem

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Structured Tensor Approximation from Lateral Slice Sampling via Basis and Manifold Priors

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes BMTA, a tensor-approximation algorithm that reconstructs a full third-order tensor from a small set of lateral slices by combining a known basis model with manifold-guided interpolation, and proves a non-asymptotic…

desk verdict A useful algorithm and honest experiments, but Lemma 1's contraction proof doesn't hold; Theorem 1's guarantee is unsupported as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05463 v1 pith:PVPTJ73B submitted 2026-08-05 math.NA cs.NA

Jeongmin Chae , Usama Saleem , Selin Bac , Shaama Mallikarjun Sharada , Urbashi Mitra This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 15A6965F22

keywords structuredtensorapproximationlateralslicesamplingTuckerdecompositionbasispriormanifoldinterpolationnon-asymptoticerrorboundquantumchemistryHessiansradiomapreconstruction

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes Basis and Manifold prior Tensor Approximation (BMTA), an algorithm for reconstructing a third-order tensor from only a few randomly chosen lateral slices. BMTA combines two complementary assumptions: the slices evolve smoothly along a known low-dimensional basis such as Legendre polynomials or a DCT, and neighboring slices lie on a smooth manifold that supports kernel interpolation from the sampled slices. The central claim is a high-probability, non-asymptotic bound in which the reconstruction error of BMTA decomposes into a term that contracts geometrically with gradient-descent iterations and an irreducible bias term governed by how well the two priors match the true tensor. Numerical experiments on synthetic data, radio-map reconstruction, and quantum-chemistry Hessian tensors indicate that BMTA attains lower normalized error than the baselines in limited-sampling regimes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is an invariant distance on Tucker factor triples, $$\mathrm{dist}^2((\hat X_1,\hat X_2,\hat G),(X_1,X_2,G)) = \inf_{Q_k\in GL(r_k)} \|\hat X_1 Q_1 - X_1\|$_F^{2}$ + \|\hat X_2 Q_2 - X_2\|$_F^{2}$ + \|($Q_1^{{-1}}$,$Q_2^{{-1}}$,$Q_1^{{-1}}$)\cdot \hat G - G\|$_F^{2}$,$$ together with three supporting lemmas: Lemma 1 shows this distance contracts linearly under gradient descent as long as the current factors stay inside the basin; Lemma 2 lifts the factor-space contraction to a Frobenius-norm bound on the reconstructed tensor; and Lemma 3 bounds the error introduced by random lateral-slice sampling using a subspace-embedding concentration inequality. The known basis matrix $S$ enters in two roles: it defines the regression in (7) that produces the basis coefficient tensor $\hat Q$, and its spectral and coherence properties set the sampling complexity $d$ in Theorem 1. The interpolation matrix $\Lambda_\Omega$ is constructed from Gaussian RBF weights (8) between sampled and unsampled reaction-coordinate points, and the parameter $\alpha$ balances the two priors in the final low-rank Tucker objective (9).

What would settle it

Take a ground-truth tensor that exactly satisfies the Tucker, basis, and interpolation models, run Algorithm 1's $N(0,1)$ initialization on it, and compute $\mathrm{dist}(\hat F^0,F)$ before the first update: if this distance exceeds $\epsilon_1\sigma_{\min}(H)$ for a non-negligible fraction of random draws, the contraction premise of Theorem 1 fails on those starts. A weaker check is to plot the tensor-space error against iterations for many random seeds; absence of the predicted geometric contraction from the first step would indicate the basin-of-attraction assumption is not being met.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's main discovery is an error decomposition (Theorem 1) for BMTA: if the initial Tucker factors lie within a basin of attraction of the true factors and the number of sampled lateral slices is large enough, then with probability $1-\delta$ the iterates satisfy a bound of the form $$\|(\hat X_1^t,\hat X_2^t,\hat X_1^t)\cdot \hat G^t - H\|_F \le \tfrac43 (1+\epsilon_1\sigma_{\min})^3 \zeta \$rho^{{t/2}}$\,\mathrm{dist}(\hat $F^{0}$,F) + O\bigl((1+\epsilon_1\sigma_{\min})^3 \zeta\,(\epsilon_1+\|\$\alpha$ E_{\hat QS,(1)}+\$\beta$ E_{C\hat\Lambda_\$\Omega$,(1)}\|_F)/\sqrt{1-\rho}\bigr).$$ The first term shrinks geometrically, while the second, which does not vanish as iterations grow, is controlled by the quality of the basis representation and the manifold-interpolation model. The theorem thus states that BMTA converges linearly to a neighborhood of the true tensor, and that the size of that neighborhood is governed by model mismatch rather than by optimization. This is the claim the paper is trying to establish.

Load-bearing premise

The entire linear-convergence guarantee depends on the initial random factor estimates already lying within a small basin of attraction around the true factors, of radius $\epsilon_1 \sigma_{\min}(H)$, and the paper does not prove that the $N(0,1)$ initialization in Algorithm 1 satisfies this condition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

BMTA turns side information about a trajectory (a known basis and coordinate distances) into a provable reconstruction guarantee from structured lateral slices, not just random entries.
When the basis and interpolation priors are well aligned with the true tensor, the asymptotic reconstruction error is small and additional gradient iterations buy exponential improvement down to that floor.
The sampling-complexity condition $d = O(n^2 l/(nl+\delta\epsilon_2^2(n-1)))$ quantifies how many lateral slices are needed so that random slice sampling behaves like a near-isometry on the basis column space.
The bound also identifies which failure modes matter: a poor basis or a badly tuned interpolation bandwidth creates an irreducible error floor that no amount of optimization can remove.
On the numerical side, BMTA is argued to outperform Tucker decomposition and TensorCUR when slices are scarce, which is exactly the regime the theorem's contraction-plus-bias structure predicts.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The theorem suggests a practical warm-start rule the paper does not test: initialize the Tucker factors from the Structure-only or Interpolation-only reconstructions rather than from $N(0,1)$, which would make the basin-of-attraction assumption checkable and more likely to hold.
The same two-prior architecture should extend to fourth- and higher-order tensors by replacing the shared mode-1/mode-3 factor with independent factors; the invariant-distance proof only uses the Tucker algebra, which does not change.
The bias term predicts a testable plateau: on synthetic tensors with deliberately mismatched basis or bandwidth, the NMSE should stop improving once the optimization term falls below the mismatch term, even as $t$ grows.
One could estimate the bias term online from the residuals $\hat Q\times_2 S - \hat H$ and $C\times_2 \hat\Lambda_\Omega - \hat H$, giving a data-driven criterion for choosing between BMTA and a pure CUR-style method when sampling is abundant.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a useful algorithm paper with an unproven theorem. The BMTA idea—combining a global basis prior with a local RBF interpolation prior inside a symmetric Tucker completion—is a reasonable extension of the authors' earlier ICASSP work, and the experiments on quantum chemistry and radio maps are well-motivated. But the contraction lemma that drives Theorem 1 is not valid as written, and the sampling lemma has an operator mismatch. The theorem should not be cited as established until those are fixed.

What is actually new: the symmetric Tucker formulation (same factor for modes 1 and 3) with the alternating gradient updates, and the specific non-asymptotic error bound for it. The bound's structure—contraction plus model-mismatch—is standard, but the statement is new. The experiments are thoughtfully designed: ablations against structure-only and interpolation-only, plus TensorCUR and Tucker, and they honestly report that TensorCUR wins at high sampling fractions. That is more honest than the abstract suggests.

Soft spots, in order of severity.

First, Lemma 1. The proof bounds the three factor errors separately and adds them. The resulting contraction coefficient is C = (1−η)^2 + ρ0 + ρ1 + η^2 γ^2(1+τ)^10. Each ρi is individually less than 1, but the sum can easily exceed 1. For instance, with σ_min = σ_max = 1 and η at the stated lower bound, ρ0 and ρ1 are close to 1, (1−η)^2 is about 0.72, so C is above 2. The paper simply asserts that the η range makes ρ < 1, but no argument shows it. The step-size interval also appears empty for condition numbers above about 1.85, which is restrictive for Hessian applications. Second, Lemma 5. The paper defines Ψ as a d×n selection matrix without rescaling, but Lemma 4 (from Drineas et al.) applies to the row-sampling-and-rescaling operator. The proof drops the scaling, so the bound does not follow. The d≥... condition also looks off by a factor of δ from the Markov argument. Third, the initialization assumption: Theorem 1 requires dist(F^0,F) ≤ ϵ1 σ_min, but Algorithm 1 starts from Gaussian draws, and there is no result showing that random initialization satisfies this. That is a genuine gap, though less fundamental than the contraction problem.

The core idea is plausible and the experiments suggest it works. I would send this to peer review, but I would expect major revision. Lemma 1 has to be fixed before the main theorem can be trusted.

Referee Report

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Basis and Manifold prior Tensor Approximation (BMTA), a three-stage algorithm for reconstructing a third-order tensor from a small set of uniformly sampled lateral slices. The method combines a known global basis representation along the trajectory mode with a kernel-based manifold interpolation prior, and fits the resulting hybrid model through a low-rank Tucker optimization. The main theoretical contribution is Theorem 1, which claims a non-asymptotic reconstruction error bound of the form O(ρ^{t/2}) plus model-mismatch terms, under a sampling complexity condition on the number of observed slices. The paper also reports numerical experiments on synthetic tensors, radio-map reconstruction, and quantum-chemistry Hessian datasets.

Significance. If Theorem 1 were correct, the paper would provide a useful convergence guarantee for tensor recovery under structured lateral-slice sampling, a regime that is common in scientific applications but less studied than random entrywise sampling. The algorithmic idea of combining a global basis prior with a local manifold prior is reasonable, and the experiments show consistent gains over the considered baselines in low-sampling regimes. However, the theoretical analysis is the central advertised contribution, and it contains several load-bearing gaps: the contraction lemma's coefficient is not shown to be less than one, the sampling lemma misapplies a rescaled row-sampling bound to an unnormalized selection matrix, and a key constant in the tensor-space lifting lemma is obtained from a false inequality. These issues prevent the paper from substantiating its main claim as written.

major comments (6)

[Appendix C, Lemma 1 and Eq. (47)-(48)] The contraction coefficient in Lemma 1 is not proven to be less than one. Equation (47) adds the mode-1 contraction coefficient ρ0, the mode-2 coefficient ρ1, the term (1-η)^2, and the term η^2 γ^2(1+τ)^10. Even if ρ0<1 and ρ1<1 individually, their sum together with the other positive terms has no reason to be below 1. Moreover, the text states that 2(1-2ησ_min^2)^2<1 follows from the lower bound on η, but the preceding bound actually contains the coefficient 4(1-2ησ_min^2)^2, which can exceed 1 for step sizes at the stated lower end. Consequently, the geometric contraction claimed in Lemma 1 and used in Theorem 1 is unsupported.
[Lemma 1 and Theorem 1, step-size and spectral assumptions] The step-size interval in Lemma 1, (1-1/√2)/(2 min_k σ_min^2(Σ_k)) < η < 1/(2 max_k σ_max^2(Σ_k)), is empty unless σ_max^2/σ_min^2 < 1/(1-1/√2) ≈ 3.414, i.e., unless the condition number of the relevant unfoldings is below about 1.85. This is not stated as an assumption in Theorem 1 and is violated in typical numerical regimes. Additionally, Lemma 1 assumes γ(1+ϵ1 σ_min)≤1, where γ is the largest singular value of H_(1) or H_(2); this excludes all tensors with a singular value larger than one and is absent from Theorem 1. The theorem therefore applies only under conditions that are neither stated nor verified.
[Lemma 5 and Lemma 3, sampling argument] Lemma 5's proof applies Lemma 4 to the unnormalized selection matrix Ψ∈{0,1}^{d×n}. Lemma 4, however, is a concentration bound for a row-sampling and rescaling operator; without the rescaling factor, E[(ΨU_S)^T(ΨH^⊥)] = (d/n) U_S^T H^⊥, and the quoted bound does not hold for the raw selection matrix. The Markov step following (22) also does not yield the stated sample complexity: matching the high-probability conclusion requires d≥O(n^2l/(nl+δ^2 ϵ^2(n-1))), not the d≥O(n^2l/(nl+δ ϵ^2(n-1))) stated in Lemma 5 and Theorem 1. Lemma 3 additionally assumes σ_min^2(ΨU_S)≥1/√2 without proving that this subspace embedding condition follows from the assumed d; as a result, the sampling-induced error bound in Lemma 3 is not established.
[Appendix D, Lemma 2] The proof of Lemma 2 uses the inequality (τ^2+2τ+2) ≤ (4/3)(1+τ)^3 when passing from (c) to (d). At τ=0 this reads 2 ≤ 4/3, which is false, and the inequality only becomes valid for τ larger than roughly 0.22. Since τ=ϵ1 σ_min can be arbitrarily small, the factor 4/3 in Lemma 2 is not justified. This directly affects the constant in Theorem 1's error bound.
[Algorithm 1, line 4 and Eq. (7)] The stated closed-form solution for the basis coefficient tensor is written as \hat{Q} = fold_(2)(Ψ† C_(2)) ×_2 S†. The least-squares problem in (7) is min ||C_(2) - Ψ S \bar{Q}_{(2)}||_F^2, whose solution is fold_(2)((ΨS)^† C_(2)). Using the pseudoinverse of Ψ alone is dimensionally inconsistent and does not solve the displayed regression; this is a concrete error in the algorithm's definition, not merely a typographical issue in notation.
[Theorem 1 and Algorithm 1, initialization] Theorem 1 assumes dist(\hat{F}^0,F) ≤ ϵ1 σ_min, but Algorithm 1 initializes every entry of \hat{G}, \hat{X}_1, and \hat{X}_2 independently from N(0,1). The paper provides no result showing that such a random initialization satisfies the basin-of-attraction condition. Without this, the linear convergence guarantee does not apply to the algorithm as implemented and tested.

minor comments (5)

[Notation throughout] The notation σ_min^2(Σ_k) is used where σ_min(Σ_k) or σ_min^2(H_(k)) would be clearer; likewise the upper bound in Theorem 1 and Lemma 1 alternates between min_k σ_max^2(Σ_k) and max_k σ_max^2(Σ_k), which should be reconciled.
[Lemma 5 statement] The lemma states that the bound holds 'with probability δ', but the intended meaning appears to be 'with probability at least 1−δ'; this should be corrected everywhere.
[Theorem 1 statement] The use of an O(·) term inside a displayed high-probability inequality is not a rigorous non-asymptotic bound; the constants hidden in the O should be made explicit if the bound is to be used for comparison with experiments.
[Section VI, Figure 4 caption] The text says results 'closely follow the trends predicted by Theorem 1', but the experiments do not estimate the contraction rate ρ or the model-mismatch terms; this claim should be softened or accompanied by a quantitative comparison.
[References] Several supporting lemmas are stated as imported from the authors' prior work ([4], [5], [8], [11], [14]); the paper should state explicitly which results are reused and verify that the cited versions match the assumptions used here.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1 is a model-mismatch oracle inequality; residuals appear by triangle-inequality decomposition, not as fitted predictions.

full rationale

I examined the derivation chain (7)-(9), the gradient updates (10)-(14), and the proof lemmas in Appendices C-E. The reconstruction error bound in Theorem 1 is a standard oracle inequality: the residual tensors E_QS and E_CΛ are defined in (5)-(6) as H minus the basis and interpolation surrogates, and their appearance in the final bound comes from decomposing H - Ĥ into (H - surrogate) + (surrogate - Ĥ) via the triangle inequality in Appendix C (equations (33)-(48)). This is not a fitted input called a prediction: no constants are optimized to data in the theorem, the contraction coefficient is derived from gradient-descent step-size assumptions rather than calibrated, and the irreducible terms are honestly labeled model mismatch. The self-citations [4], [5], [11], [14] motivate the basis/interpolation priors and applications, but the load-bearing technical lemmas either are proved in the paper or cite external works ([22], [29]); no uniqueness or correctness claim is imported solely from the authors' prior work. The skeptic's objection that the displayed contraction coefficient in (47)-(48) may exceed unity is a potential correctness gap in Lemma 1, not a circular reduction: it concerns whether the proof establishes ρ<1, not whether the result is equivalent to its inputs. No step in the paper makes the conclusion true by definition, and no quantity that is fitted to the data is subsequently relabeled as a prediction. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central guarantee rests on two domain assumptions (known basis S, smooth manifold interpolation) and two paper-specific technical assumptions (basin initialization, subspace embedding). The basis order, mixing weight, bandwidth, learning rate, and ranks are user-chosen or heuristic. These are the main costs the reader pays beyond the algorithm itself.

free parameters (5)

alpha (α) = 0.5 in experiments
Balances the basis prior vs interpolation prior in objective (9); set to 0.5 without sensitivity analysis.
Basis order l = 3 or 5 depending on chemical system
Chosen per dataset ('l=3 for CF3CH3 and Sn2Ar1, l=5 for TSoxo and Ir depending on complexity'), a model selection choice.
RBF bandwidth σ = average spacing between sampled reaction coordinates
Set proportional to average slice spacing in (8); heuristic controls locality of interpolation.
Learning rate η and iterations T = not reported
Algorithm 1 needs η and T; theorem gives a range for η but experiments do not state the values used.
Tucker target ranks r1,r2 = r1=r2=5 in synthetic experiments
Multilinear ranks are fixed by the user; for real data not specified. The model assumes H has multilinear rank (r1,r2,r1).

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Ground truth H admits symmetric Tucker decomposition H=(X1,X2,X1)·G with orthonormal X1,X2 and core G satisfying G_(k)G_(k)^T=Σ_k^2.
Equation (3) and the paragraph after it. Justified by Hessian symmetry, not proven for all targets.
domain assumption Frontal slices are well approximated by a known basis S: H=Q×2 S+E_QS.
Equation (5). The algorithm needs S supplied as side information; if S is a poor model, the residual E_QS dominates the bound.
domain assumption Lateral slices live on a smooth manifold so kernel interpolation Λ_Ω from pairwise reaction-coordinate distances is a valid local model.
Equations (6) and (8). No guarantee for general tensors.
ad hoc to paper Initialization lies in the basin of attraction: dist(F^0,F)≤ϵ1 σ_min for small ϵ1.
Theorem 1 and Lemma 1. The algorithm initializes from Gaussian draws; no theorem covers random initialization.
ad hoc to paper Sampling operator Ψ satisfies subspace embedding condition σ_min²(ΨU_S)≥1/√2.
Lemma 3 assumes this; Lemma 5's d condition is meant to imply it but the proof is not convincing.
standard math Lemma 4 (approximate matrix multiplication) applies with the stated constants.
Imported from [29]; used at Appendix A equations (21)-(22), but its high-probability form is treated as an expectation bound.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structured Tensor Approximation from Lateral Slice Sampling via Basis and Manifold Priors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PVPTJ73B

@misc{pith2026260805463,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structured Tensor Approximation from Lateral Slice Sampling via Basis and Manifold Priors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PVPTJ73B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05463}
}

read the original abstract

In this work, we consider a structured tensor approximation problem, where only a limited number of lateral slices are observed. The proposed algorithm , called Basis and Manifold prior Tensor Approximation (BMTA), exploits both global and local structures of the evolution of a global tensor. Specifically, BMTA integrates two signal models: (i) a quasi-basis model that captures smooth global variations along a physical trajectory, and (ii) a manifold-guided interpolation model that characterizes local relationships among tensor slices. A low-rank Tucker reconstruction framework is incorporated to efficiently capture the priors, resulting in coefficients for basis function estimation and a tensor optimization. In addition, we provide a theoretical analysis which establishes a non-asymptotic reconstruction error bound that characterizes the effects of sampling complexity, optimization convergence, and model mismatch. Numerical experiments are performed on both synthetic and real-world datasets, including quantum chemistry and spatiotemporal sensing applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05463 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Illustration of Tucker decomposition for a third-order tensor. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** NMSE comparison varying the number of sampled lateral slices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: NMSE versus normalized noise level contrast, Polynomial-only and Interpolation-only rely on fixed priors and cannot fully capture the underlying variability, while Tucker decomposition suffers from unreliable subspace estimation when the number of sampled slices is sm…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Sensitivity of BMTA to the underlying tensor structure. NMSE comparison when the tensor is dominated by (a) quasi-polynomial structure and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison on radio map dataset at t = 65: BMTA provides the superior reconstruction of spatio-temporal features. (d = 60, 70), TensorCUR benefits from access to the true interpolative nature of the signal via horizontal slices. Our numerical results demonstrates that …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

Cross tensor approximation methods for compression and dimensionality reduction,

S. Ahmadi-Asl, C. F. Caiafa, A. Cichocki, A. H. Phan, T. Tanaka, I. Oseledets, and J. Wang, “Cross tensor approximation methods for compression and dimensionality reduction,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 150 809–150 838, 2021

2021
[2]

Compressed tensor completion: A robust technique for fast and efficient data reconstruction in wireless sensor networks,

K. Sekar, K. S. Devi, and P. Srinivasan, “Compressed tensor completion: A robust technique for fast and efficient data reconstruction in wireless sensor networks,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 10 794– 10 807, 2022

work page 2022
[3]

Tucker tensor regression and neuroimaging analysis,

X. Li, D. Xu, H. Zhou, and L. Li, “Tucker tensor regression and neuroimaging analysis,”Statistics in Biosciences, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 520–545, 2018

work page 2018
[4]

Quasi polynomial and interpolative models for tensor approximation,

J. Chae, S. Bac, U. Saleem, S. M. Sharada, and U. Mitra, “Quasi polynomial and interpolative models for tensor approximation,” in ICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–5

work page 2025
[5]

Matrix approximation with side information: When column sampling is enough,

J. Chae, P. Narayanamurthy, S. Bac, S. M. Sharada, and U. Mitra, “Matrix approximation with side information: When column sampling is enough,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 72, pp. 2276– 2291, 2024

work page 2024
[6]

Incorporating chemical information in matrix completion for efficient prediction of multidimensional tunneling corrections,

S. Bac, U. Saleem, J. Chae, U. Mitra, and S. M. Sharada, “Incorporating chemical information in matrix completion for efficient prediction of multidimensional tunneling corrections,”Molecular Systems Design & Engineering, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 970–981, 2025

work page 2025
[7]

Tensor decompositions and applications,

T. G. Kolda and B. W. Bader, “Tensor decompositions and applications,” SIAM review, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 455–500, 2009

2009
[8]

Sketched column-based matrix approximation,

J. Chae, S. Bac, U. Saleem, S. M. Sharada, and U. Mitra, “Sketched column-based matrix approximation,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 2026

work page 2026

Show all 30 references

[9]

Sublinear time orthogonal tensor decomposition,

Z. Song, D. Woodruff, and H. Zhang, “Sublinear time orthogonal tensor decomposition,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 29, 2016

2016
[10]

High performance gpu tensor completion with tubal-sampling pattern,

T. Zhang, X.-Y . Liu, and X. Wang, “High performance gpu tensor completion with tubal-sampling pattern,”IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 1724–1739, 2020

2020
[11]

A matrix completion algorithm for efficient calculation of quantum and variational effects in chemical reactions,

S. Bac, S. J. Quiton, K. Kron, J. Chae, U. Mitra, and S. M. Sharada, “A matrix completion algorithm for efficient calculation of quantum and variational effects in chemical reactions,”The Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 156, no. 18, p. 184119, 2022

2022
[12]

Variational transition state theory with multidimensional tunneling,

A. Fernandez-Ramos, B. A. Ellingson, B. C. Garrett, and D. G. Truhlar, “Variational transition state theory with multidimensional tunneling,” Reviews in computational chemistry, vol. 23, p. 125, 2007

2007
[13]

Interpolated variational transition-state theory by mapping,

J. C. Corchado, E. L. Coitino, Y .-Y . Chuang, P. L. Fast, and D. G. Truhlar, “Interpolated variational transition-state theory by mapping,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, vol. 102, no. 14, pp. 2424–2438, 1998

1998
[14]

Toward efficient direct dynamics studies of chemical reactions: A novel matrix completion algorithm,

S. J. Quiton, J. Chae, S. Bac, K. Kron, U. Mitra, and S. M. Sharada, “Toward efficient direct dynamics studies of chemical reactions: A novel matrix completion algorithm,”Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 2022

2022
[15]

Diffusion maps, reduction coordinates, and low dimensional represen- tation of stochastic systems,

R. R. Coifman, I. G. Kevrekidis, S. Lafon, M. Maggioni, and B. Nadler, “Diffusion maps, reduction coordinates, and low dimensional represen- tation of stochastic systems,”Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 842–864, 2008

2008
[16]

Polynomials and potential theory for gaussian radial basis function interpolation,

R. B. Platte and T. A. Driscoll, “Polynomials and potential theory for gaussian radial basis function interpolation,”SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 750–766, 2005

2005
[17]

The discrete cosine transform,

G. Strang, “The discrete cosine transform,”SIAM review, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 135–147, 1999

1999
[18]

Double discrete cosine transform-oriented multi-view subspace clustering,

Y . Chen, S. Wang, Y .-P. Zhao, and C. P. Chen, “Double discrete cosine transform-oriented multi-view subspace clustering,”IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 33, pp. 2491–2501, 2024

2024
[19]

Tensor regression using low- rank and sparse tucker decompositions,

T. Ahmed, H. Raja, and W. U. Bajwa, “Tensor regression using low- rank and sparse tucker decompositions,”SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 944–966, 2020

2020
[20]

Nonconvex low-rank tensor completion from noisy data,

C. Cai, G. Li, H. V . Poor, and Y . Chen, “Nonconvex low-rank tensor completion from noisy data,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019

2019
[21]

Kernel methods on riemannian manifolds with gaussian rbf kernels,

S. Jayasumana, R. Hartley, M. Salzmann, H. Li, and M. Harandi, “Kernel methods on riemannian manifolds with gaussian rbf kernels,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 37, no. 12, pp. 2464–2477, 2015

2015
[22]

Fast and provable tensor robust principal component analysis via scaled gradient descent,

H. Dong, T. Tong, C. Ma, and Y . Chi, “Fast and provable tensor robust principal component analysis via scaled gradient descent,”Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1716–1758, 2023

2023
[23]

Low-rank tucker decomposition of large tensors using tensorsketch,

O. A. Malik and S. Becker, “Low-rank tucker decomposition of large tensors using tensorsketch,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 31, 2018

2018
[24]

Tensor-cur decomposi- tions for tensor-based data,

M. W. Mahoney, M. Maggioni, and P. Drineas, “Tensor-cur decomposi- tions for tensor-based data,” inProceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, 2006, pp. 327–336

2006
[25]

Stfd-snn: A physics-constrained spiking neural network framework for maritime radio environment map reconstruction,

L. Yi, Y . Fan, Y . Guo, Y . Fu, S. Fang, M. Lei, and Q. Wang, “Stfd-snn: A physics-constrained spiking neural network framework for maritime radio environment map reconstruction,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2026

2026
[26]

Denoising diffusion probabilistic model for radio map estimation in generative wireless networks,

X. Luo, Z. Li, Z. Peng, M. Chen, and Y . Liu, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic model for radio map estimation in generative wireless networks,”IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Net- working, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 751–763, 2025

2025
[27]

Deep spectrum cartography: Complet- ing radio map tensors using learned neural models,

S. Shrestha, X. Fu, and M. Hong, “Deep spectrum cartography: Complet- ing radio map tensors using learned neural models,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 70, pp. 1170–1184, 2022

2022
[28]

Radio map estimation: A data-driven approach to spectrum cartography,

D. Romero and S.-J. Kim, “Radio map estimation: A data-driven approach to spectrum cartography,”IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 53–72, 2022

2022
[29]

Fast monte carlo al- gorithms for matrices i: Approximating matrix multiplication,

P. Drineas, R. Kannan, and M. W. Mahoney, “Fast monte carlo al- gorithms for matrices i: Approximating matrix multiplication,”SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 132–157, 2006

2006
[30]

Scaling and scalability: Provable nonconvex low-rank tensor estimation from incomplete measurements,

T. Tong, C. Ma, A. Prater-Bennette, E. Tripp, and Y . Chi, “Scaling and scalability: Provable nonconvex low-rank tensor estimation from incomplete measurements,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 23, no. 163, pp. 1–77, 2022

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Cross tensor approximation methods for compression and dimensionality reduction,

S. Ahmadi-Asl, C. F. Caiafa, A. Cichocki, A. H. Phan, T. Tanaka, I. Oseledets, and J. Wang, “Cross tensor approximation methods for compression and dimensionality reduction,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 150 809–150 838, 2021

2021

[2] [2]

Compressed tensor completion: A robust technique for fast and efficient data reconstruction in wireless sensor networks,

K. Sekar, K. S. Devi, and P. Srinivasan, “Compressed tensor completion: A robust technique for fast and efficient data reconstruction in wireless sensor networks,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 10 794– 10 807, 2022

work page 2022

[3] [3]

Tucker tensor regression and neuroimaging analysis,

X. Li, D. Xu, H. Zhou, and L. Li, “Tucker tensor regression and neuroimaging analysis,”Statistics in Biosciences, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 520–545, 2018

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Quasi polynomial and interpolative models for tensor approximation,

J. Chae, S. Bac, U. Saleem, S. M. Sharada, and U. Mitra, “Quasi polynomial and interpolative models for tensor approximation,” in ICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–5

work page 2025

[5] [5]

Matrix approximation with side information: When column sampling is enough,

J. Chae, P. Narayanamurthy, S. Bac, S. M. Sharada, and U. Mitra, “Matrix approximation with side information: When column sampling is enough,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 72, pp. 2276– 2291, 2024

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Incorporating chemical information in matrix completion for efficient prediction of multidimensional tunneling corrections,

S. Bac, U. Saleem, J. Chae, U. Mitra, and S. M. Sharada, “Incorporating chemical information in matrix completion for efficient prediction of multidimensional tunneling corrections,”Molecular Systems Design & Engineering, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 970–981, 2025

work page 2025

[7] [7]

Tensor decompositions and applications,

T. G. Kolda and B. W. Bader, “Tensor decompositions and applications,” SIAM review, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 455–500, 2009

2009

[8] [8]

Sketched column-based matrix approximation,

J. Chae, S. Bac, U. Saleem, S. M. Sharada, and U. Mitra, “Sketched column-based matrix approximation,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 2026

work page 2026