Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2608.10179

Polynomial Bounds on Degeneration Order from Commutativity Properties of Tensor Slices

Abstract

A tensor has border rank at most $r$ if it can be written as $T=\lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} T(\varepsilon)$ where $T(\varepsilon)$ has rank at most $r$ for all sufficiently small $\varepsilon$. It is known that the map $\varepsilon \mapsto T(\varepsilon)$ can be assumed to be a (tensor valued) polynomial in $\varepsilon$. The smallest possible degree of such a map is called the error degree of $T$. The error degree and the related notion of order of degeneration are the two key quantities that we study in this paper. One motivation comes from debordering: by polynomial interpolation on the map $\varepsilon \mapsto T(\varepsilon)$ we can upper bound the tensor rank of $T$. For order 3 tensors, exponential upper bounds on the error degree and degeneration order were given almost 40 years ago in (Lehmkuhl Lickteig, 1989) and were not improved ever since. In this paper we give bounds that apply to a wide class of tensors, exponentially improving on (Lehmkuhl Lickteig, 1989). Our results are most general for tensors with 3 slices (format $m \times n \times 3$). In this case, our main assumption is on the rank of the matrix slices. We also give bounds that apply to arbitrary rectangular formats ($m \times n \times p$). In this case, we need an additional 1-regularity assumption on one of the slices of the tensor (recall that a matrix is said to be 1-regular if its eigenspaces are 1-dimensional). Under these assumptions we show that the error degree is at most 1, which yields a nontrivial debordering result (tensor rank at most $2r$ for border rank $r$). The results in (Lehmkuhl Lickteig, 1989) rely on an upper bound on the degree of the variety of tensors of border rank at most $r$. We rely instead on more specific properties of this algebraic variety, and in particular on commutativity properties of certain matrices derived from the tensor slices.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shree Ganesh, Pascal Koiran, Rafael Oliveira. 2026-08-10. Polynomial Bounds on Degeneration Order from Commutativity Properties of Tensor Slices. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.10179

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

CVP Is NP-Complete for Principal Cyclotomic Ideals

We prove that exact Euclidean decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete on the coefficient lattices of nonzero principal ideals in the power-of-two cyclotomic rings $R_d:=\mathbb{Z}[y]/(y^d+1)$. Our deterministic reduction from Exact Cover by 3-Sets (X3C) produces a target and a squared threshold $Δ$ such that the closest squared distance is exactly $Δ$ in YES instances and at least $Δ+4$ in NO instances. This also implies $\mathsf{NP}$-hardness of exact search-CVP under polynomial-time Turing reductions. We also transfer the resulting principal-ideal CVP instances to full-rank principal ideals of the cyclic quotient ring $\mathbb{Z}[X]/(X^D-1)$, where $D:=2d$. Their coefficient lattices are invariant under cyclic coordinate shifts. The lift preserves principality and multiplies corresponding squared distances by eight. Thus, on principal cyclic ideal lattices, exact decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete and exact search-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard. We also obtain uniformly computable fixed cyclotomic and cyclic families in which only the target and threshold depend on the X3C collection. Consequently, a polynomial-time solution to exact decision-CVPP on either family would imply $\mathsf{NP}\subseteq\mathsf{P}/\mathrm{poly}$ and collapse the polynomial hierarchy to $Σ_2^{\mathsf{P}}$. To our knowledge, the cyclic results answer Micciancio's questions of whether exact decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard on cyclic lattices and on a fixed family of cyclic lattices, even when restricted to full-rank principal cyclic ideals. Finally, under the coefficient embedding, we prove that exact decision-module-SIVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete on free rank-two modules over the same cyclotomic rings.

cs.CC

Fooling Thresholds of Halfspaces

We initiate the study of constructing explicit pseudorandom generators for thresholds of halfspaces with seed length polylogarithmic in the number of halfspaces. This class of functions lies at the frontier of circuit complexity [CTW26]. We show that the generator designed by O'Donnell, Servedio, and Tan for polytopes [OST22] also fools this broader class. To analyze the generator, we develop a threshold-specific smooth approximation framework based on a Bentkus-type mollifier. We prove derivative bounds for this mollifier and also establish a Boolean anticoncentration theorem for thresholds of halfspaces via a random thinning argument. These ingredients imply that the generator $δ$-fools every $k$-out-of-$m$ threshold of $m$ halfspaces over $\{-1,1\}^n$ with seed length $\widetilde{O}(κ^{6+2\varepsilon}\log^{6+2\varepsilon}\!m\cdotδ^{-(2+2\varepsilon)}\log n)$, for any arbitrarily small constant $\varepsilon>0$, where $κ=\min\{k,m-k+1\}$. The random thinning argument also yields bounds on the noise sensitivity and Gaussian surface area for thresholds of halfspaces, leading to learning algorithms under both the uniform and Gaussian distributions.

cs.CC

An Oracle Separating Conjectures about Incompleteness in the Finite Domain

Pudlák [Pud17] lists several major conjectures from the field of proof complexity and asks for oracles that separate corresponding relativized conjectures. Among these conjectures are: - $\mathsf{DisjNP}$: The class of all disjoint NP-pairs does not have many-one complete elements. - $\mathsf{SAT}$: NP does not contain many-one complete sets that have P-optimal proof systems. - $\mathsf{UP}$: UP does not have many-one complete problems. - $\mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}$: $\text{NP}\cap\text{coNP}$ does not have many-one complete problems. As one answer to this question, we construct an oracle relative to which $\mathsf{DisjNP}$, $\neg \mathsf{SAT}$, $\mathsf{UP}$, and $\mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}$ hold, i.e., there is no relativizable proof for the implication $\mathsf{DisjNP}\wedge \mathsf{UP}\wedge \mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}\Rightarrow\mathsf{SAT}$. In particular, regarding the conjectures by Pudlák this extends a result by Khaniki [Kha19].

cs.CC