We address the problem of tensor robust principal component analysis (TRPCA), which entails decomposing a given tensor into the sum of a low-rank tensor and a sparse tensor. By leveraging the tensor singular value decomposition (t-SVD), we introduce the ratio of the tensor nuclear norm to the tensor Frobenius norm (TNF) as a nonconvex approximation of the tensor’s tubal rank in TRPCA. Additionally, we utilize the traditional L1 norm to identify the sparse tensor. For brevity, we refer to the combination of TNF and L1 as simply TNF. Under a series of incoherence conditions, we prove that a pair of tensors serves as a local minimizer of the proposed TNF-based TRPCA model if one tensor is sufficiently low in rank and the other tensor is sufficiently sparse. In addition, we propose replacing the L1 norm with the ratio of the L1 and Frobenius norm for tensors, the latter denoted as the LF norm. We refer to the combination of TNF and L1/LF as the TNF+ model in short. To solve both TNF and TNF+ models, we employ the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) and prove subsequential convergence under certain conditions. Finally, extensive experiments on synthetic data, real color images, and videos are conducted to demonstrate the superior performance of our proposed models in comparison to state-of-the-art methods in TRPCA.
Let {\mathcal{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_{1} \times n_{2} \times n_{3}}}, then the t-SVD of \mathcal{A} is given by
where {\mathcal{U} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_{1} \times n_{1} \times n_{3}}, \mathcal{V} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_{2} \times n_{2} \times n_{3}}} are orthogonal tensors, and {\mathcal{S} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_{1} \times n_{2} \times n_{3}}} is an {f}-diagonal tensor.
For a tensor {\mathcal{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_{1} \times n_{2} \times n_{3}}}, its tubal rank, denoted as \operatorname{rank}_{t}(\mathcal{A}) defined as the number of nonzero singular tubes of \mathcal{S}, where \mathcal{S} comes from the t-SVD of \mathcal{A}, i.e. \mathcal{A}=\mathcal{U} * \mathcal{S} * \mathcal{V}^{*}.
(i) We first show \{\mathcal{Y}^{(k)}\} is bounded. From (Proof), we have
which suggests that \{\mathcal{Y}^{(k)}\} is bounded under assumptions (C1) and (C2). Therefore, \{\mathcal{H}^{(k)}\} is also bounded due to the \mathcal{H}-update in (11).
We further use the optimality condition of \mathcal{E} in (11) to show that \{\mathcal{E}^{(k)}\} is bounded. In particular, \mathcal{E}^{(k+1)} is updated by
where \mathcal{X}_{ijl}, \mathcal{L}_{ijl}, and \mathcal{Z}_{ijl} is the (i,j,l) element of third-order tensor \mathcal{X}, \mathcal{L} and \mathcal{Z} respectively. In other words, we have
Therefore, \left(\mathcal{E}^{(k+1)}_{ijl}-\mathcal{X}_{ijl}+\mathcal{L}^{(k+1)}_{ijl}+\tfrac{\mathcal{Z}^{(k)}_{ijl}}{\mu_2}\right)^{2} \leq \tfrac{\lambda^{2}}{\mu_{2}^{2}}, which implies that
is bounded. It further follows from the assumption A1 that \mathcal E is bounded due to the boundedness of \mathcal L and \mathcal Z.
(ii) Since the sequence \{\mathcal{L}^{(k)},\mathcal{H}^{(k)},\mathcal{E}^{(k)},\mathcal{Y}^{(k)},\mathcal{Z}^{(k)}\} is bounded, Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem states that there exists a subsequence defined as
It follows from Lemma 2 that L_{1}\left(\mathcal{L}^{(k+1)},\mathcal{H}^{(k+1)},\mathcal{E}^{(k+1)},\mathcal{Y}^{(k+1)},\mathcal{Z}^{(k+1)} \right) has upper bound if \|\mathcal{Z}^{(k+1)}-\mathcal{Z}^{(k)} \|_{F}^{2}\rightarrow 0. Using (10), we get
due to the boundness of \{\mathcal{Y}^{(k)}\} and \{\mathcal{Z}^{(k)}\}. Let k\rightarrow \infty, by L_{1}\left(\mathcal{L},\mathcal{H},\mathcal{E},\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{Z}\right) having a lower bound, we know that \sum_{j=0}^{k}\| \mathcal{L}^{(j+1)}-\mathcal{L}^{(j)} \|_{F}^{2}, \sum_{j=0}^{k}\| \mathcal{H}^{(j+1)}-\mathcal{H}^{(j)} \|_{F}^{2} and \sum_{j=0}^{k}\| \mathcal{E}^{(j+1)}-\mathcal{E}^{(j)} \|_{F}^{2} are finite, which implies that \| \mathcal{L}^{(k+1)}-\mathcal{L}^{(k)} \|_{F}^{2} \rightarrow 0, \| \mathcal{H}^{(k+1)}-\mathcal{H}^{(k)} \|_{F}^{2} \rightarrow 0 and \| \mathcal{E}^{(k+1)}-\mathcal{E}^{(k)} \|_{F}^{2} \rightarrow 0 as k\rightarrow \infty. Then we can get \| \mathcal{Y}^{(k+1)}-\mathcal{Y}^{(k)} \|_{F}^{2} \rightarrow 0 due to (17).
Therefore, we have
which implies that \| \mathcal{H}^{(k_i+1)}-\mathcal{H}^{(k_i)} \|_{F} \rightarrow 0, \| \mathcal{E}^{(k_i+1)}-\mathcal{E}^{(k_i)} \|_{F} \rightarrow 0, \| \mathcal{Y}^{(k_i+1)}-\mathcal{Y}^{(k_i)} \|_{F} \rightarrow 0 and \| \mathcal{Z}^{(k_i+1)}-\mathcal{Z}^{(k_i)} \|_{F} \rightarrow 0. Hence Lemma 3 guarantees that the zero tensor \mathcal{O}\in \partial L_{1}(\mathcal{X}^{\ast}, \mathcal{H}^{\ast}, \mathcal{A}^{\ast}).
(tensor incoherence conditions [lu2019tensor]) For a low-rank tensor \mathcal{L}_0 \in \mathbb{R}^{n_1\times n_2\times n_3}, we assume {\operatorname{rank}_{t}\left(\mathcal{L}_{0}\right)=r} and its skinny t-SVD is \mathcal{L}_{0}=\mathcal{U} * \mathcal{S} * \mathcal{V}^{*}, where \mathcal{U} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_{1} \times r \times n_{3}}, \mathcal{S} \in \mathbb{R}^{r \times r \times n_{3}}, \mathcal{V} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_{2} \times r \times n_{3}}. We say \mathcal{L}_{0} satisfies the tensor incoherence conditions with parameter {\mu>0} if
where \overrightarrow{\boldsymbol{e}}_i and \overrightarrow{\boldsymbol{e}}_j are column basis of size n_1\times 1\times n_3 and n_2\times1\times n_3, respectively.
Suppose \mathcal{L}_{0} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_{1} \times n_{2} \times n_{3}} with tubal rank r obeys the tensor incoherence conditions (3) with parameter \mu. Suppose that the support \boldsymbol{\Omega} of \mathcal{E}_0 is uniformly distributed among all sets of cardinality m=2\gamma n_1n_2n_3, where \gamma=\mathbb{P}(\operatorname{sgn}(\mathcal{E}_0)=1)=\mathbb{P}(\operatorname{sgn}(\mathcal{E}_0)=-1). If the parameter \lambda in the TNF model (?) is selected within the interval
with sufficiently large n_1, n_2, n_3, there exists a positive constant c_0 such that with probability at least 1-2(n_{(1)}n_3)^{-c_0}, (\mathcal L_0, \mathcal E_0) is a local minimum of (?), provided that
Under assumptions A1-A2 with sufficiently large parameters \mu_1,\mu_2, the sequence \{\mathcal{Y}^{(k)}\} generated by (?) satisfies
where M and \delta are the constants defined in A1 and A2, respectively.
The optimality condition of the \mathcal{H} subproblem in (11) indicates that
where \mathcal{O}\in \mathbb{R}^{n_1\times n_2\times n_3} is the zero tensor. Using the dual update \mathcal{Y}^{(k+1)}=\mathcal{Y}^{(k)}+\mu_1\left(\mathcal{L}^{(k+1)}-\mathcal{H}^{(k+1)}\right), we have
which directly deduces to
Then it is straightforward to have
Note that \left\|\mathcal{L}\right\|_{*} \leq \sqrt{r}\left\|\mathcal{L}\right\|_{F} \leq \sqrt{n_{(2)}}\left\|\mathcal{L}\right\|_{F}, where r is the tubal rank of tensor \mathcal{L} \in \mathbb{R}^{ n_1\times n_2\times n_3}. Then, the first term in (Proof) turns to
It follows from Lemma S.17 that
Putting (Proof)-(Proof) together with Cauchy-Schwarz inequality leads to the desired inequality (17).
Under assumptions A1-A2, the augmented Lagrangian function (?) of the sequence \{\mathcal{L}^{(k)},\mathcal{H}^{(k)},\mathcal{E}^{(k)},\mathcal{Y}^{(k)},\mathcal{Z}^{(k)}\} generated by (?) satisfies
with four positive constants c_{1}, c_{2}, c_{3},c_4.
The function L_{1}\left(\mathcal{L},\mathcal{H}^{(k)},\mathcal{E}^{(k)},\mathcal{Y}^{(k)},\mathcal{Z}^{(k)}\right), derived from (10) with fixed \mathcal{H}^{(k)}, \mathcal{E}^{(k)}, \mathcal{Y}^{(k)} and \mathcal{Z}^{(k)}, consists of a TNN term and two quadratic terms, hence it is strongly convex in terms of \mathcal{L} with constant \mu_{1}+\mu_{2}. The convex property leads to
Now we examine the change in L_1 caused by the \mathcal H, that is,
It follows from Lemma S.17 along with the assumption A2 that \tfrac{1}{\|\mathcal{H}\|_{F}} is Lipschitz continuous with parameter \tfrac{2}{\delta^{3}}. Hence, we obtain
Simple calculations of the third and the fourth terms in (?) yield
where the second equality is from the \mathcal{Y}-update. Putting together (?), (?), (?), we have
where the equality is from (Proof).
The function L_{1}\left(\mathcal{L}^{(k+1)},\mathcal{H}^{(k+1)},\mathcal{E},\mathcal{Y}^{(k)}, \mathcal{Z}^{(k)}\right) with fixed \mathcal{L}^{(k+1)}, \mathcal{H}^{(k+1)}, \mathcal{Y}^{(k)} and \mathcal{Z}^{(k)} consists of a \ell_1-norm term and one quadratic term, hence it is strongly convex in terms of \mathcal{E} with constant \mu_{2}, thus leading to
Lastly, we have
By putting together (Proof), (?), (?), (?), and (17), we have
where c_{1}=\tfrac{\mu_{1}+\mu_{2}}{2}-\tfrac{2 n_{(2)} }{\mu_1\delta^{4}}, c_{2}=\tfrac{\mu_{1}}{2}-\tfrac{3M}{\delta^{3}}-\tfrac{4M^2}{\mu_{1}\delta^{6}}, c_{3}=\tfrac{\mu_2}{2} and c_4=\tfrac{1}{\mu_2}.
Let \mathcal{C}^{(k)}:=\left(\mathcal{L}^{(k)}, \mathcal{H}^{(k)}, \mathcal{E}^{(k)}, \mathcal{Y}^{(k)}, \mathcal{Z}^{(k)}\right) be the sequence generated by (?), then there exist a tensor \mathcal{V}^{(k+1)}\in \partial L_{1}\left(\mathcal{C}^{(k+1)}\right)
and a constant \kappa>0 such that
By the optimal condition of \mathcal{L} in iterative steps (11), there exits \mathcal{Q}^{(k+1)} \in \partial(\left\|(\mathcal{L}^{(k+1)})\right\|_{*}) such that
We denote
which belongs to \partial_{\mathcal{L}}L_{1}\left(\mathcal{L}^{(k+1)}, \mathcal{H}^{(k+1)}, \mathcal{E}^{(k+1)}, \mathcal{Y}^{(k+1)}, \mathcal{Z}^{(k+1)}\right) by the definition of subgradient. Combining (Proof) and (Proof) yields
When expressed by skinny t-SVD, \mathcal{A}=\mathcal{U}*\mathcal{S}*\mathcal{V}^{*} has its subgradient defined by
Additionally, for any tensor \mathcal A \in \mathbb{R}^{n_1\times n_2\times n_3}, we have
Based on (Proof) and (?), we define the skinny t-SVD of \mathcal{X}^{(k+1)} by \mathcal{X}^{(k+1)} = \mathcal{U}^{(k+1)}*\mathcal{S}^{(k+1)}*(\mathcal{V}^{(k+1)})^{*}, then we get
By the property of Frobenius norm, we get
Choosing \mathcal{U}^{(k+1)}\in \partial (\|\mathcal{E}^{(k+1)}\|_{1}), we define \mathcal{V}_{2}^{(k+1)}, \mathcal{V}_{3}^{(k+1)}, \mathcal{V}_{4}^{(k+1)}, \mathcal{V}_{5}^{(k+1)} as follows:
By the optimal condition of L_{1} in (10), we know that
By the subgradient definition, we get
Let \mathcal{V}^{(k+1)}=\left(\mathcal{V}_{1}^{(k+1)}, \mathcal{V}_{2}^{(k+1)}, \mathcal{V}_{3}^{(k+1)}, \mathcal{V}_{4}^{(k+1)}, \mathcal{V}_{5}^{(k+1)}\right)^{T}, we get
Incorporating Lemma 1, (?) and (?), we have
where \kappa_{3}=\tfrac{2n_{(2)}(3\mu_1^2+1)}{\mu_1^2\delta^4}, \kappa_{4}=\tfrac{16n_{(2)}}{\delta^{4}}+4\mu_{1}^{2}+\tfrac{4M^{2}(3\mu_1^2+1)}{\mu_1^2\delta^6}, \kappa_{5}=2\mu_2^2 and \kappa_{6}=3+\tfrac{1}{\mu_2^2}. we can choose a proper value \kappa>0 such that the desired inequality (19)) holds.
Under assumptions A1-A2, the sequence
generated by (?) satisfies
(i) The sequences {\mathcal{H}^{(k)}}, {\mathcal{E}^{(k)}\}, {\mathcal{Y}^{(k)}\}, and {\mathcal{Z}^{(k)}\} are bounded.
(ii)The sequence \{\mathcal{C}^{(k)}\} has a convergent subsequence. If \lim\limits_{k\rightarrow +\infty}\|\mathcal{Z}^{(k+1)}-\mathcal{Z}^{(k)}\|_{F}=0, this subsequence converges to a critical point \{\mathcal{L}^{\ast}, \mathcal{H}^{\ast}, \mathcal{E}^{\ast}, \mathcal{Y}^{\ast}, \mathcal{Z}^{\ast}\} with \mathcal{O}\in \partial L_{1}(\mathcal{L}^{\ast}, \mathcal{H}^{\ast}, \mathcal{E}^{\ast}, \mathcal{Y}^{\ast}, \mathcal{Z}^{\ast}), where the zero tensor \mathcal{O} is composed of five tensors, each of dimension {n_1\times n_2\times n_3}.
It is challenging to analyze the convergence of (?) due to the appearance of two Lagrangian multipliers, or so-called three-block ADMM [chen2016direct]. Some existing works in the general optimization literature [wang2019global] require an accompanying function, such as an objective function, merit function, or augmented Lagrangian function, that possesses properties such as being coercive, separable, or Lipschitz differentiable within a specific domain. However, none of these properties are satisfied for our TNF model. Because (?) includes a positive term \|\mathcal{Z}^{(k+1)}-\mathcal{Z}^{(k)} \|_{F}^{2} on the right-hand side, while the others are negative, we need to make an assumption about \mathcal Z for the convergence analysis in Theorem ?. This line of proof follows from two recent works [du2021unifying, mu2020weighted].
Under assumptions A3-A4 with sufficiently large parameters \mu_1,\mu_2, the sequence \{\mathcal{Y}^{(k)}\} and \{\mathcal{U}^{(k)}\} generated by (?) satisfies
where M, m, \delta_1 and \delta_2 are the constants defined in A3 and A4, respectively.
Under assumptions A3-A4, the augmented Lagrangian function (?) of the sequence \{\mathcal{L}^{(k)},\mathcal{H}^{(k)},\mathcal{E}^{(k)},\mathcal{D}^{(k)},\mathcal{Y}^{(k)},\mathcal{Z}^{(k)},\mathcal{U}^{(k)}\} generated by (?) satisfies
where c_{5}, c_{6}, c_{7},c_8,c_9 are positive constants.
Similar to proof of Lemma 2, we can get
The function L_{2}\left(\mathcal{L}^{(k+1)},\mathcal{H}^{(k+1)},\mathcal{E},\mathcal{D}^{(k)},\mathcal{Y}^{(k)},\mathcal{Z}^{(k)},\mathcal{U}^{(k)}\right) defined in (22) with fixed \mathcal{L}^{(k+1)}, \mathcal{H}^{(k+1)}, \mathcal{D}^{(k)}, \mathcal{Y}^{(k)}, \mathcal{Z}^{(k)} and \mathcal{U}^{(k)} have a \ell_1-norm term with two quadratic terms, hence it is strongly convex in terms of \mathcal{E} with constant \mu_{2}+\mu_3, thus leading to
As for the function L_{2}\left(\mathcal{L}^{(k+1)},\mathcal{H}^{(k+1)},\mathcal{E}^{(k+1)},\mathcal{D},\mathcal{Y}^{(k)},\mathcal{Z}^{(k)},\mathcal{U}^{(k)}\right) (22), we use the similar computation of (?) to get
In addition, we get
By putting together (Proof), (?), (?), (?) with (27), (28), we obtain
where c_{5}=\tfrac{\mu_{1}+\mu_{2}}{2}-\tfrac{2 n_{(2)} }{\mu_1\delta^{4}}, c_{6}=\tfrac{\mu_{1}}{2}-\tfrac{3M}{\delta_1^{3}}-\tfrac{4M^2}{\mu_{1}\delta^{6}}, c_{7}=\tfrac{\mu_2+\mu_3}{2}-\tfrac{2 \lambda^2 n_1n_{2}n_3}{\mu_3\delta_2^{4}}, c_8=\tfrac{\mu_{3}}{2}-\tfrac{3m}{\delta^{3}}-\tfrac{4\lambda^2m^2}{\mu_{3}\delta_2^{6}}, and c_9=\tfrac{1}{\mu_2}.
spmpsci references
Let \mathcal{C}^{(k)}:=\left(\mathcal{L}^{(k)}, \mathcal{H}^{(k)}, \mathcal{E}^{(k)},\mathcal{D}^{(k)},\mathcal{Y}^{(k)},\mathcal{Z}^{(k)},\mathcal{U}^{(k)}\right) be the sequence generated by (?), then there exist a tensor \mathcal{W}^{(k+1)}\in \partial L_{2}\left(\mathcal{C}^{(k+1)}\right)
and a constant \kappa_2>0 such that
Under assumptions A3-A4, the sequence
generated by (?) satisfies
(i) The sequences {\mathcal{H}^{(k)}}, {\mathcal{E}^{(k)}\},{\mathcal{D}^{(k)}\}, {\mathcal{Y}^{(k)}\}, {\mathcal{Z}^{(k)}\} and {\mathcal{U}^{(k)}\} are bounded.
(ii) The sequence \{\mathcal{C}^{(k)}\} has a convergent subsequence. If
then this subsequence converges to a
critical point \{\mathcal{L}^{\ast}, \mathcal{H}^{\ast}, \mathcal{E}^{\ast}, \mathcal{D}^{\ast},\mathcal{Y}^{\ast}, \mathcal{Z}^{\ast},\mathcal{U}^{\ast}\}, i.e., \mathcal{O}\in \partial L_{2}(\mathcal{L}^{\ast}, \mathcal{H}^{\ast}, \mathcal{E}^{\ast}, \mathcal{D}^{\ast}, \mathcal{Y}^{\ast}, \mathcal{Z}^{\ast},\mathcal{U}^{\ast})
where the zero tensor \mathcal{O} is composed of seven tensors, each of dimension {n_1\times n_2\times n_3}.
Let {\mathcal{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_{1} \times l \times n_{3}}} and {\mathcal{B} \in \mathbb{R}^{l \times n_{2} \times n_{3}}}, then the t-product {\mathcal{A} * \mathcal{B}} is defined by
resulting a tensor of size {n_{1} \times n_{2} \times n_{3}}. Note that \mathcal{A} * \mathcal{B}= \mathcal{Z} if and only if \overline{\mathbf{A}}\,\overline{\mathbf{B}}=\overline{\mathbf{Z}}.
The identity tensor {\mathcal{I} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n \times n_{3}}} is the tensor with its first frontal slice being the {n \times n} identity matrix and other frontal slices being all zeros. It is clear that {\mathcal{A} * \mathcal{I}=\mathcal{A}} and {\mathcal{I} * \mathcal{A}=\mathcal{A}} given the appropriate dimensions.
The conjugate transpose of a tensor {\mathcal{A}} \in\mathbb{C}^{n_1 \times n_2 \times n_{3}} is a tensor \mathcal{A}^\ast obtained by conjugate transposing each of the frontal slices and then reversing the order of transposed frontal slices 2 through n_3.
A tensor {\mathcal{Q} \in} {\mathbb{R}^{n \times n \times n_{3}}} is orthogonal if it satisfies {\mathcal{Q}^{*}*\mathcal{Q}=\mathcal{Q}*\mathcal{Q}^{*}=\mathcal{I}}.
A tensor is called f-diagonal if each frontal slice is a diagonal matrix.
Suppose {\mathcal{F}: \mathbb{R}^{n_{1} \times n_{2} \times n_{3}} \rightarrow}{\mathbb{R}^{n_{4} \times n_{2} \times n_{3}}} is a tensor operator that maps a tensor {\mathcal{A}} of {n_{1} \times n_{2} \times n_{3}} to a tensor {\mathcal{B}} of {n_{4} \times n_{2} \times n_{3}} , i.e.,
Suppose \mathcal{F} is a tensor operator, then the operator norm of \mathcal{F} is defined as, \|\mathcal{F}\|_{o p}=\sup _{\mathcal{X}:\|\mathcal{X}\|_{F} \leq 1}\|\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{X})\|_{F}, which is consistent with the matrix case.
The tensor spectral norm of {\mathcal{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_{1} \times n_{2} \times n_{3}}}, denoted as {\|\mathcal{X}\|}, is defined as
where \sigma_{ij} is the j-th singular value of the i-th front slice of \overline{\mathcal{X}}.
[lu2019tensor, Lemma D.1] For the Bernoulli sign tensor {\mathcal{M}}\in \mathbb{R}^{n_{1} \times n_{2} \times n_{3}} whose entries are distributed as
there exists a function {\varphi(\gamma)} with {\lim _{\gamma \rightarrow 0^{+}} \varphi(\gamma)=0} such that
holds for any \gamma\in[0,1/2] with high probability.
[lu2019tensor, Lemma D.2] Suppose the sampling follows the Bernoulli distribution with the probability \rho being in \boldsymbol{\Theta} i.e., {\boldsymbol{\Theta} \sim \operatorname{Ber}(\rho)}. Define \mathcal{P}_{\boldsymbol{\Theta}} as a linear projection such that the entries in the set \boldsymbol{\Theta} are known while the remaining entries are unknown. For any 0<\epsilon\leq 1, there exists a constant C_{0}>0 such that for any \rho \geq C_{0} \epsilon^{-2} \tfrac{\mu r \log \left(n_{(1)} n_{3}\right)}{n_{(2)}n_3} with tensor incoherence \mu defined in Definition 2.3, the following inequality,
holds with high probability at least 1-2(n_{(1)}n_3)^{1-\tfrac{3}{16}C_0}.
[lu2019tensor, Lemma D.4] Given a tensor \mathcal{Z} \in \mathbf{T} and {\boldsymbol{\Theta} \sim \operatorname{Ber}(\rho)}. For any 0<\epsilon\leq 1, the following inequality
holds with high probability at least 1-2(n_{(1)}n_3)^{-\tfrac{3C_0}{16}}, provided that
for some constant {C_{0}>0}.
[lu2019tensor, Lemma D.5] Given any tensor {\mathcal{Z} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_{1} \times n_{2} \times n_{3}}} and {\boldsymbol{\Theta} \sim \operatorname{Ber}(\rho)}. Then with high probability at least 1-2(n_{(1)}n_3)^{1-\tfrac{3C_0}{8}},
provided that \rho \geq C_{0} \tfrac{\log \left(n_{(1)} n_{3}\right)}{n_{(2)} n_{3}} for some numerical constant {C_{0}>0}.
[tropp2012user, Theorem 1.6] Consider a finite sequence {\left\{\mathbf{Z}_{k}\right\}} of independent, random {n_{1} \times n_{2}} matrices that satisfy the assumption {\mathbb{E} \mathbf{Z}_{k}=\mathbf{0}} and {\left\|\mathbf{Z}_{k}\right\| \leq R} almost surely, where \|\cdot\| is the spectral norm. Let
Then for any {0 \leq t \leq \tfrac{\sigma^{2}}{R}}, we have
Given a low rank tensor \mathcal L_0\in\mathbb R^{n_1\times n_2\times n_3} with tubal rank r and a sparse tensor \mathcal E_0\in\mathbb R^{n_1\times n_2\times n_3} with its support denoted by \Omega being a feasible solution of the TNF model (6), we further define the skinny t-SVD of \mathcal{L}_0, i.e., \mathcal{L}_0=\mathcal{U}*\mathcal{S}*\mathcal{V}^*.
For sufficiently large n_1, n_2, n_3 in the sense that n_1n_2n_3^2>\sqrt{\tfrac{24}{1-2\gamma}}/\|\mathcal L_0\|_F, \tfrac{1}{4}\sqrt{\tfrac{n_{(1)}}{2\mu r}}>\sqrt{rn_3} and
if \lambda satisfies
and there exists a tensor \mathcal Y\in\mathbb R^{n_1\times n_2\times n_3} obeying
where \mathbf{T} is defined in (?) and the projections \mathcal{P}_{\mathbf{T}},\mathcal{P}_{\mathbf{T}^{\perp}} are defined in (?), then (\mathcal L_0, \mathcal E_0) is a local minimizer of the TNF model (6). In other words, there exists a constant \overline t>0 such that the following inequality,
holds for any \|\mathcal Z\|_F\leq \overline t.
For any tensor \mathcal{L}_0,\mathcal{E}_0, \mathcal{Z} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_1 \times n_2 \times n_3} and t\geq 0, we denote \boldsymbol{\Omega} as the support of \mathcal{E}_0 and have
where
To prove the first inequality in (S.12), we estimate
where we use \|\mathcal{A}-\mathcal{B}\|_1 \geq \|\mathcal{A}\|_1-\langle\operatorname{sgn}(\mathcal{A}),\mathcal{B}\rangle for any \mathcal{A} and \mathcal{B} in the last inequality.
For the second inequality in (S.12), we use two identities from [zhang2016exact]: \|\mathcal X\|_*=\langle \mathcal U*\mathcal V^*+\mathcal U_{\perp}*\mathcal V_{\perp}^*, \mathcal X\rangle and \|\mathcal{U}*\mathcal{V}^{*}+\mathcal{U}_{\perp}*\mathcal{V}_{\perp}^{*}\|=1, where \mathcal{U}_{\perp}, \mathcal{V}_{\perp} are from the skinny t-SVD of \mathcal{P}_{\mathbf{T}^{\perp}}(\mathcal{Z})=\mathcal{U}_{\perp}*\mathcal{S}_{\perp}*\mathcal{V}_{\perp}^{*} with \mathcal{U}_{\perp}\in \mathbb{R}^{n_{1} \times r \times n_{3}}, \mathcal{V}_{\perp}\in \mathbb{R}^{n_{2} \times r \times n_{3}}, and f-diagonal tensor \mathcal S_{\perp}\in \mathbb{R}^{r \times r \times n_{3}}. The simple calculations give
Given a tensor \mathcal{L}_0, and a,b are defined from (S.12), then we have
Inserting (S.12) into \lambda a\|\mathcal{L}_0\|_F+b, we have
Introducing an arbitrary tensor \mathcal{Y}, we get:
where we use \left\langle\mathcal{P}_{\mathbf{T}}(\mathcal{A}),\mathcal{P}_{\mathbf{T}^{\perp}}(\mathcal{B})\right\rangle=0. For any \mathcal{Y} satisfying the conditions in (?), we have
and
In addition,
where we use \mathcal{P}_{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}(\mathcal{Y})=\mathcal{O} by (?) and \langle\mathcal{P}_{\boldsymbol{\Omega}^c}\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{P}_{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\mathcal{Z}\rangle=\mathcal{O}. Plugging (Proof)-(Proof) into (Proof), we complete the proof.
For any \mathcal{Z} with \|\mathcal{Z}\|_F=1 and a constant \xi\in \left(0,\sqrt{\tfrac{2\mu r}{n_{(1)}}}\right), then the inequality
holds with probability at least 1-2(n_{(1)}n_3)^{1-\tfrac{3}{16}C_0}
for some numerical constant C_0>0.
For any tensor \mathcal{Z}, we can write
where \delta_{ijk}=I_{(i,j,k)\in \boldsymbol{\Omega}^c } for the indicator function I_{(\cdot)}. It is straightforward that \mathcal{Q}_{ijk}: \mathbb{R}^{n_1\times n_2\times n_3}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_1\times n_2\times n_3} is a self-adjoint random operator. Since we have
then the following equality
holds for any i,j,k-th element. Define the matrix operator \overline{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{i j k}: \mathbb{B} \rightarrow \mathbb{B}, where {\mathbb{B}=\left\{\overline{\boldsymbol{B}}: \mathcal{B} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_1 \times n_2 \times n_{3}}\right\}} denotes a set of block diagonal matrices \overline{\boldsymbol{B}} with the blocks as the frontal slices of {\overline{\mathcal{B}}}, then we get
where \overline{\mathbf{P}_{ijk}}=\text{bdiag}\left(\overline{\mathcal{P}_\mathbf{T}\left(\mathbf{e}_{ijk}\right)}\right) \in \mathbb{R}^{n_1n_3\times n_2n_3} for a given coordinate (i,j,k). We can estimate an upper bound for
where the last inequality is from \|\mathcal{P}_{\mathbf{T}}(\mathbf{e}_{ijk})\|_F^2 \leq \frac{2\mu r}{n_{(1)}n_3} [lu2019tensor]. On the other hand, we compute
Using \|\mathbf{A}^**\mathbf{A}\|_F=\|\mathbf{A}*\mathbf{A}^*\|_F for any matrix \mathbf A, we have
which implies
Motivated by (Proof), (?), and Lemma S.11, we choose
to get
where C_0\leq \tfrac{\xi^2(1-2\gamma)n_{(1)}n_{3}^{1/2}}{nr\log(n_{(1)}n_3)}. In other words, if 0<\xi\leq \sqrt{\tfrac{2\mu r}{n_{(1)}}}, the following estimate
holds with probability at least 1-2(n_{(1)}n_3)^{1-\tfrac{3}{16}C_0}
for some numerical constant C_0>0.
For any \mathcal{Z} with \|\mathcal{Z}\|_F=1 and \xi\in \left(0,\sqrt{\tfrac{2\mu r}{n_{(1)}}}\right), we have
holds with high probability, provided \gamma \leq \tfrac{1}{2}- 2C_0\frac{\mu r \log \left(n_{(1)} n_{3}\right)}{n_{(2)}n_3} for a constant C_0.
Since {\boldsymbol{\Omega}^{c} \sim \operatorname{Ber}(1-2\gamma)}, we get from Lemma S.8 by setting \epsilon=\frac{1}{2} and \rho=1-2\gamma that
holds with high probability provided \gamma \leq \tfrac{1}{2}- 2C_0\frac{\mu r \log \left(n_{(1)} n_{3}\right)}{n_{(2)}n_3} for a constant C_0. Then we have
which directly leads to
On the other hand,
Combining the inequalities (Proof) and (Proof) yields
which implies that
For the first term in (Proof), we use the identity \|\mathcal{P}_{\mathbf{T}}\mathcal{P}_{\boldsymbol{\Omega}^c}\|^2=\|\mathcal{P}_{\mathbf{T}}\mathcal{P}_{\boldsymbol{\Omega}^c}\mathcal{P}_{\mathbf{T}}\| in [lu2019tensor] to obtain
where we further use \|\mathcal{P}_{\mathbf{T}}\| \leq 1 and (Proof). Plugging (Proof) into (Proof), we obtain:
where the last inequality is due to \|\mathcal{P}_{\boldsymbol{\Omega}^{c}}(\mathcal{Z})\|_F \leq \|\mathcal{P}_{\boldsymbol{\Omega}^{c}}(\mathcal{Z})\|_1. For the second term in (Proof), we use Lemma S.14 to get
Combining (Proof) and (Proof), we get the following inequality
holds with high probability.
For \mathcal{Y}_0 defined as (?), there exists a constant C such that
holds with high probability.
Note that the (u, v, w)-th element of \mathcal{P}_\mathbf{T}\left(\operatorname{sgn}\left(\mathcal{E}_0\right)\right) can be obtained by,
where \overline{\mathbf{P}_{uvw}}=\text{bdiag}\left(\overline{\mathcal{P}_\mathbf{T}\left(\mathbf{e}_{uvw}\right)}\right) \in \mathbb{R}^{n_1n_3\times n_2n_3}. By \mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}_0=1)=\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}_0=-1), it is straightforward to get
Additionally, we have
where the last inequality is from \|\mathcal{P}_{\mathbf{T}}(\mathbf{e}_{ijk})\|_F^2 \leq \tfrac{2\mu r}{n_{(1)}n_3} [lu2019tensor]. Denoting R=\tfrac{2 \mu r}{n_{(2)}n_3}, we get
where \sigma^2 is calculated by Lemma S.11, or more specifically,
Considering that the entries of \mathcal{P}_\mathbf{T}\left(\operatorname{sgn}\left(\mathcal{E}_0\right)\right) can be understood as i.i.d. copies of the (u, v, w)-th entry and setting t=\tfrac{C^{\prime}}{\|\mathcal{L}_0\|_F}\sqrt{\tfrac{\mu r \log(n_{(1)}n_3)}{n_{(2)}}} in (Proof) with some positive constant C^{\prime}, we get
with the probability \mathbb{P} at least by
On the other hand, according to tensor incoherence conditions (7), we have
if \lambda \geq\sqrt{\tfrac{\log (n_{(1)}n_3)}{n_{(1)}n_3^2}}. Then, using (?) and (?), we get
where C=\tfrac{1}{\log(n_{(1)}n_3)}+ C^{\prime }.
[zheng2024scale, Lemma B.4] Given a function g(\mathcal{X})=\tfrac{1}{\|\mathcal{X}\|_{F}} and a set {\mathcal{M}_{\delta}:=\left\{\mathcal{X}|\| \mathcal{X}\|_{F} \geq \delta\right\}} with a positive constant \delta > 0, we have
As the proof of (27) is the same as (17), we omit it. We only prove for (28). The optimality condition of the \mathcal{D} subproblem in (23) indicates that
where \mathcal{O}\in \mathbb{R}^{n_1\times n_2\times n_3} is the zero tensor.
The text on this page is from arXiv:2505.04063v1 by Huiwen Zheng, Yifei Lou, Guoliang Tian and Chao Wang, under the licence CC0 1.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2505/2505.04063.jsonl.