A Theory of Cluster Patterns in Tensors

2025 James B. Wilson

https://slides.com/jameswilson-3/cluster-patterns-theory/

Tensors as area & volume

Volume basics

$Vol(\ell, w,h)= \ell\times w\times h$

Volume reality

$Vol(t\mid \ell, w,h)= t\times \ell\times w\times h$ where $t$ converts miles/meters/gallons/etc.

tensor conversion

Miles

Yards

Feet

Gallons

Area...easy

Area...not so easy

$det\left(\begin{array}{c} (a,b)\\ (c,d)\end{array}\right) = ad-bc$

$= \begin{bmatrix} a & b\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} c\\ d \end{bmatrix}$

tensor

Tensor's as Multiplication Tables

Notation

$ae\cdots *u\qquad [u,v]\qquad a\otimes e\otimes \cdots \otimes u$ $[a,e,\ldots, u]\qquad \langle a,e,\ldots, u\rangle$

Choose a heterogenous product notation

Choose index yoga, mine is "functional", i.e. $v\in \prod_{a\in A} U_a$

$\langle v\rangle =\langle v_1,\ldots, v_{\ell}\rangle= \langle v_a,v_{\bar{a}}\rangle\qquad \{1,\ldots,\ell\}=\{a\}\sqcup\bar{a}$

When explicit tensor data $t$

$\langle t\mid v\rangle =\langle t \mid v_B,v_C\rangle \qquad A=B\sqcup C$

$v\in \prod_{a\in A} V_a$ means $v:A\to \bigcup_{a\in A} V_a$ with $v_a\in V_a$ .

$v_B$ is restriction of the function to $B\subset A$

$(v_B,v_C)$ is disjoint union of functions $B\sqcup C\to \bigcup_{e\in B\sqcup C} V_e$

Technical Requirements

Each space $V_a$ needs a suite of (multi-)sums

Product commutes with sums ("Distribution/Multi-additive")

$\displaystyle \int_I v_a(i) d\mu$ could be various sum algorithms "sum(vs[a],method54)"

For $\{v_a(i)\mid i\in I\}$

$\int_I \langle v_a(i),v_{\bar{a}}\rangle\,d\mu = \left\langle \int_I v_a(i)\,d\mu,v_{\bar{a}}\right\rangle$

Sums are entropic/Fubinian

$\int_I \int_J f\, d\mu d\nu=\int_J\int_I f \, d\nu d\mu$

Theory

TL;DR tensors behave like your algebra teacher told you (almost).

Murdoch-Toyoda Bruck

All entropic sums that can solve equations $a+x=b$ are affine.

Eckmann-Hilton

Entropic sums with 0 are associative & commutative.

Grothendieck

You can add negatives.

Mal'cev, Miyasnikov

You can enrich distributive products with universal scalars.

Davey-Davies

Tensor algebra is ideal determined precisely for affine.

First-Maglione-Wilson

Full classification of algebraic enrichment:

If 3 or more positions must be Lie
2 can be associative or Jordan.

Illustrating Tensor Product/Contraction

(Aka. Inner/Outer products, Co-multiply/Multiply)

Inflate: data of product stored as a bigger array.

Contract: integral of data stored in smaller array.

Illustrating manipulating tensors

Shaded gray illustrates possibly non-zero
A basis of vectors contracted on each side stacks up contractions to reconstitute a new tensor.

New uses? Sales Volume?

Data science tensors

Histogram Visualization

What we have found is computable.

"Random" Basis Change

Our blind source separation

First ever stratification

Shown here is a linear-time recovered unique basis change applied to each side of a tensor to make it's support on a surface.

Blocks have been seen before

Mal'cev folklore credited by numerous Russian papers.
Miyasnikov in Model Theory Tensors
Cardoso 1991 Statistical tensors
Eberly-Geisbrecht 2000 Algebraic tensors
Acar et. al. 2005 Data science
W. 2007/8 Central/Direct products of p-groups
Maehara and K. Murota, 2010.
Lathauwer 2008 Small rank cases
2024+ Liu-Maglione-W. $O(d^{1.5\omega+n})$ -time solution (n=valence, d=max dimension, $\omega$ =matrix mult. exp.).

Recovery only up to level-sets in all three axes

Where is this coming from?

X = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}

X = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}

t=\begin{bmatrix}1\\-1\\1\end{bmatrix}

t=\begin{bmatrix}1\\-1\\1\end{bmatrix}

t=\begin{bmatrix} 1\\ -1 \\ 1 \end{bmatrix} \to Xt=\begin{bmatrix} 1\\ 1 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix} \to X^2t=\begin{bmatrix} 2\\ 2 \\ 2 \end{bmatrix} \to X^3 t=\begin{bmatrix} 4\\ 4 \\ 4 \end{bmatrix} \dashrightarrow

t=\begin{bmatrix} 1\\ -1 \\ 1 \end{bmatrix} \to Xt=\begin{bmatrix} 1\\ 1 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix} \to X^2t=\begin{bmatrix} 2\\ 2 \\ 2 \end{bmatrix} \to X^3 t=\begin{bmatrix} 4\\ 4 \\ 4 \end{bmatrix} \dashrightarrow

Stuff an infinite sequence

in a finite-dimensional space,

you get a dependence.

0=X^3t -2X^2 t=X^2(X-2I_3)t

0=X^3t -2X^2 t=X^2(X-2I_3)t

So begins the story of annihilator polynomials and eigen values.

T =\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 3 \\ 4 & 5 & 6 \end{bmatrix}

T =\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 3 \\ 4 & 5 & 6 \end{bmatrix}

X =\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}

X =\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}

Y =\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}.

Y =\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}.

(X^2-X)T\to x^2-x\\ T(Y^2-Y)\to y^2-y\\ XTY\to xy

(X^2-X)T\to x^2-x\\ T(Y^2-Y)\to y^2-y\\ XTY\to xy

An infinite lattice in finite-dimensional space makes even more dependencies.

(and the ideal these generate)

> M := Matrix(Rationals(), 2,3,[[1,0,2],[3,4,5]]);
> X := Matrix(Rationals(), 2,2,[[1,0],[0,0]] );
> Y := Matrix(Rationals(), 3,3,[[0,0,0],[0,1,0],[0,0,0]]);
> seq := [ < i, j, X^i * M * Y^j > : i in [0..2], j in [0..3]];
> U := Matrix( [s[3] : s in seq]);
        i   j   X^i * M * Y^j
        0   0   [ 1, 0, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]
        1   0   [ 1, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0 ]
        2   0   [ 1, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0 ]
        0   1   [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0 ]
        1   1   [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]
        2   1   [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]
        0   2   [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0 ]
        1   2   [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]
        2   2   [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]
        0   3   [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0 ]
        1   3   [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]
        2   3   [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]

In detail

Step out the bi-sequence

> E, T := EchelonForm( U );     // E = T*U
        0   0   [ 1, 0, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]    1
        1   0   [ 1, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0 ]    x
        0   1   [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0 ]    y

Choose pivots

Write null space rows as relations in pivots.

> A<x,y> := PolynomialRing( Rationals(), 2 );
> row2poly := func< k | &+[ T[k][1+i+3*j]*x^i*y^j :
     i in [0..2], j in [0..3] ] );
> polys := [ row2poly(k) : k in [(Rank(E)+1)..Nrows(E)] ];
        2   0   [ 1, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0 ]    x^2 - x
        1   1   [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]    x*y
        2   1   [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]    x^2*y
        0   2   [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0 ]    y^2 - y
        1   2   [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]    x*y^2
        2   2   [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]    x^2*y^2
        0   3   [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0 ]    y^3 - y
        1   3   [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]    x*y^3
        2   3   [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]    x^2*y^3

> ann := ideal< A | polys >;
> GroebnerBasis(ann);
    x^2 - x,
    x*y,
    y^2 - y

Take Groebner basis of relation polynomials

Groebner in bounded number of variables is in polynomial time (Bradt-Faugere-Salvy).

T =\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 3 \\ 4 & 5 & 6 \end{bmatrix}

T =\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 3 \\ 4 & 5 & 6 \end{bmatrix}

I_2- X =\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}

I_2- X =\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}

I_3- Y =\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}.

I_3- Y =\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}.

(X^2-X)T\to x^2-x\\ T(Y^2-Y)\to y^2-y

(X^2-X)T\to x^2-x\\ T(Y^2-Y)\to y^2-y

Same tensor,

different operators,

can be different annihilators.

T =\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 2 & 3 \\ 4 & 5 & 6 \end{bmatrix}

T =\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 2 & 3 \\ 4 & 5 & 6 \end{bmatrix}

X =\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}

X =\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}

Y =\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}.

Y =\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}.

(X^2-X)T\to x^2-x\\ T(Y^2-Y)\to y^2-y

(X^2-X)T\to x^2-x\\ T(Y^2-Y)\to y^2-y

Different tensor,

same operators,

can be different annihilators.

Data

T:\mathbb{M}_{a\times b}(K), X:\mathbb{M}_a(K), Y:\mathbb{M}_b(K)

T:\mathbb{M}_{a\times b}(K), X:\mathbb{M}_a(K), Y:\mathbb{M}_b(K)

Action by polynomials

a(x,y)\cdot T = \left(\sum_{i,j:\mathbb{N}} \alpha_{ij} x^i y^j\right)\cdot T = \sum_{i,j:\mathbb{N}}\alpha_{ij} X^iT Y^j.

a(x,y)\cdot T = \left(\sum_{i,j:\mathbb{N}} \alpha_{ij} x^i y^j\right)\cdot T = \sum_{i,j:\mathbb{N}}\alpha_{ij} X^iT Y^j.

Resulting annihilating ideal

\mathrm{ann}_{X,Y}(T) = \{ a(x,y):K[x,y]\mid a(X,Y)T=0\}.

\mathrm{ann}_{X,Y}(T) = \{ a(x,y):K[x,y]\mid a(X,Y)T=0\}.

Could this be wild? Read below.

Annihilators

So given

a tensor $t$
a polynomial $p(X)$
transverse operators $\omega$

$(\forall v)\,\langle t\mid p(\omega)\mid v\rangle=0$ just means $p(X)$ is in the annihilator of this action.

Controlling Conenction

(First-Maglione-W.)

$N(P,\Delta)=\{t\mid (\forall v)(\langle t\mid P(\Delta)|v\rangle=0)\}$ "closed" tensor space

$I(S,\Delta)=\{p(X)\mid (\forall v)(\langle S\mid P(\Delta)|v\rangle=0)\}$ "closed" ideal

$Z(S,P)=\{\omega\mid (\forall v)(\langle S\mid P(\omega)|v\rangle=0)\}$ "closed" scheme

Strategy

tensors are the input data
Polynomials are parameters we select
Operator sets are what we want to explore our tensor

Summary of Trait Theorems (First-Maglione-W.)

Linear traits correspond to derivations.
Monomial traits correspond to singularities
Binomial traits are only way to support groups.

For trinomial ideals, all geometries can arise so classification beyond this point is essentially impossible.

3 critically depends on Eisenbud-Sturmfels work on binomial ideals so it is restricted to vector spaces for now.

Derivations & Densors

Unintended Consequences

Since Whitney's 1938 paper, tensors have been grounded in associative algebras.

(A\subset \mathrm{End}(U)^{op}\times \mathrm{End}(V))\to U\otimes_A V

(A\subset \mathrm{End}(U)^{op}\times \mathrm{End}(V))\to U\otimes_A V

Derivations form natural Lie algebras.

[\delta,\delta'] = ([\delta'_0,\delta_0] , [\delta_1,\delta'_1],\ldots,[\delta_{\ell},\delta'_{\ell}] )\qquad\qquad\qquad \\ \qquad =(\delta'_0\delta_0-\delta_0\delta'_0,\delta_1\delta'_1-\delta'_1\delta_1,\ldots,\delta_{\ell}\delta'_{\ell}-\delta'_{\ell}\delta_{\ell})

[\delta,\delta'] = ([\delta'_0,\delta_0] , [\delta_1,\delta'_1],\ldots,[\delta_{\ell},\delta'_{\ell}] )\qquad\qquad\qquad \\ \qquad =(\delta'_0\delta_0-\delta_0\delta'_0,\delta_1\delta'_1-\delta'_1\delta_1,\ldots,\delta_{\ell}\delta'_{\ell}-\delta'_{\ell}\delta_{\ell})

If associative operators define tensor products but Lie operators are universal, who is right?

Tensor products are naturally over Lie algebras

Theorem (FMW). If

(\omega,\omega'\in Z(S,P)) \to\hspace{5cm}\\ \qquad(\omega_a\bullet \omega'_a = \alpha_{a}\omega_a\omega'_a+\beta_a \omega'_a\omega_a \in Z(S,P))

(\omega,\omega'\in Z(S,P)) \to\hspace{5cm}\\ \qquad(\omega_a\bullet \omega'_a = \alpha_{a}\omega_a\omega'_a+\beta_a \omega'_a\omega_a \in Z(S,P))

Then in all but at most 2 values of a

\langle (\alpha_a,\beta_a)\rangle = \langle (1,-1)\rangle \textnormal{ i.e. a Lie bracket}

\langle (\alpha_a,\beta_a)\rangle = \langle (1,-1)\rangle \textnormal{ i.e. a Lie bracket}

In particular, to be an associative algebra we are limited to at most 2 coordinates. Whitney's definition is a fluke.

Module Sides no longer matter

Whitney tensor product pairs a right with a left module, often forces technical op-ring actions.

Lie algebras are skew commutative so modules are both left and right, no unnatural op-rings required.

V_1\otimes_{A_{10}} V_0 \textnormal{ vs. } V_0\otimes_{??} V_1

V_1\otimes_{A_{10}} V_0 \textnormal{ vs. } V_0\otimes_{??} V_1

Associative Laws no longer

Whitney tensor product is binary, so combining many modules consistantly by associativity laws isn't always possible - different coefficient rings.

(V_3\otimes_{A_{32}} V_2)\otimes_{A_{(32)1}} V_1 \textnormal{ vs. } V_3\otimes_{??} (V_2\otimes_{??} V_1)

(V_3\otimes_{A_{32}} V_2)\otimes_{A_{(32)1}} V_1 \textnormal{ vs. } V_3\otimes_{??} (V_2\otimes_{??} V_1)

Lie tensor products can be defined on arbitrary number of modules - no need for associative laws.

(\Delta\subset \prod_{a\in [\ell]} \mathfrak{gl}(V_a)) \to \hspace{2cm}\\ \qquad (| V_{\ell},\ldots,V_0 |)_{\Delta}=N(\Delta,D)

(\Delta\subset \prod_{a\in [\ell]} \mathfrak{gl}(V_a)) \to \hspace{2cm}\\ \qquad (| V_{\ell},\ldots,V_0 |)_{\Delta}=N(\Delta,D)

Missing opperators

Whitney tensor product puts coefficient between modules only, cannot operate at a distance.

As valence grows we act on a linear number of spaces but have exponentially many possible actions left out.

V_3\otimes_{A_{32}} V_2\otimes_{A_{21}} V_1\textnormal{ vs. } V_3\otimes_{A_{31}} V_1\otimes_{A_{12}} V_2

V_3\otimes_{A_{32}} V_2\otimes_{A_{21}} V_1\textnormal{ vs. } V_3\otimes_{A_{31}} V_1\otimes_{A_{12}} V_2

Lie tensor products act on all sides.

Densor

(| V_1,\ldots, V_n |)^{P}_{\Delta}=N(P,\Delta)

(| V_1,\ldots, V_n |)^{P}_{\Delta}=N(P,\Delta)

$(|t|):=N(x_1+\cdots+x_n,Z(t,x_1+\cdots+x_n))$

Monomials, Singularities, & simplicial complexes

Shaded regions are 0.

Thm(FMW) Traits of operators that preserve a singularity have traits whose ideal is the Stanley-Reisner of complex.

(\langle t|U_A, V_{\bar{A}}\rangle =0)\quad \leftrightarrow \quad (X^e: I(t, \Omega_A), e=\chi_A)

(\langle t|U_A, V_{\bar{A}}\rangle =0)\quad \leftrightarrow \quad (X^e: I(t, \Omega_A), e=\chi_A)

Local Operators

(A <: [\ell]) \to ((a:A)\to (U_a<:V_a))\longrightarrow\\ \qquad\Omega_A =\prod_{a:A} U_a\oslash V_a\times \prod_{a:\bar{A}} V_a\oslash V_a

(A <: [\ell]) \to ((a:A)\to (U_a<:V_a))\longrightarrow\\ \qquad\Omega_A =\prod_{a:A} U_a\oslash V_a\times \prod_{a:\bar{A}} V_a\oslash V_a

I.e. operators that on the indices A are restricted to the U's.

Claim. Singularity at U if, and only if, monomial trait on A.

Singularities come with traits that are in bijection with Stanley-Raisner rings, and so with simplicial complexes.

Binomials & Groups

Theorem (FMW). For fields. If for every S and P

(\omega,\omega'\in Z(S,P))\qquad ((\omega_a\omega'_a)^{\epsilon(a)}\mid a\in \{1,\ldots,\ell \})\in Z(S,P))

(\omega,\omega'\in Z(S,P))\qquad ((\omega_a\omega'_a)^{\epsilon(a)}\mid a\in \{1,\ldots,\ell \})\in Z(S,P))

Q=(X^{e_1}-X^{f_1},\ldots, X^{e_m}-X^{f_m})

Q=(X^{e_1}-X^{f_1},\ldots, X^{e_m}-X^{f_m})

then $\exists Q, Z(S,P)^{\times}=Z(S,Q)^{\times}$

and $\gcd\{e_1(a)+f_1(a),\ldots, e_m(a)+f_m(a)\}\in \{0,1\}$ .

Converse holds if $supp(e_1+\cdots +e_m)\cap supp(f_1+\cdots +f_m)=\emptyset$ even without conditions of a field. We speculate this is a necessary condition.

Back to decompositions

What are the markets?

Data table --> Multiplication table

Use algebra to factor

Forcing Good Algebra in Real Life

In real life the "multiplication" you get from a tensor is bonkers!

\begin{array}{c|ccc|} * & f_1 & f_2 & f_3 \\ \hline e_1 & 0.2g_1+0.9g_2-0.4g_3 & 0.2g_1+0.9g_2-0.4g_3 & -1.0g_1+0.4g_2-0.1g_3\\ e_1 & -9.1g_1+8.9g_2+0.7g_3 & -2.0g_1+0.1g_2-0.1g_3 & 0.0g_1+1.8g_2-0.4g_3 \\ \hline & & \end{array}

\begin{array}{c|ccc|} * & f_1 & f_2 & f_3 \\ \hline e_1 & 0.2g_1+0.9g_2-0.4g_3 & 0.2g_1+0.9g_2-0.4g_3 & -1.0g_1+0.4g_2-0.1g_3\\ e_1 & -9.1g_1+8.9g_2+0.7g_3 & -2.0g_1+0.1g_2-0.1g_3 & 0.0g_1+1.8g_2-0.4g_3 \\ \hline & & \end{array}

$*:\mathbb{R}^2\times \mathbb{R}^3\to \mathbb{R}^3$

Get to 100's 1000's of dimensions and you have no chance to know this algebra.

Study a function by its changes, i.e. derivatives.

Study multiplication by derivatives:

$\partial (f·g ) = (\partial f )·g + f·(\partial g ).$

In our context discretized. I.e. ∂ is a matrix D.

$D(f ∗g ) = D(f ) ∗g + f ∗D(g )$

And it is heterogeneous, so many D's

$D_0(f*g) = D_1(f)*g + f * D_2(g).$

For general tensors $\langle t| : U_{1}\times \cdots \times U_{\ell}\to U_0$ there are many generalizations.

E.g.

\begin{aligned} D_0\langle t|u_1,u_2,u_3\rangle & = \langle t|D_1u_1,u_2,u_3\rangle+ \langle t|u_1,D_2u_2,u_3\rangle\\ D_0\langle t|u_1,u_2,u_3\rangle&= \langle t|D_1u_1,u_2,u_3\rangle+ \langle t|u_1,u_2,D_3 u_3\rangle \\ D_0\langle t|u_1,u_2,u_3\rangle&= \langle t|u_1,D_2u_2,u_3\rangle+ \langle t|u_1,u_2,D_3u_3\rangle \end{aligned}

\begin{aligned} D_0\langle t|u_1,u_2,u_3\rangle & = \langle t|D_1u_1,u_2,u_3\rangle+ \langle t|u_1,D_2u_2,u_3\rangle\\ D_0\langle t|u_1,u_2,u_3\rangle&= \langle t|D_1u_1,u_2,u_3\rangle+ \langle t|u_1,u_2,D_3 u_3\rangle \\ D_0\langle t|u_1,u_2,u_3\rangle&= \langle t|u_1,D_2u_2,u_3\rangle+ \langle t|u_1,u_2,D_3u_3\rangle \end{aligned}

Or $D_0\langle t |u_1,u_2, u_3\rangle = \langle t| D_1 u_1, u_2,u_3\rangle + \langle t| u_1, D_2 u_2, u_3\rangle + \langle t|u_1, u_2, D_3 u_3\rangle.$