Cryptographic High Value Product (CHVP) is a designation used within the information security community to identify assets that have high value, and which may be used to encrypt / decrypt secure communications, but which do not retain or store any classified information. When disconnected from the secure communication network, the CHVP equipment may be handled with a lower level of controls than required for COMSEC equipment.
SPL notation
SPL (Sentence Plan Language) is an abstract notation representing the semantics of a sentence in natural language. In a classical Natural Language Generation (NLG) workflow, an initial text plan (hierarchically or sequentially organized factoids, often modelled in accordance with Rhetorical Structure Theory) is transformed by a sentence planner (generator) component to a sequence of sentence plans modelled in a Sentence Plan Language. A surface generator can be used to transform the SPL notation into natural language sentences. Probably the most widely used SPL language used today (2022) is AMR (Abstract Meaning Representation, see there for further references), but is owes parts of its popularity to its application to NLP problems other than NLG, e.g., machine translation and semantic parsing.
Liquid state machine
A liquid state machine (LSM) is a type of reservoir computer that uses a spiking neural network. An LSM consists of a large collection of units (called nodes, or neurons). Each node receives time varying input from external sources (the inputs) as well as from other nodes. Nodes are randomly connected to each other. The recurrent nature of the connections turns the time varying input into a spatio-temporal pattern of activations in the network nodes. The spatio-temporal patterns of activation are read out by linear discriminant units. The soup of recurrently connected nodes will end up computing a large variety of nonlinear functions on the input. Given a large enough variety of such nonlinear functions, it is theoretically possible to obtain linear combinations (using the read out units) to perform whatever mathematical operation is needed to perform a certain task, such as speech recognition or computer vision. The word liquid in the name comes from the analogy drawn to dropping a stone into a still body of water or other liquid. The falling stone will generate ripples in the liquid. The input (motion of the falling stone) has been converted into a spatio-temporal pattern of liquid displacement (ripples). LSMs have been put forward as a way to explain the operation of brains. LSMs are argued to be an improvement over the theory of artificial neural networks because: Circuits are not hard coded to perform a specific task. Continuous time inputs are handled "naturally". Computations on various time scales can be done using the same network. The same network can perform multiple computations. Criticisms of LSMs as used in computational neuroscience are that LSMs don't actually explain how the brain functions. At best they can replicate some parts of brain functionality. There is no guaranteed way to dissect a working network and figure out how or what computations are being performed. There is very little control over the process. == Universal function approximation == If a reservoir has fading memory and input separability, with help of a readout, it can be proven the liquid state machine is a universal function approximator using Stone–Weierstrass theorem.
Liquid state machine
A liquid state machine (LSM) is a type of reservoir computer that uses a spiking neural network. An LSM consists of a large collection of units (called nodes, or neurons). Each node receives time varying input from external sources (the inputs) as well as from other nodes. Nodes are randomly connected to each other. The recurrent nature of the connections turns the time varying input into a spatio-temporal pattern of activations in the network nodes. The spatio-temporal patterns of activation are read out by linear discriminant units. The soup of recurrently connected nodes will end up computing a large variety of nonlinear functions on the input. Given a large enough variety of such nonlinear functions, it is theoretically possible to obtain linear combinations (using the read out units) to perform whatever mathematical operation is needed to perform a certain task, such as speech recognition or computer vision. The word liquid in the name comes from the analogy drawn to dropping a stone into a still body of water or other liquid. The falling stone will generate ripples in the liquid. The input (motion of the falling stone) has been converted into a spatio-temporal pattern of liquid displacement (ripples). LSMs have been put forward as a way to explain the operation of brains. LSMs are argued to be an improvement over the theory of artificial neural networks because: Circuits are not hard coded to perform a specific task. Continuous time inputs are handled "naturally". Computations on various time scales can be done using the same network. The same network can perform multiple computations. Criticisms of LSMs as used in computational neuroscience are that LSMs don't actually explain how the brain functions. At best they can replicate some parts of brain functionality. There is no guaranteed way to dissect a working network and figure out how or what computations are being performed. There is very little control over the process. == Universal function approximation == If a reservoir has fading memory and input separability, with help of a readout, it can be proven the liquid state machine is a universal function approximator using Stone–Weierstrass theorem.
Loss function
In mathematical optimization and decision theory, a loss function or cost function (sometimes also called an error function) is a function that maps an event or values of one or more variables onto a real number intuitively representing some "cost" associated with the event. An optimization problem seeks to minimize a loss function. An objective function is either a loss function or its opposite (in specific domains, variously called a reward function, a profit function, a utility function, a fitness function, etc.), in which case it is to be maximized. The loss function could include terms from several levels of the hierarchy. In statistics, typically a loss function is used for parameter estimation, and the event in question is some function of the difference between estimated and true values for an instance of data. The concept, as old as Laplace, was reintroduced in statistics by Abraham Wald in the middle of the 20th century. In the context of economics, for example, this is usually economic cost or regret. In classification, it is the penalty for an incorrect classification of an example. In actuarial science, it is used in an insurance context to model benefits paid over premiums, particularly since the works of Harald Cramér in the 1920s. In optimal control, the loss is the penalty for failing to achieve a desired value. In financial risk management, the function is mapped to a monetary loss. == Examples == === Regret === Leonard J. Savage argued that using non-Bayesian methods such as minimax, the loss function should be based on the idea of regret, i.e., the loss associated with a decision should be the difference between the consequences of the best decision that could have been made under circumstances will be known and the decision that was in fact taken before they were known. === Quadratic loss function === The use of a quadratic loss function is common, for example when using least squares techniques. It is often more mathematically tractable than other loss functions because of the properties of variances, as well as being symmetric: an error above the target causes the same loss as the same magnitude of error below the target. If the target is t {\displaystyle t} , then a quadratic loss function is λ ( x ) = C ( t − x ) 2 {\displaystyle \lambda (x)=C(t-x)^{2}\;} for some constant C {\displaystyle C} ; the value of the constant makes no difference to a decision, and can be ignored by setting it equal to 1. This is also known as the squared error loss (SEL). Many common statistics, including t-tests, regression models, design of experiments, and much else, use least squares methods applied using linear regression theory, which is based on the quadratic loss function. The quadratic loss function is also used in linear-quadratic optimal control problems. In these problems, even in the absence of uncertainty, it may not be possible to achieve the desired values of all target variables. Often loss is expressed as a quadratic form in the deviations of the variables of interest from their desired values; this approach is tractable because it results in linear first-order conditions. In the context of stochastic control, the expected value of the quadratic form is used. The quadratic loss assigns more importance to outliers than to the true data due to its square nature, so alternatives like the Huber, log-cosh and SMAE losses are used when the data has many large outliers. === 0-1 loss function === In statistics and decision theory, a frequently used loss function is the 0-1 loss function L ( y ^ , y ) = { 0 if y = y ^ 1 if y ≠ y ^ {\displaystyle L({\hat {y}},y)={\begin{cases}0&{\text{if }}y={\hat {y}}\\1&{\text{if }}y\neq {\hat {y}}\end{cases}}} In information theory, this loss function is known as Hamming distortion. == Constructing loss and objective functions == In many applications, objective functions, including loss functions as a particular case, are determined by the problem formulation. In other situations, the decision maker’s preference must be elicited and represented by a scalar-valued function (called also utility function) in a form suitable for optimization — the problem that Ragnar Frisch has highlighted in his Nobel Prize lecture. The existing methods for constructing objective functions are collected in the proceedings of two dedicated conferences. In particular, Andranik Tangian showed that the most usable objective functions — quadratic and additive — are determined by a few indifference points. He used this property in the models for constructing these objective functions from either ordinal or cardinal data that were elicited through computer-assisted interviews with decision makers. Among other things, he constructed objective functions to optimally distribute budgets for 16 Westfalian universities and the European subsidies for equalizing unemployment rates among 271 German regions. == Expected loss == In some contexts, the value of the loss function itself is a random quantity because it depends on the outcome of a random variable X {\displaystyle X} . === Statistics === Both frequentist and Bayesian statistical theory involve making a decision based on the expected value of the loss function; however, this quantity is defined differently under the two paradigms. ==== Frequentist expected loss ==== We first define the expected loss in the frequentist context. It is obtained by taking the expected value with respect to the probability distribution, P θ {\displaystyle P_{\theta }} , of the observed data, X {\displaystyle X} . This is also referred to as the risk function of the decision rule δ {\displaystyle \delta } and the parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } . Here the decision rule depends on the outcome of X {\displaystyle X} . The risk function is given by: R ( θ , δ ) = E θ L ( θ , δ ( X ) ) = ∫ X L ( θ , δ ( x ) ) d P θ ( x ) . {\displaystyle R(\theta ,\delta )=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }L{\big (}\theta ,\delta (X){\big )}=\int _{X}L{\big (}\theta ,\delta (x){\big )}\,\mathrm {d} P_{\theta }(x).} Here, θ {\displaystyle \theta } is a fixed but possibly unknown state of nature, X {\displaystyle X} is a vector of observations stochastically drawn from a population, E θ {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} _{\theta }} is the expectation over all population values of X {\displaystyle X} , d P θ {\displaystyle \mathrm {d} P_{\theta }} is a probability measure over the event space of X {\displaystyle X} (parametrized by θ {\displaystyle \theta } ) and the integral is evaluated over the entire support of X {\displaystyle X} . ==== Bayes Risk ==== In a Bayesian approach, the expectation is calculated using the prior distribution π ∗ {\displaystyle \pi ^{}} of the parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } : ρ ( π ∗ , a ) = ∫ Θ ∫ X L ( θ , a ( x ) ) d P ( x | θ ) d π ∗ ( θ ) = ∫ X ∫ Θ L ( θ , a ( x ) ) d π ∗ ( θ | x ) d M ( x ) {\displaystyle \rho (\pi ^{},a)=\int _{\Theta }\int _{\mathbf {X}}L(\theta ,a({\mathbf {x}}))\,\mathrm {d} P({\mathbf {x}}\vert \theta )\,\mathrm {d} \pi ^{}(\theta )=\int _{\mathbf {X}}\int _{\Theta }L(\theta ,a({\mathbf {x}}))\,\mathrm {d} \pi ^{}(\theta \vert {\mathbf {x}})\,\mathrm {d} M({\mathbf {x}})} where M ( x ) {\displaystyle M(\mathbf {x} )} is known as the predictive likelihood wherein θ {\displaystyle \theta } has been "integrated out," π ∗ ( θ | x ) {\displaystyle \pi ^{}(\theta |\mathbf {x} )} is the posterior distribution, and the order of integration has been changed. One then should choose the action a ∗ {\displaystyle a^{}} which minimises this expected loss, which is referred to as Bayes Risk. In the latter equation, the integrand inside d x {\displaystyle \mathrm {d} x} is known as the Posterior Risk, and minimising it with respect to decision a {\displaystyle a} also minimizes the overall Bayes Risk. This optimal decision, a ∗ {\displaystyle a^{}} is known as the Bayes (decision) Rule - it minimises the average loss over all possible states of nature θ {\displaystyle \theta } , over all possible (probability-weighted) data outcomes. One advantage of the Bayesian approach is to that one need only choose the optimal action under the actual observed data to obtain a uniformly optimal one, whereas choosing the actual frequentist optimal decision rule as a function of all possible observations, is a much more difficult problem. Of equal importance though, the Bayes Rule reflects consideration of loss outcomes under different states of nature, θ {\displaystyle \theta } . ==== Examples in statistics ==== For a scalar parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } , a decision function whose output θ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}} is an estimate of θ {\displaystyle \theta } , and a quadratic loss function (squared error loss) L ( θ , θ ^ ) = ( θ − θ ^ ) 2 , {\displaystyle L(\theta ,{\hat {\theta }})=(\theta -{\hat {\theta }})^{2},} the risk function becomes the mean squared error of the estimate, R ( θ , θ ^ ) = E θ [ ( θ − θ ^ ) 2 ] . {\displaystyle R(\theta ,{\hat {\thet
1.58-bit large language model
A 1.58-bit large language model (also known as a ternary LLM) is a type of large language model (LLM) designed to be computationally efficient. It achieves this by using weights that are restricted to only three values: -1, 0, and +1. This restriction significantly reduces the model's memory footprint and allows for faster processing, as computationally expensive multiplication operations can be replaced with lower-cost additions. This contrasts with traditional models that use 16-bit floating-point numbers (FP16 or BF16) for their weights. Studies have shown that for models up to several billion parameters, the performance of 1.58-bit LLMs on various tasks is comparable to their full-precision counterparts. This approach could enable powerful AI to run on less specialized and lower-power hardware. The name "1.58-bit" comes from the fact that a system with three states contains log 2 3 ≈ 1.58 {\displaystyle \log _{2}3\approx 1.58} bits of information. These models are sometimes also referred to as 1-bit LLMs in research papers, although this term can also refer to true binary models (with weights of -1 and +1). == BitNet == In 2024, Ma et al., researchers at Microsoft, declared that their 1.58-bit model, BitNet b1.58 is comparable in performance to the 16-bit Llama 2 and opens the era of 1-bit LLM. BitNet creators did not use the post-training quantization of weights but instead relied on the new BitLinear transform that replaced the nn.Linear layer of the traditional transformer design. In 2025, Microsoft researchers had released an open-weights and open inference code model BitNet b1.58 2B4T demonstrating performance competitive with the full precision models at 2B parameters and 4T training tokens. == Post-training quantization == BitNet derives its performance from being trained natively in 1.58 bit instead of being quantized from a full-precision model after training. Still, training is an expensive process and it would be desirable to be able to somehow convert an existing model to 1.58 bits. In 2024, HuggingFace reported a way to gradually ramp up the 1.58-bit quantization in fine-tuning an existing model down to 1.58 bits. == Critique == Some researchers point out that the scaling laws of large language models favor the low-bit weights only in case of undertrained models. As the number of training tokens increases, the deficiencies of low-bit quantization surface.
Low-rank approximation
In mathematics, low-rank approximation refers to the process of approximating a given matrix by a matrix of lower rank. More precisely, it is a minimization problem, in which the cost function measures the fit between a given matrix (the data) and an approximating matrix (the optimization variable), subject to a constraint that the approximating matrix has reduced rank. The problem is used for mathematical modeling and data compression. The rank constraint is related to a constraint on the complexity of a model that fits the data. In applications, often there are other constraints on the approximating matrix apart from the rank constraint, e.g., non-negativity and Hankel structure. Low-rank approximation is closely related to numerous other techniques, including principal component analysis, factor analysis, total least squares, latent semantic analysis, orthogonal regression, and dynamic mode decomposition. == Definition == Given structure specification S : R n p → R m × n {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}:\mathbb {R} ^{n_{p}}\to \mathbb {R} ^{m\times n}} , vector of structure parameters p ∈ R n p {\displaystyle p\in \mathbb {R} ^{n_{p}}} , norm ‖ ⋅ ‖ {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|} , and desired rank r {\displaystyle r} , minimize over p ^ ‖ p − p ^ ‖ subject to rank ( S ( p ^ ) ) ≤ r . {\displaystyle {\text{minimize}}\quad {\text{over }}{\widehat {p}}\quad \|p-{\widehat {p}}\|\quad {\text{subject to}}\quad \operatorname {rank} {\big (}{\mathcal {S}}({\widehat {p}}){\big )}\leq r.} == Applications == Linear system identification, in which case the approximating matrix is Hankel structured. Machine learning, in which case the approximating matrix is nonlinearly structured. Recommender systems, in which cases the data matrix has missing values and the approximation is categorical. Distance matrix completion, in which case there is a positive definiteness constraint. Natural language processing, in which case the approximation is nonnegative. Computer algebra, in which case the approximation is Sylvester structured. Matrix product states, in which case the approximation is usually rescaled to have fixed Frobenius norm. == Basic low-rank approximation problem == The unstructured problem with fit measured by the Frobenius norm, i.e., minimize over D ^ ‖ D − D ^ ‖ F subject to rank ( D ^ ) ≤ r {\displaystyle {\text{minimize}}\quad {\text{over }}{\widehat {D}}\quad \|D-{\widehat {D}}\|_{\text{F}}\quad {\text{subject to}}\quad \operatorname {rank} {\big (}{\widehat {D}}{\big )}\leq r} has an analytic solution in terms of the singular value decomposition of the data matrix. The result is referred to as the matrix approximation lemma or Eckart–Young–Mirsky theorem. This problem was originally solved by Erhard Schmidt in the infinite dimensional context of integral operators (although his methods easily generalize to arbitrary compact operators on Hilbert spaces) and later rediscovered by C. Eckart and G. Young. L. Mirsky generalized the result to arbitrary unitarily invariant norms. Let D = U Σ V ⊤ ∈ R m × n , m ≥ n {\displaystyle D=U\Sigma V^{\top }\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times n},\quad m\geq n} be the singular value decomposition of D {\displaystyle D} , where Σ =: diag ( σ 1 , … , σ r ) {\displaystyle \Sigma =:\operatorname {diag} (\sigma _{1},\ldots ,\sigma _{r})} , where r ≤ min { m , n } = n {\displaystyle r\leq \min\{m,n\}=n} , is the m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} rectangular diagonal matrix with r {\displaystyle r} non-zero singular values σ 1 ≥ … ≥ σ r > σ r + 1 = … = σ n = 0 {\displaystyle \sigma _{1}\geq \ldots \geq \sigma _{r}>\sigma _{r+1}=\ldots =\sigma _{n}=0} . For a given k ∈ { 1 , … , r } {\displaystyle k\in \{1,\dots ,r\}} , partition U {\displaystyle U} , Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } , and V {\displaystyle V} as follows: U =: [ U 1 U 2 ] , Σ =: [ Σ 1 0 0 Σ 2 ] , and V =: [ V 1 V 2 ] , {\displaystyle U=:{\begin{bmatrix}U_{1}&U_{2}\end{bmatrix}},\quad \Sigma =:{\begin{bmatrix}\Sigma _{1}&0\\0&\Sigma _{2}\end{bmatrix}},\quad {\text{and}}\quad V=:{\begin{bmatrix}V_{1}&V_{2}\end{bmatrix}},} where U 1 {\displaystyle U_{1}} is m × k {\displaystyle m\times k} , Σ 1 {\displaystyle \Sigma _{1}} is k × k {\displaystyle k\times k} , and V 1 {\displaystyle V_{1}} is n × k {\displaystyle n\times k} . Then the rank k {\displaystyle k} matrix D ^ ∗ := U 1 Σ 1 V 1 ⊤ , {\displaystyle {\widehat {D}}^{}:=U_{1}\Sigma _{1}V_{1}^{\top },} obtained from the truncated singular value decomposition is such that ‖ D − D ^ ∗ ‖ F = min rank ( D ^ ) ≤ k ‖ D − D ^ ‖ F = σ k + 1 2 + ⋯ + σ r 2 . {\displaystyle \|D-{\widehat {D}}^{}\|_{\text{F}}=\min _{\operatorname {rank} ({\widehat {D}})\leq k}\|D-{\widehat {D}}\|_{\text{F}}={\sqrt {\sigma _{k+1}^{2}+\cdots +\sigma _{r}^{2}}}.} The minimizer D ^ ∗ {\displaystyle {\widehat {D}}^{}} is unique if and only if σ k > σ k + 1 {\displaystyle \sigma _{k}>\sigma _{k+1}} . == Proof of Eckart–Young–Mirsky theorem (for spectral norm) == Let A ∈ R m × n {\displaystyle A\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times n}} be a real (possibly rectangular) matrix with m ≤ n {\displaystyle m\leq n} . Suppose that A = U Σ V ⊤ {\displaystyle A=U\Sigma V^{\top }} is the singular value decomposition of A {\displaystyle A} . Recall that U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} are orthogonal matrices, and Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is an m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} diagonal matrix with entries ( σ 1 , σ 2 , ⋯ , σ m ) {\displaystyle (\sigma _{1},\sigma _{2},\cdots ,\sigma _{m})} such that σ 1 ≥ σ 2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ σ m ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \sigma _{1}\geq \sigma _{2}\geq \cdots \geq \sigma _{m}\geq 0} . We claim that the best rank- k {\displaystyle k} approximation to A {\displaystyle A} in the spectral norm, denoted by ‖ ⋅ ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{2}} , is given by A k := ∑ i = 1 k σ i u i v i ⊤ {\displaystyle A_{k}:=\sum _{i=1}^{k}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }} where u i {\displaystyle u_{i}} and v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} denote the i {\displaystyle i} th column of U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} , respectively. First, note that we have ‖ A − A k ‖ 2 = ‖ ∑ i = 1 n σ i u i v i ⊤ − ∑ i = 1 k σ i u i v i ⊤ ‖ 2 = ‖ ∑ i = k + 1 n σ i u i v i ⊤ ‖ 2 = σ k + 1 {\displaystyle \|A-A_{k}\|_{2}=\left\|\sum _{i=1}^{\color {red}{n}}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }-\sum _{i=1}^{\color {red}{k}}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }\right\|_{2}=\left\|\sum _{i=\color {red}{k+1}}^{n}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }\right\|_{2}=\sigma _{k+1}} Therefore, we need to show that if B k = X Y ⊤ {\displaystyle B_{k}=XY^{\top }} where X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} have k {\displaystyle k} columns then ‖ A − A k ‖ 2 = σ k + 1 ≤ ‖ A − B k ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \|A-A_{k}\|_{2}=\sigma _{k+1}\leq \|A-B_{k}\|_{2}} . Since Y {\displaystyle Y} has k {\displaystyle k} columns, then there must be a nontrivial linear combination of the first k + 1 {\displaystyle k+1} columns of V {\displaystyle V} , i.e., w = γ 1 v 1 + ⋯ + γ k + 1 v k + 1 , {\displaystyle w=\gamma _{1}v_{1}+\cdots +\gamma _{k+1}v_{k+1},} such that Y ⊤ w = 0 {\displaystyle Y^{\top }w=0} . Without loss of generality, we can scale w {\displaystyle w} so that ‖ w ‖ 2 = 1 {\displaystyle \|w\|_{2}=1} or (equivalently) γ 1 2 + ⋯ + γ k + 1 2 = 1 {\displaystyle \gamma _{1}^{2}+\cdots +\gamma _{k+1}^{2}=1} . Therefore, ‖ A − B k ‖ 2 2 ≥ ‖ ( A − B k ) w ‖ 2 2 = ‖ A w ‖ 2 2 = γ 1 2 σ 1 2 + ⋯ + γ k + 1 2 σ k + 1 2 ≥ σ k + 1 2 . {\displaystyle \|A-B_{k}\|_{2}^{2}\geq \|(A-B_{k})w\|_{2}^{2}=\|Aw\|_{2}^{2}=\gamma _{1}^{2}\sigma _{1}^{2}+\cdots +\gamma _{k+1}^{2}\sigma _{k+1}^{2}\geq \sigma _{k+1}^{2}.} The result follows by taking the square root of both sides of the above inequality. == Proof of Eckart–Young–Mirsky theorem (for Frobenius norm) == Let A ∈ R m × n {\displaystyle A\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times n}} be a real (possibly rectangular) matrix with m ≤ n {\displaystyle m\leq n} . Suppose that A = U Σ V ⊤ {\displaystyle A=U\Sigma V^{\top }} is the singular value decomposition of A {\displaystyle A} . We claim that the best rank k {\displaystyle k} approximation to A {\displaystyle A} in the Frobenius norm, denoted by ‖ ⋅ ‖ F {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{F}} , is given by A k = ∑ i = 1 k σ i u i v i ⊤ {\displaystyle A_{k}=\sum _{i=1}^{k}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }} where u i {\displaystyle u_{i}} and v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} denote the i {\displaystyle i} th column of U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} , respectively. First, note that we have ‖ A − A k ‖ F 2 = ‖ ∑ i = k + 1 n σ i u i v i ⊤ ‖ F 2 = ∑ i = k + 1 n σ i 2 {\displaystyle \|A-A_{k}\|_{F}^{2}=\left\|\sum _{i=k+1}^{n}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }\right\|_{F}^{2}=\sum _{i=k+1}^{n}\sigma _{i}^{2}} Therefore, we need to show that if B k = X Y ⊤ {\displaystyle B_{k}=XY^{\top }} where X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} have k {\displaystyle k} columns then ‖ A − A k ‖ F 2 = ∑ i = k + 1 n σ i 2 ≤ ‖ A − B k ‖ F 2 . {\displaystyle \|A-A_{k}\|_{F}^{2}=\sum _{i=k+1}^{n}\sigma _{i}^{2}\leq \|A-B_{k}\|_{F}^{2}.} By the triangle inequality with the spectral norm