Barriers for rectangular matrix multiplication

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2003.03019
• Title: Barriers for rectangular matrix multiplication
• Authors: Matthias Christandl, François Le Gall, Vladimir Lysikov, Jeroen Zuiddam
• Classification: cs.CC (Computational Complexity), math.AC (Commutative Algebra)
• Publication Date: November 10, 2025 (arXiv version)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.03019

Abstract

This paper investigates algorithmic problems in large-scale rectangular matrix multiplication. The authors prove that methods used to construct the fastest rectangular matrix multiplication algorithms cannot provide algorithms with complexity $n^{p+1}$ for multiplying $n \times n$ matrices by $n \times n^p$ matrices. In fact, the authors establish precise numerical barriers for such methods. This barrier improves upon previously known barriers both in numerical significance and generality. In particular, the authors prove that any lower bound on the matrix multiplication dual exponent $\alpha$ obtained through large Coppersmith-Winograd tensors cannot exceed 0.6218.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Background

1. Matrix multiplication complexity problem: Given two large matrices, how many scalar arithmetic operations are required to compute their matrix product? The standard algorithm requires approximately $2n^3$ operations for two $n \times n$ square matrices, but the theoretical lower bound is only $n^2$.
2. Rectangular matrix multiplication: In practical applications, matrices to be multiplied are typically rectangular rather than square. For arbitrary non-negative real numbers $p$, given an $n \times \lceil n^p \rceil$ matrix and an $\lceil n^p \rceil \times n$ matrix, how many operations are needed to compute their product?
3. Exponent definition: $\omega(p)$ denotes the optimal exponent of $n$ in the number of operations required by any arithmetic algorithm, with prior bounds $\max(2, 1+p) \leq \omega(p) \leq 2+p$.

Research Motivation

1. Theoretical importance: Understanding $\omega(p)$ is not only meaningful for rectangular matrix multiplication but also serves as a means to prove $\omega = 2$ (the optimal exponent for square matrix multiplication).
2. Practical applications: Rectangular matrix multiplication has direct applications in linear programming solving, empirical risk minimization, and other fields.
3. Technical limitations: Current techniques encounter bottlenecks in improving upper bounds, necessitating understanding of their fundamental constraints.

Core Contributions

1. Established a universal barrier framework: Established precise numerical barriers for the main current techniques in constructing rectangular matrix multiplication algorithms.
2. Improved numerical bounds: Improved upon previous barrier results in both numerical significance and generality.
3. Introduced virtual matrix multiplication tensors: Introduced new mathematical tools to handle non-integer values of $p$.
4. Analyzed catalytic methods: Investigated more complex algorithm structures involving catalytic tensors.
5. Precise bounds on dual exponent: Proved that lower bounds on $\alpha$ obtained through Coppersmith-Winograd tensors cannot exceed 0.6218.

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Study the rectangular matrix multiplication problem: given an $n \times \lceil n^p \rceil$ matrix $A$ and an $\lceil n^p \rceil \times n$ matrix $B$, compute the number of arithmetic operations required to calculate the product $AB$. The goal is to understand the fundamental limitations of current techniques in improving the complexity upper bound $\omega(p)$.

Core Theoretical Framework

1. Tensor Representation

Matrix multiplication problems correspond to tensor families:

• Multiplication of $\ell \times m$ matrix by $m \times n$ matrix corresponds to tensor: $\langle \ell, m, n \rangle = \sum_{i=1}^\ell \sum_{j=1}^m \sum_{k=1}^n x_{ij}y_{jk}z_{ki}$
• Unit problem corresponds to diagonal tensor: $\langle n \rangle = \sum_{i=1}^n x_i y_i z_i$

2. Reduction Concepts

Defined multiple tensor reduction types:

• Restriction ($S \leq T$): There exist linear maps such that $S = T \circ (A,B,C)$
• Degeneration ($S \triangleleft T$): $S = \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} T(A(\epsilon)x, B(\epsilon)y, C(\epsilon)z)$
• Monomial restriction/degeneration: Matrices $A,B,C$ have at most one non-zero element per row and column

3. Appropriate Tensor Parameters

Defined the class of appropriate tensor parameters $F$ satisfying:

• $\leq$-monotonicity: $S \leq T \Rightarrow F(S) \leq F(T)$
• $\otimes$-submultiplicativity: $F(S \otimes T) \leq F(S) \cdot F(T)$
• MaMu-$\otimes$-multiplicativity: $F(\langle \ell_1\ell_2, m_1m_2, n_1n_2 \rangle) = F(\langle \ell_1,m_1,n_1 \rangle) \cdot F(\langle \ell_2,m_2,n_2 \rangle)$
• Self-$\oplus$-additivity: $F(T^{\oplus s}) = s \cdot F(T)$
• Asymptotic rank bound: $F(T) \leq \tilde{R}(T)$

Technical Innovations

1. Virtual Matrix Multiplication Tensors

To handle real numbers $p$, introduced formal symbol $\langle 2,2,2^p \rangle$:

• When $p = \log_a b$ ($a,b$ positive integers): $F(\langle 2,2,2^p \rangle) = 2^{\log_a F(\langle a,a,b \rangle)}$
• Otherwise defined through infimum: $F(\langle 2,2,2^p \rangle) = \inf\{F(\langle 2,2,2^P \rangle) | P \geq p, \exists a,b \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}: P = \log_a b\}$

2. Barrier Theorem Proof Strategy

By applying appropriate parameters $F,G$ to both ends of the algorithm chain: $\langle n,n,m \rangle^{\oplus s} \leq T^{\otimes k} \leq \langle r \rangle^{\otimes kb}$

Obtained: $\frac{\log F(\langle 2,2,2^p \rangle)}{\log F(T)} \log \tilde{R}(T) \leq \omega(p)$

Experimental Setup

Numerical Computation Methods

1. Upper Support Functionals

Used Strassen's upper support functionals as appropriate parameters: $\zeta^\theta(T) = \min_{S \cong T} \max_{P \in \mathcal{P}(\text{supp}(S))} 2^{\sum_{i \in [3]} \theta_i H(P_i)}$ where $\theta = (\theta_1, \theta_2, \theta_3) \in \mathcal{P}([3])$, $H$ is Shannon entropy.

2. Coppersmith-Winograd Tensor

Analyzed CW tensor: $CW_q(x,y,z) = x_0 y_0 z_{q+1} + x_0 y_{q+1} z_0 + x_{q+1} y_0 z_0 + \sum_{i=1}^q (x_0 y_i z_i + x_i y_0 z_i + x_i y_i z_0)$

Known that $\tilde{R}(CW_q) = q + 2$.

Optimization Problem

Barrier computation transformed into convex optimization problem: $\max_{\theta} \frac{2\theta_1 + (p+1)(\theta_2 + \theta_3)}{\max_P \sum_{i=1}^3 \theta_i H(P_i)} \log_2(q+2)$

Experimental Results

Main Numerical Results

1. Barriers for $\omega(2)$

For $CW_q$ tensor, barrier values for $\omega(2)$:

2. Barriers for Dual Exponent $\alpha$

Key Result: Any lower bound on $\alpha$ obtained through degeneration of $CW_q$ (for arbitrary $q$) cannot exceed 0.6218.

3. Comparison with Prior Work

• Alman-Vassilevska Williams AW18a: Monomial degeneration through $CW_6$ can only yield $\alpha \geq 0.871$
• This paper: Stronger degeneration through $CW_6$ can only yield $\alpha \geq 0.543$
• Current best lower bound: $\alpha > 0.321334$ WXXZ24

Catalytic Analysis

For $\kappa$-catalytic methods, the barrier strengthens to: $\omega(p) \geq \frac{\log F(\langle 2,2,2^p \rangle)}{\log F(T)} \log \tilde{R}(T) + \kappa \left(\frac{\log \tilde{R}(T)}{\log F(T)} - 1\right)$

Related Work

Development History of Barrier Theory

1. Ambainis-Filmus-Le Gall AFLG15: First proved barriers in matrix multiplication, showing certain methods cannot achieve $\omega = 2$.
2. Alman-Vassilevska Williams AW18a,AW18b:
   • Extended to monomial degenerations
   • First studied barriers for rectangular matrix multiplication
   • Based on asymptotic independence analysis
3. Blasiak et al. BCC+17a,BCC+17b: Studied barriers for group-theoretic methods.
4. Christandl-Vrana-Zuiddam CVZ19:
   • More general degeneration barriers
   • Based on tensor irreversibility
   • Used quantum functionals and support functionals

Improvements in This Paper

• Higher numerical bounds: Tighter barriers compared to previous work
• Broader applicability: Applicable not only to $0 \leq p \leq 1$ but also to $p \geq 1$
• Unified framework: Encompasses all known reduction concepts
• Mixed method analysis: First systematic analysis of mixed intermediate tensor methods

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Fundamental limitations: Current mainstream techniques (degeneration methods based on Coppersmith-Winograd tensors) have fundamental limitations in improving rectangular matrix multiplication complexity.
2. Precise numerical bounds: Lower bounds on the dual exponent $\alpha$ obtained through any $CW_q$ tensor cannot exceed 0.6218, far below the theoretical maximum of 1.
3. Technical bottlenecks: Demonstrated why current techniques cannot significantly narrow the gap between upper and lower bounds of $\omega(p)$.

Limitations

1. Method specificity: Barriers apply only to methods based on specific intermediate tensors (such as CW tensors), not excluding other possible algorithm design approaches.
2. Lower bound nature: These are methodological barriers rather than lower bounds on the problem itself, not excluding the possibility of better algorithms.
3. Computational complexity: Numerical computation relies on convex optimization, which may face computational challenges for larger tensors.

Future Directions

1. New intermediate tensors: Search for new types of intermediate tensors not constrained by current barriers.
2. Non-tensor methods: Explore entirely new algorithm design paradigms not based on tensor degeneration.
3. Tightness of barriers: Study whether the proved barriers are tight.
4. Other reduction types: Analyze barriers under more general reduction concepts.

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical depth: Established a complete barrier theory framework with high mathematical rigor.
2. Technical innovations:
   • Clever introduction of virtual matrix multiplication tensors to handle non-integer exponents
   • Abstraction of appropriate tensor parameters provides unified analytical tools
3. Practical value: Precise numerical results provide algorithm designers with clear technical limitation guidance.
4. Comprehensiveness: Covers the complete chain from foundational theory to concrete computation.

Weaknesses

1. Barrier limitations: Apply only to specific algorithm types, potentially circumventable methods may exist.
2. Computational dependence: Numerical results depend on support functional computation, potentially difficult for more complex tensors.
3. Gap analysis: While barriers are proved, lacks deep analysis of what the gap between barriers and current best results implies.

Impact

1. Theoretical contribution: Provides new analytical tools and perspectives for complexity theory.
2. Practical guidance: Helps researchers understand current technique limitations and guides future research directions.
3. Methodological value: Barrier analysis framework may apply to other algorithm design problems.

Application Scenarios

1. Algorithm design: Provides theoretical guidance for matrix multiplication algorithm designers.
2. Complexity analysis: Provides methodological reference for barrier analysis of other algebraic problems.
3. Optimization theory: Has application value in scenarios requiring understanding of fundamental algorithm limitations.

References

Main related works include:

• AFLG15 Ambainis, Filmus, Le Gall: Fast matrix multiplication limitations
• AW18a Alman, Vassilevska Williams: Further limitations of known approaches
• CVZ19 Christandl, Vrana, Zuiddam: Barriers from irreversibility
• CW90 Coppersmith, Winograd: Matrix multiplication via arithmetic progressions
• Str91 Strassen: Degeneration and complexity of bilinear maps