MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1549231341 · doi:10.1109/ccece.1996.548100

New algorithms for the exact computation of the sign of algebraic expressions

2002· article· en· W1549231341 on OpenAlexaff
Marina L. Gavrilova, Dmitry A. Gavrilov, Jon Rokne

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNumerical Methods and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmSign (mathematics)Floating pointComputationAlgebraic numberMathematicsAlgebraic operationUpper and lower boundsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper considers the problem of exact computation of the sign of algebraic expressions of real numbers represented in floating point arithmetic. We describe a new method for the exact computation and suggest some variations to improve the efficiency. The input data for the algorithm is represented by normalized floating point numbers with fixed mantissa length (machine numbers). The algorithm computes the exact value of the sign of the sum of machine numbers and it can be applied to exactly compute the sign of almost any algebraic expression. We suggest several variations of the original Exact Sign of a Sum Algorithm (ESSA) to improve the performance of the algorithm and we test the algorithms on different data sets. This includes the implementation of floating point filters based on interval analysis, a special algorithm for performing multiple bit-wise transformations on the numbers in lists and the application of different rules to reduce the number of iterations of the algorithm. The theoretical upper bound on the complexity of ESSA is O(l/sup 2/), where l is the number of elements of the input. The expected average, experimental complexity of the suggested algorithms is proportional to the length of the input lists and it is close to l/2 in most cases. We perform a comparison analysis among the algorithms. The comparisons are based on the computational efficiency of the algorithms on both well posed and ill posed data sets. The algorithms are verified by the computer implementations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNumerical Methods and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207