MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970815075 · doi:10.1145/1073884.1073903

Algorithms for the non-monic case of the sparse modular GCD algorithm

2005· article· en· W1970815075 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPolynomial and algebraic computation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceModular designAlgorithmAlgorithm designTheoretical computer scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let G = (4y2+2z)x2 + (10y2+6z) be the greatest common divisor (Gcd) of two polynomials A, B ∈ ℤ[x,y,z]. Because G is not monic in the main variable x, the sparse modular Gcd algorithm of Richard Zippel cannot be applied directly as one is unable to scale univariate images of G in x consistently. We call this the normalization problem.We present two new sparse modular Gcd algorithms which solve this problem without requiring any factorizations. The first, a modification of Zippel's algorithm, treats the scaling factors as unknowns to be solved for. This leads to a structured coupled linear system for which an efficient solution is still possible. The second algorithm reconstructs the monic Gcd x2 + (5y2+3z)/(2y2+z) from monic univariate images using a sparse, variable at a time, rational function interpolation algorithm.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolynomial and algebraic computationFrench-language works237,207