MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028135642 · doi:10.1145/1148109.1148149

An implementation report for parallel triangular decompositions

2006· article· en· W2028135642 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Moreno Maza, Yuzhen Xie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPolynomial and algebraic computation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolynomialComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Set (abstract data type)Algebraic numberAlgebraic geometryComputationTheoretical computer scienceSet operationsDimension (graph theory)Algebra over a fieldAlgorithmMathematicsPure mathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the discovery of Gröbner bases, the algorithmic advances in Commutative Algebra have made possible to tackle many classical problems in Algebraic Geometry that were previously out of reach. However, algorithmic progress is still desirable, for instance when solving symbolically a large system of algebraic non-linear equations. For such a system, in particular if its solution set consists of geometric components of different dimension (points, curves, surfaces, etc) it is necessary to combine Gröbner bases with decomposition techniques, such as triangular decompositions. Ideally, one would like each of the different components to be produced by an independent processor, or set of processors. In practice, the input polynomial system, which is hiding those components, requires some transformations in order to split the computations into sub-systems and, then, lead to the desired components. The efficiency of this approach depends on its ability to detect and exploit geometrical information during the solving process.Our work addresses two questions: How to discover geometrical information, at an early stage of the solving process, that would be favorable to parallel execution? How to ensure load balancing among the processors? We answer these questions in the context of triangular decompositions [2] which are a popular way of solving polynomial systems symbolically. These methods tend to split the input polynomial system into subsystems and, therefore, are natural candidate for parallel implementation. However, the only such method which has been parallelized so far is the Characteristic Set Method of Wu [5], as reported in [1, 6]. This approach suffers from several limitations. For instance, the solving of the second component cannot start before that of the first one is completed; this is a limitation in view of coarse-grain parallelization.In [4] an algorithm, called Triade, for TRIAngular DEcompositions, provides a good management of the intermediate computations for triangular decompositions. It is also a natural candidate for coarse-grain parallel implementation based on geometrical considerations; indeed the number of working processors can depend on the intrinsic difficulty of the system to solve. However, several challenges remain to be considered. First, load balancing is very difficult to control due to irregular tasks. Even worse: for some input polynomial systems, especially with integer coefficients, resource consuming tasks may not be necessarily executed concurrently. Second, data communication overhead can be very heavy due to large intermediate results.In order to achieve load balancing we rely on the following facts. For an input polynomial system, the Triade algorithm generates the intermediate or output components by decreasing order of dimension. As a consequence, expensive tasks (those in lower dimension) can be processed concurrently. In addition, when solving a (non-trivial) polynomial system modulo a prime integer, the number of these tasks is sufficient for expecting a good speed-up in a parallel execution. The case of polynomial systems with integer coefficients can also benefit from these features by using the modular techniques introduced in [3].We have developed a parallel scheme for the Triade algorithm, aiming at minimizing data communication overhead. Tasks are scheduled and updated by a process manager. Individual tasks are solved "lazily" by process workers. However, each process worker keeps track of enough information such that it can continue the solving of some of these tasks, when needed.We have realized a preliminary implementation on a shared memory multiprocessor. The experimental results show a satisfactory speed-up for some well-known problems.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0870.040

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolynomial and algebraic computationFrench-language works237,207