MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040416064 · doi:10.1145/1394042.1394090

Automatic variable order selection for polynomial system solving (abstract only)

2008· article· en· W2040416064 on OpenAlexaff
John P. May, Mark Giesbrecht, Daniel S. Roche, Marc Moreno Maza, Yuzhen Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueACM communications in computer algebra · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPolynomial and algebraic computation
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolverWeightingVariable (mathematics)Dependency (UML)PolynomialComputer scienceComputationVariable eliminationGraphSystem of polynomial equationsApplied mathematicsDecompositionBasis (linear algebra)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsAlgebra over a fieldTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmPure mathematicsArtificial intelligenceInference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of a general purpose solver is to allow a user to compute the solutions of a system of equations with minimal interactions. Modern tools for polynomial system solving, namely triangular decomposition and Groebner basis computation, can be highly sensitive to the ordering of the variables. Our goal is to examine the structure of a given system and use it to compute a variable ordering that will cause the solving algorithm to complete quickly (or alternately, to give compact output). We explore methods based on the dependency graph of coincident variables and terms between the equations. Desirable orderings are gleaned from connected components and other topological properties of these graphs, under different weighting schemes. We present experimental results suggesting that these methods work well in practice.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.002
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM communications in computer algebraSame topicPolynomial and algebraic computationFrench-language works237,207