MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049605943 · doi:10.1145/2733693.2733720

The Design of Maple's Sum-of-Products and POLY Data Structures for Representing Mathematical Objects

2015· article· en· W2049605943 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

VenueACM communications in computer algebra · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPolynomial and algebraic computation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMapleComputer scienceObject (grammar)Kernel (algebra)Algebra over a fieldMathematicsPure mathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The principal data structure Maple uses to represent polynomials and general mathematical expressions involving functions like sin x, e 2x , y'(x),(n/k) etc., is known to the Maple developers as the sum-of-products data structure. Gaston Gonnet, as the primary author of the Maple kernel, designed and implemented this data structure in the early 1980s. As part of the process of simplifying a mathematical formula, he represented every Maple object and every sub-object uniquely in memory. This makes testing for equality of expressions very fast. In this article, on occasion of Gonnet's retirement, we present details of his design, its pros and cons, and changes we and others have made to it over the years. One of the cons of the sum-of-products data structure is it is not as efficient at multiplying multivariate polynomials as other special purpose computer algebra systems. We describe a new data structure called POLY that we added to Maple 17 (released in 2013) to improve performance for polynomials in Maple, and recent work done for Maple 18 (released in 2014).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
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 score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 science0.0060.006
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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.189 · 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