MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On the Factor Refinement Principle and its Implementation on Multicore Architectures

2012· article· en· W2086048361 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

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Packet Processing and Optimization
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParallel computingComputer scienceCacheSpeedupFactor (programming language)Divide and conquer algorithmsIdeal (ethics)Multi-core processorCode (set theory)Programming languageSet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The factor refinement principle turns a partial factorization of integers (or polynomi­ als) into a more complete factorization represented by basis elements and exponents, with basis elements that are pairwise coprime.\nThere are lots of applications of this refinement technique such as simplifying systems of polynomial inequations and, more generally, speeding up certain algebraic algorithms by eliminating redundant expressions that may occur during intermediate computations.\nSuccessive GCD computations and divisions are used to accomplish this task until all the basis elements are pairwise coprime. Moreover, square-free factorization (which is the first step of many factorization algorithms) is used to remove the repeated patterns from each input element. Differentiation, division and GCD calculation op­ erations are required to complete this pre-processing step. Both factor refinement and square-free factorization often rely on plain (quadratic) algorithms for multipli­ cation but can be substantially improved with asymptotically fast multiplication on sufficiently large input.\nIn this work, we review the working principles and complexity estimates of the factor refinement, in case of plain arithmetic, as well as asymptotically fast arithmetic. Following this review process, we design, analyze and implement parallel adaptations of these factor refinement algorithms. We consider several algorithm optimization techniques such as data locality analysis, balancing subproblems, etc. to fully exploit modern multicore architectures. The Cilk++ implementation of our parallel algorithm based on the augment refinement principle of Bach, Driscoll and Shallit achieves linear speedup for input data of sufficiently large size.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.262 · 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