Formal proof for delayed finite field arithmetic using floating point operators
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Formal proof checkers such as Coq are capable of validating proofs of correction of algorithms for finite field arithmetics but they require extensive training from potential users. The delayed solution of a triangular system over a finite field mixes operations on integers and operations on floating point numbers. We focus in this report on verifying proof obligations that state that no round off error occurred on any of the floating point operations. We use a tool named Gappa that can be learned in a matter of minutes to generate proofs related to floating point arithmetic and hide technicalities of formal proof checkers. We found that three facilities are missing from existing tools. The first one is the ability to use in Gappa new lemmas that cannot be easily expressed as rewriting rules. We coined the second one ``variable interchange'' as it would be required to validate loop interchanges. The third facility handles massive loop unrolling and argument instantiation by generating traces of execution for a large number of cases. We hope that these facilities may sometime in the future be integrated into mainstream code validation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it