MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407021550 · doi:10.1137/15m1009767

Algorithms for Group Isomorphism via Group Extensions and Cohomology

2017· article· en· W2407021550 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Computing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicFinite Group Theory Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGroup (periodic table)MathematicsAbelian groupIsomorphism (crystallography)Group isomorphismExtension (predicate logic)Divide and conquer algorithmsCohomologyEquivalence (formal languages)Quotient groupCombinatoricsGroup cohomologyNormal subgroupTime complexityDiscrete mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldCyclic groupComputer sciencePure mathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The isomorphism problem for finite groups of order $n$ (GpI) has long been known to be solvable in $n^{\log n+O(1)}$ time, but only recently were polynomial-time algorithms designed for several interesting group classes. Inspired by recent progress, we revisit the strategy for GpI via the extension theory of groups. The extension theory describes how a normal subgroup $N$ is related to $G/N$ via $G$, and this naturally leads to a divide-and-conquer strategy that “splits” GpI into two subproblems: one regarding group actions on other groups, and one regarding group cohomology. When the normal subgroup $N$ is abelian, this strategy is well known. Our first contribution is to extend this strategy to handle the case when $N$ is not necessarily abelian. This allows us to provide a unified explanation of all recent polynomial-time algorithms for special group classes. Guided by this strategy, to make further progress on GpI, we consider central-radical groups, proposed in Babai et al. [Code equivalence and group isomorphism, in Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM--SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA'11), SIAM, Philadelphia, 2011, ACM, New York, pp. 1395--1408]: the class of groups such that $G$ modulo its center has no abelian normal subgroups. This class is a natural extension of the group class considered by Babai et al. [Polynomial-time isomorphism test for groups with no abelian normal subgroups (extended abstract), in International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP), 2012, pp. 51--62], namely those groups with no abelian normal subgroups. Following the above strategy, we solve GpI in $n^{O(\log \log n)}$ time for central-radical groups, and in polynomial time for several prominent subclasses of central-radical groups. We also solve GpI in $n^{O(\log\log n)}$ time for groups whose solvable normal subgroups are elementary abelian but not necessarily central. As far as we are aware, this is the first time there have been worst-case guarantees on an $n^{o(\log n)}$-time algorithm that tackles both aspects of GpI---actions and cohomology---simultaneously. Prior to this work, the best proven upper bounds on algorithms for groups with central radicals were $n^{O(\log n)}$, even for groups with a central radical of constant size, such as ${Rad}(G) = Z(G)=\mathbb{Z}_2$. To develop our new algorithms we utilize several mathematical results on the detailed structure of cohomology classes, as well as algorithmic results for code equivalence, coset intersection, and cyclicity testing of modules over finite-dimensional associative algebras. We also suggest several promising directions for future work.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.265 · 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