MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W256395497 · doi:10.1007/s00037-007-0231-z

New Results on the Complexity of the Middle Bit of Multiplication

2005· article· en· W256395497 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

VenueComputational Complexity · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsOmegaInteger (computer science)MathematicsBinary logarithmMultiplication (music)Upper and lower boundsSpace (punctuation)Discrete mathematicsArithmeticPhysicsMathematical analysisQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well known that the hardest bit of integer multiplication is the middle bit, i.e., MUL n−1,n . This paper contains several new results on its complexity. First, the size s of randomized read-k branching programs, or, equivalently, their space (log s) is investigated. A randomized algorithm for MUL n−1,n with $$k = {\mathcal{O}}(\hbox{log}\, n)$$ (implying time $${\mathcal{O}}(n\, \hbox{log}\, n))$$ , space $${\mathcal{O}}(\hbox{log}\, n)$$ and error probability n −c for arbitrarily chosen constants c is presented. Second, the size of general branching programs and formulas is investigated. Applying Nechiporuk’s technique, lower bounds of $$\Omega (n^{3/2}/ \hbox{log}\, n)$$ and Ω (n 3/2), respectively, are obtained. Moreover, by bounding the number of subfunctions of MUL n−1,n , it is proven that Nechiporuk’s technique cannot provide larger lower bounds than $${\mathcal{O}}(n^{5/3}/ \hbox{log}\, n)$$ and $${\mathcal{O}}(n^{5/3})$$ , respectively.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.129 · 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