Computing the integer points of a polyhedron
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
The integer points of polyhedral sets are of interest in many areas of mathematical sciences, see for instance the landmark textbooks of A. Schrijver [18] and A. Barvinok [3], as well as the compilation of articles [4]. One of these areas is the analysis and transformation of computer programs. For instance, integer programming [6] is used by P. Feautrier in the scheduling of for-loop nests [7], Barvinok's algorithm [2] for counting integer points in polyhedra is adapted by M. Köppe and S. Verdoolaege in [15] to answer questions like how many memory locations are touched by a for-loop nest. In [16], W. Pugh proposes an algorithm, called the Omega Test , for testing whether a polyhedron has integer points. In the same paper, W. Pugh shows how to use the Omega Test for performing dependence analysis [16] in for-loop nests. In [17], W. Pugh also suggests, without stating a formal algorithm, that the Omega Test could be used for quantifier elimination on Presburger formulas. This observation is a first motivation for the work presented here.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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