Computing one billion roots using the tangent Graeffe method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Let p be a prime of the form p = σ2 k + 1 with σ small and let F p denote the finite field with p elements. Let P ( z ) be a polynomial of degree d in F p [ z ] with d distinct roots in F p . For p =5 · 2 55 + 1 we can compute the roots of such polynomials of degree 10 9 . We believe we are the first to factor such polynomials of size one billion. We used a multi-core computer with two 10 core Intel Xeon E5 2680 v2 CPUs and 128 gigabytes of RAM. The factorization takes just under 4,000 seconds on 10 cores and uses 121 gigabytes of RAM. We used the tangent Graeffe root finding algorithm from [27, 19] which is a factor of O (log d ) faster than the Cantor-Zassenhaus algorithm. We implemented the tangent Graeffe algorithm in C using our own library of 64 bit integer FFT based in-place polynomial algorithms then parallelized the FFT and main steps using Cilk C. In this article we discuss the steps of the tangent Graeffe algorithm, the sub-algorithms that we used, how we parallelized them, and how we organized the memory so we could factor a polynomial of degree 10 9 . We give both a theoretical and practical comparison of the tangent Graeffe algorithm with the Cantor-Zassenhaus algorithm for root finding. We improve the complexity of the tangent Graeffe algorithm by a factor of 2. We present a new in-place product tree multiplication algorithm that is fully parallelizable. We present some timings comparing our software with Magma's polynomial factorization command. Polynomial root finding over smooth finite fields is a key ingredient for algorithms for sparse polynomial interpolation that are based on geometric sequences. This application was also one of our main motivations for the present 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".