Hardness of Graph-Structured Algebraic and Symbolic Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we study the hardness of solving graph-structured linear systems with coefficients over a finite field $\mathbb{Z}_p$ and over a polynomial ring $\mathbb{F}[x_1,\ldots,x_t]$. We reduce solving general linear systems in $\mathbb{Z}_p$ to solving unit-weight low-degree graph Laplacians over $\mathbb{Z}_p$ with a polylogarithmic overhead on the number of non-zeros. Given the hardness of solving general linear systems in $\mathbb{Z}_p$ [Casacuberta-Kyng 2022], this result shows that it is unlikely that we can generalize Laplacian solvers over $\mathbb{R}$, or finite-element based methods over $\mathbb{R}$ in general, to a finite-field setting. We also reduce solving general linear systems over $\mathbb{Z}_p$ to solving linear systems whose coefficient matrices are walk matrices (matrices with all ones on the diagonal) and normalized Laplacians (Laplacians that are also walk matrices) over $\mathbb{Z}_p$. We often need to apply linear system solvers to random linear systems, in which case the worst case analysis above might be less relevant. For example, we often need to substitute variables in a symbolic matrix with random values. Here, a symbolic matrix is simply a matrix whose entries are in a polynomial ring $\mathbb{F}[x_1, \ldots, x_t]$. We formally define the reducibility between symbolic matrix classes, which are classified in terms of the degrees of the entries and the number of occurrences of the variables. We show that the determinant identity testing problem for symbolic matrices with polynomial degree $1$ and variable multiplicity at most $3$ is at least as hard as the same problem for general matrices over $\mathbb{R}$.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".