MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296297618 · doi:10.1155/2022/7049980

Computing Independent Variable Sets for Polynomial Ideals

2022· article· en· W4296297618 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

VenueJournal of Mathematics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPolynomial and algebraic computation
Canadian institutionsScience North
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
KeywordsMathematicsLexicographical orderPolynomialIdeal (ethics)Gröbner basisVariable (mathematics)ComputationField (mathematics)VariablesAlgorithmDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsPure mathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computing independent variable sets for polynomial ideals plays an important role in solving high‐dimensional polynomial equations. The computation of a Gröbner basis for an ideal, with respect to a block lexicographical order in classic methods, is huge, and then an improved algorithm is given. Based on the quasi‐Gröbner basis of the extended ideal, a criterion of assigning independent variables is gained. According to the criteria, a maximal independent variable set for a polynomial ideal can be computed by assigning indeterminates gradually. The key point of the algorithm is to reduce dimensions so that the unit of computation is one variable instead of a set, which turns a multivariate problem into a single‐variable problem and turns the computation of rational function field into that of the fundamental number field. Hence, the computation complexity is reduced. The algorithm has been analysed by an example, and the results reveal that the algorithm is correct and effective.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.250 · 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