Vectorized and Parallel Computation of Large Smooth-Degree Isogenies using Precedence-Constrained Scheduling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strategies and their evaluations play important roles in speeding up the computation of large smooth-degree isogenies. The concept of optimal strategies for such computation was introduced by De Feo et al., and virtually all implementations of isogeny-based protocols have adopted this approach, which is provably optimal for single-core platforms. In spite of its inherent sequential nature, several recent works have studied ways of speeding up this isogeny computation by exploiting the rich parallelism available in vectorized and multi-core platforms. One obstacle to taking full advantage of this parallelism, however, is that De Feo et al.’s strategies are not necessarily optimal in multi-core environments. To illustrate how the speed of vectorized and parallel isogeny computation can be improved at the strategylevel, we present two novel software implementations that utilize a state-of-the-art evaluation technique, called precedence-constrained scheduling (PCS), presented by Phalakarn et al., with our proposed strategies crafted for these environments. Our first implementation relies only on the parallelism provided by multi-core processors. The second implementation targets multi-core processors supporting the latest generation of the Intel’s Advanced Vector eXtensions (AVX) technology, commonly known as AVX-512IFMA instructions. To better handle the computational concurrency associated with PCS, we equip both implementations with extensive synchronization techniques. Our first implementation outperforms the implementation of Cervantes-Vázquez et al. by yielding up to 14.36% reduction in the execution time, when targeting platforms with two- to four-core processors. Our second implementation, equipped with four cores, achieves up to 34.05% reduction in the execution time compared to the single-core implementation of Cheng et al. of CHES 2022.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".