Fast Multivariate Multipoint Evaluation over All Finite Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multivariate multipoint evaluation is the problem of evaluating a multivariate polynomial, given as a coefficient vector, simultaneously at multiple evaluation points. In this work, we show that there exists a deterministic algorithm for multivariate multipoint evaluation over any finite field \(\mathbb {F}\) that outputs the evaluations of an m -variate polynomial of degree less than d in each variable at N points in time, \(\begin{equation*} (d^m+N)^{1+o(1)}\cdot {{\sf poly}}(m,d,\log |\mathbb {F}|), \end{equation*}\) for all \(m\in \mathbb {N}\) and all sufficiently large \(d\in \mathbb {N}\) . A previous work of Kedlaya and Umans (FOCS 2008 and SICOMP 2011) achieved the same time complexity when the number of variables m is at most \(d^{o(1)}\) and had left the problem of removing this condition as an open problem. A recent work of Bhargava, Ghosh, Kumar, and Mohapatra (STOC 2022) answered this question when the underlying field is not too large and has characteristic less than \(d^{o(1)}\) . In this work, we remove this constraint on the number of variables over all finite fields, thereby answering the question of Kedlaya and Umans over all finite fields. Our algorithm relies on a non-trivial combination of ideas from three seemingly different previously known algorithms for multivariate multipoint evaluation, namely the algorithms of Kedlaya and Umans, that of Björklund, Kaski, and Williams (IPEC 2017 and Algorithmica 2019), and that of Bhargava, Ghosh, Kumar, and Mohapatra, together with a result of Bombieri and Vinogradov from analytic number theory about the distribution of primes in an arithmetic progression. We also present a second algorithm for multivariate multipoint evaluation that is completely elementary and, in particular, avoids the use of the Bombieri–Vinogradov theorem. However, it requires a mild assumption that the field size is bounded by an exponential tower in d of bounded height . More specifically, our second algorithm solves the multivariate multipoint evaluation problem over a finite field \(\mathbb {F}\) in time, \(\begin{equation*} (d^m+N)^{1+o(1)}\cdot {{\sf poly}}(m,d,\log |\mathbb {F}|), \end{equation*}\) for all \(m\in \mathbb {N}\) and all sufficiently large \(d\in \mathbb {N}\) , provided that the size of the finite field \(\mathbb {F}\) is at most \((\exp (\exp (\exp (\cdots (\exp (d)))))\) , where the height of this tower of exponentials is fixed.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".