MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393042598 · doi:10.1145/3652025

Fast Multivariate Multipoint Evaluation over All Finite Fields

2024· article· en· W4393042598 on OpenAlexaff
Vishwas Bhargava, Sumanta Ghosh, Zeyu Guo, Mrinal Kumar, Chris Umans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the ACM · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersIndian Institute of Technology BombayDepartment of Atomic Energy, Government of India
KeywordsMultivariate statisticsComputer scienceMultivariate analysisAlgorithmMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the ACMSame topicAdvanced Numerical Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207