MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Matrix Multiplication Reductions

2024· preprint· en· W4394838676 on OpenAlexaff
Ashish Gola, Igor Shinkar, Harsimran Singh

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCoding theory and cryptography
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMatrix multiplicationReduction (mathematics)Matrix (chemical analysis)MathematicsMultiplication (music)AlgorithmRandom matrixOverhead (engineering)Product (mathematics)Discrete mathematicsCombinatoricsComputer sciencePhysicsEigenvalues and eigenvectors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we study a worst case to average case reduction for the problem of matrix multiplication over finite fields. Suppose we have an efficient average case algorithm, that given two random matrices $A,B$ outputs a matrix that has a non-trivial correlation with their product $A \cdot B$. Can we transform it into a worst case algorithm, that outputs the correct answer for all inputs without incurring a significant overhead in the running time? We present two results in this direction. (1) Two-sided error in the high agreement regime: We begin with a brief remark about a reduction for high agreement algorithms, i.e., an algorithm which agrees with the correct output on a large (say $>0.9$) fraction of entries, and show that the standard self-correction of linearity allows us to transform such algorithms into algorithms that work in worst case. (2) One-sided error in the low agreement regime: Focusing on average case algorithms with one-sided error, we show that over $\mathbb{F}_2$ there is a reduction that gets an $O(T)$ time average case algorithm that given a random input $A,B$ outputs a matrix that agrees with $A \cdot B$ on at least $51\%$ of the entries (i.e., has only a slight advantage over the trivial algorithm), and transforms it into an $\widetilde{O}(T)$ time worst case algorithm, that outputs the correct answer for all inputs with high probability.

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 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicCoding theory and cryptographyFrench-language works237,207