MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403577738 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.12251

NP-hardness of testing equivalence to sparse polynomials and to constant-support polynomials

2024· preprint· en· W4403577738 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Engineering Research BoardNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
KeywordsEquivalence (formal languages)Constant (computer programming)Orthogonal polynomialsMathematicsClassical orthogonal polynomialsPure mathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An $s$-sparse polynomial has at most $s$ monomials with nonzero coefficients. The Equivalence Testing problem for sparse polynomials (ETsparse) asks to decide if a given polynomial $f$ is equivalent to (i.e., in the orbit of) some $s$-sparse polynomial. In other words, given $f \in \mathbb{F}[\mathbf{x}]$ and $s \in \mathbb{N}$, ETsparse asks to check if there exist $A \in \mathrm{GL}(|\mathbf{x}|, \mathbb{F})$ and $\mathbf{b} \in \mathbb{F}^{|\mathbf{x}|}$ such that $f(A\mathbf{x} + \mathbf{b})$ is $s$-sparse. We show that ETsparse is NP-hard over any field $\mathbb{F}$, if $f$ is given in the sparse representation, i.e., as a list of nonzero coefficients and exponent vectors. This answers a question posed in [Gupta-Saha-Thankey, SODA'23] and [Baraskar-Dewan-Saha, STACS'24]. The result implies that the Minimum Circuit Size Problem (MCSP) is NP-hard for a dense subclass of depth-$3$ arithmetic circuits if the input is given in sparse representation. We also show that approximating the smallest $s_0$ such that a given $s$-sparse polynomial $f$ is in the orbit of some $s_0$-sparse polynomial to within a factor of $s^{\frac{1}{3} - ε}$ is NP-hard for any $ε> 0$; observe that $s$-factor approximation is trivial as the input is $s$-sparse. Finally, we show that for any constant $σ\geq 5$, checking if a polynomial (given in sparse representation) is in the orbit of some support-$σ$ polynomial is NP-hard. Support of a polynomial $f$ is the maximum number of variables present in any monomial of $f$. These results are obtained via direct reductions from the $3$-SAT problem.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.006
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.134 · 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