Fast Matrix Multiplication meets the Submodular Width
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One fundamental question in database theory is the following: Given a Boolean conjunctive query Q , what is the best complexity for computing the answer to Q in terms of the input database size N ? When restricted to the class of combinatorial algorithms, it is known that the best known complexity for any query Q is captured by the submodular width of Q . However, beyond combinatorial algorithms, certain queries are known to admit faster algorithms that often involve a clever combination of fast matrix multiplication and data partitioning. Nevertheless, there is no systematic way to derive and analyze the complexity of such algorithms for arbitrary queries Q . In this work, we introduce a general framework that captures the best complexity for answering any Boolean conjunctive query Q using matrix multiplication. Our framework unifies both combinatorial and non-combinatorial techniques under the umbrella of information theory. It generalizes the notion of submodular width to a new stronger notion called the ω- submodular width that naturally incorporates the power of fast matrix multiplication. We describe a matching algorithm that computes the answer to any query Q in time corresponding to the ω- submodular width of Q . We show that our framework recovers the best known complexities for Boolean queries that have been studied in the literature, to the best of our knowledge, and also discovers new algorithms for some classes of queries that improve upon the best known complexities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it