MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Simplified Reduction for Error Correcting Matrix Multiplication Algorithms

2025· article· en· W7081624911 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMatrix multiplicationMatrix (chemical analysis)Reduction (mathematics)Fraction (chemistry)Simple (philosophy)DFT matrixPrime (order theory)Product (mathematics)Multiplication (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the problem of transforming an algorithm for matrix multiplication, whose output has a small fraction of the entries correct into a matrix multiplication algorithm, whose output is fully correct for all inputs. In this work, we provide a new and simple way to transform an average-case algorithm that takes two matrices A,B ∈ 𝔽_p^{n×n} for a prime p, and outputs a matrix that agrees with the matrix product AB on a 1/p + ε fraction of entries on average for a small ε > 0, into a worst-case algorithm that correctly computes the matrix product for all possible inputs. Our reduction employs list-decodable codes to transform an average-case algorithm into an algorithm with one-sided error, which are known to admit efficient reductions from the work of Gola, Shinkar, and Singh [Gola et al., 2024]. Our reduction is more concise and straightforward compared to the recent work of Hirahara and Shimizu [Hirahara and Shimizu, 2025], and improves the overhead in the running time incurred during the reduction.

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)0.014
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207