MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7110111634 · doi:10.4230/lipics.socg.2025.52

Uniform Bounds on Product Sylvester-Gallai Configurations

2025· article· en· W7110111634 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)Bounded functionExtension (predicate logic)Algebraically closed fieldDegree (music)HomogeneousScalar (mathematics)Polynomial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we explore a non-linear extension of the classical Sylvester-Gallai configuration. Let 𝕂 be an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero, and let ℱ = {F_1, …, F_m} ⊂ 𝕂[x_1, …, x_N] denote a collection of irreducible homogeneous polynomials of degree at most d, where each F_i is not a scalar multiple of any other F_j for i ≠ j. We define ℱ to be a product Sylvester-Gallai configuration if, for any two distinct polynomials F_i, F_j ∈ ℱ, the following condition is satisfied: ∏_{k≠i, j} F_k ∈ rad (F_i, F_j) . We prove that product Sylvester-Gallai configurations are inherently low dimensional. Specifically, we show that there exists a function λ : ℕ → ℕ, independent of 𝕂, N, and m, such that any product Sylvester-Gallai configuration must satisfy: dim(span_𝕂(ℱ)) ≤ λ(d). This result generalizes the main theorems from (Shpilka 2019, Peleg and Shpilka 2020, Oliveira and Sengupta 2023), and gets us one step closer to a full derandomization of the polynomial identity testing problem for the class of depth 4 circuits with bounded top and bottom fan-in.

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)0.018
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.012
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207