[HN Gopher] Elliptic curve 'murmurations' found with AI
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Elliptic curve 'murmurations' found with AI
        
       Author : Brajeshwar
       Score  : 92 points
       Date   : 2024-03-05 15:27 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org)
        
       | factormeta wrote:
       | Seems coincide with this that was on HN:
       | http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html
        
         | galkk wrote:
         | I love story in spite of the article above.
         | 
         | Speech synthesis also was attempted as modeling of human
         | biology: computer modeling of throats, vocal cords, how the air
         | is going through mouth.
         | 
         | In the end computational power also won. No need of all of
         | that.
        
           | acer4666 wrote:
           | The article is talking about deep learning winning, ie neural
           | networks. Surely modelling of human biology is part of that?
        
             | nomel wrote:
             | Maybe emergent, to some extent, but not explicit.
        
           | nomel wrote:
           | And then there's the Voder (1939):
           | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsdOej_nC1M
        
         | bbor wrote:
         | > The biggest lesson that can be read from 70 years of AI
         | research is that general methods that leverage computation are
         | ultimately the most effective, and by a large margin.
         | 
         | It's nice when an author includes a sentence up top that
         | betrays their standpoint so that I can stop reading. I'm sure
         | this person is very nice and has lots of stuff to say, but this
         | is the same old Scruffy v. Neat fight, except now the former
         | side thinks that they're empirically completely right. Which
         | doesn't even make sense, they're not mutually exclusive claims,
         | and to say that the result of 70 years of expert systems is any
         | kind of failure is just revisionist.
         | 
         | For the same reason, I don't read many papers about Realism vs
         | Idealism, Nature vs Nurture, etc
        
       | couchand wrote:
       | This is a great story that highlights how human beings working
       | together can reveal new insights. I love how the author covers
       | each individual's contribution to the discovery.
       | 
       | It's also interesting to see how critical the human element of
       | this story is, and how incidental the "AI" piece is. A computer
       | system employed statistics to exploit (but not comprehend) a
       | pattern in a high-dimensional dataset. This led researchers to
       | examine the relevant dimensions using traditional data
       | visualization tools.
       | 
       | Once the nature of the pattern was characterized, other
       | mathematicians were able to use their insight to find deep
       | connections to other areas. These interconnections are now
       | blossoming.
        
         | bbor wrote:
         | The title is obviously clickbait, but the idea a good one I
         | hope some of the scientists here take away from this: "using
         | AI" is about identifying things it can do that you could never
         | hope to, usually for reasons of scale or complexity. LLM-based
         | systems will revolutionize the day-to-day of science IMO, but
         | that doesn't mean that they're replacing human reasoning
         | faculties.
        
       | robertk wrote:
       | Very cool result but the title is overselling the "AI"
       | contribution. It seems like they trained a few standard binary
       | classifiers (Naive Bayes, decision trees, kNN). The novelty is
       | the independent variable coming from an attribute precomputed for
       | many known elliptic curves in the LMFDB database, namely the
       | Dirichlet coefficients of the associated L-function; and the
       | dependent variable being whether or not the elliptic curve has
       | complex multiplication (CM), an important theoretical property
       | for which lots of flashy theorems begin with assuming whether or
       | not the curve has CM. They go on to train another binary
       | classifier (and a separate size k classifier) to determine a
       | curve's Sato-Tate identity component using the Euler coefficients
       | and group-theoretic information about the Sato-Tate group
       | (constructed by randomly sampling elements and representing the
       | two non-trivial coefficients of their characteristic polynomials
       | as independent variables in the classifier). They also run a PCA:
       | https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.01213.pdf
       | 
       | The cool part is that they then stepped back and scratched their
       | heads wondering why the classifier was so good at achieving
       | separation for these dependent variables in the first place, and
       | plotting the points showed them to be (non-linearly) separable
       | due to a visually clear pattern! The punchline and the reason
       | it's so important to understand these data points, the Euler
       | coefficients for elliptic curves, is because they contain all the
       | relevant number-theoretic information about the curve. With some
       | major handwaving, understanding them perfectly would lead to
       | things like the Langlands program (and some analogues of the
       | Riemann hypothesis) getting resolved. These wide reaching
       | conjectures are ultimately structural assertions about
       | L-functions, and L-functions are uniquely specified by their
       | Euler coefficients (the a_p term in their Euler factors). Will
       | murmurations help with that? Who knows, but the more patterns the
       | better for forming precise conjectures.
       | 
       | Relevant intersectional credentials: I have lead ML engineering
       | teams in industry and also did my doctorate work in this area of
       | math, including using the LMFDB database referenced in the
       | article for my research (which was much smaller back then and has
       | grown a lot, so very neat to see it's still a force for empirical
       | findings!).
        
         | frakt0x90 wrote:
         | This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately.
         | Especially in combinatorics and number theory, there are
         | databases like oeis, LMFDB, etc that contain tons of data with
         | the ability to generate more algorithmically (sometimes easier
         | said than done). Using ML to get heuristics and really good
         | guesses on where the next opportunities lie and then
         | formalizing it once you have a good guess would be SO cool.
         | 
         | Is there a name for that? Or groups working on that stuff that
         | I could follow?
         | 
         | My own little pet project was I scraped OEIS and built a graph
         | of sequences where 2 were connected if one mentioned the other
         | in its related sequences section. You got these huge clusters
         | around prime powers and other important sequences. Then I
         | thought maybe you could use a GNN to do link prediction
         | providing an estimation of a relationship that should exist but
         | hasn't been discovered yet.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-03-05 23:00 UTC)