[lf88]

By googling "4x4 matrices multiplication 48" I ended up on this discussion on math.stackexchange https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/578342/number-of-el... , where in 2019 someone stated "It is possible to multiply two 4×4 matrix A,B with only 48 multiplications.", with a link to a PhD thesis. This might mean that the result was already known (I still have to check the outline of the algorithm).

[alexnovikov]

One of the authors here. We are aware of the Winograd scheme, but note that it only works over commutative rings, which means that it's not applicable recursively to larger matrices (and doesn't correspond to a rank 48 factorization of the <4,4,4> matrix multiplication tensor). The MathOverflow answer had a mistake corrected in the comments by Benoit Jacob.

More details: the Winograd scheme computes (x1+ y2 )(x2+ y1 ) + (x3+y4)(x4+y3)-Ai-Bj, and relies on y2y1 (that comes from expanding the first brackets) cancelling with y1y2 in Bj=y1y2 + y3y4. This is fine when working with numbers, but if you want to apply the algorithm recursively to large matrices, on the highest level of recursion you're going to work with 4x4 block matrices (where each block is a big matrix itself), and for matrices Y2Y1 != Y1Y2 (for general matrices).

Here is a website that tracks fastest (recursively applicable) matrix multiplication algorithms for different matrix sizes, and it stands at 49: https://fmm.univ-lille.fr/4x4x4.html

UPD: s/fields/rings/ and fixed equation rendering

[robinhouston]

From some conversations on Twitter, it seems plausible that the rank-48 decomposition of the 4×4 matrix multiplication tensor really is new; and that perhaps where things have gone awry is attempting to summarise this result in a more lay-friendly manner: the algorithm in that post apparently doesn't constitute or imply a rank-48 tensor decomposition.

On the other side, it's claimed here that an algorithm that uses only 46 multiplications has been known since 1970: https://mathstodon.xyz/@fredrikj/114508287537669113

[looofooo0]

Ironically their AI can cite the relevant paper with 46 steps if asked: https://gemini.google.com/share/b0d5d6a76c87

[wbhart]

As already noted in a post by fdej further down, Waksman's algorithm from 1970, which works over the complex numbers, requires only 46 multiplications (and I guess, divisions by 2, which may or may not be relevant depending on your actual ring).

[nemonemo]

The answer says "For rings in which division by 2 is permitted". Is there the same constraint for AlphaEvolve's algorithm?

Edit2: Z_2 has characteristics 2.

Edit: AlphaEvolve claims it works over any field with characteristic 0. It appears Waksman's could be an existing work. From the AlphaEvolve paper: "For 56 years, designing an algorithm with fewer than 49 multiplications over any field with characteristic 0 was an open problem. AlphaEvolve is the first method to find an algorithm to multiply two 4 × 4 complex-valued matrices using 48 multiplications."

[fdej]

If you don't want to allow division by 2 then there is Winograd's algorithm from 1967 which works over any commutative ring and uses 48 multiplications for 4 x 4.

[wbhart]

Z_2 has characteristic 2, not 0.

[nemonemo]

Thank you. Updated my comment again.

[mik09]

So, did LLM (namely Gemini-Flash) helepd with the combinatorial optimization process? I'm sure not all of their discoveries (one on kissing numbers, etc.) have previous solutions in some other form, but yeah these findings looks more like very large combinatorial optimization tasks.