Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Improving the matrix multiplication exponent with modern optimization and AlphaEvolve

Emilien Dupont, Marvin Eisenberger, Borislav Kozlovskii, Abbas Mehrabian, Francisco J. R. Ruiz +5 morePublished Aug 17, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few hours
Fast first run
Risk flags
1
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: Niche / domain-specific · No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.

The current best bounds on the matrix multiplication exponent $ω$ are obtained through a refinement of the laser method called combination loss analysis (Duan et al., 2022; Williams et al., 2024; Alman et al., 2025). In this note, we address the optimization problem at the core of this approach and propose several improvements. First, we reformulate the optimization problem allowing us to solve it in a larger setting than was previously possible. Second, we leverage recent advances in machine learning to design a new optimization algorithm for this problem. Finally, we refine the resulting optimization algorithm with AlphaEvolve. Our combined approach yields an upper bound of $ω$ < 2.371177, improving the previous best bound of 2.371339.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: warm
The current best bounds on the matrix multiplication exponent $ω$ are obtained through a refinement of the laser method called combination loss analysis (Duan et al., 2022; Williams et al., 2024; Alman et al., 2025).

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

This is primarily a method paper. Reproduce it within a maintained framework baseline instead of chasing paper-specific repos.

Reproduction risks
  • No maintained paper-verified implementation is currently available

Compare implementation paths

Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.

Maintenance
Active
Confidence
Low
Reproducibility
Moderate
Stars
1
Last push
Oct 29, 2026 (1d)

Matched via arXiv identifier search

  • No tagged releases
  • No Docker setup
  • Dependency manifest missing
Maintenance
Active
Confidence
Low
Reproducibility
Limited
Stars
1
Last push
Oct 6, 2026 (24d)

Matched via arXiv identifier search · Partial overlap with paper title keywords

  • No CI pipeline detected
  • No tagged releases
  • No Docker setup
Maintenance
Recently updated
Confidence
Medium
Reproducibility
Limited
Stars
0
Last push
Aug 19, 2026 (72d)

Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords

  • No CI pipeline detected
  • No tagged releases
  • No Docker setup

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: hours
Last checked: Oct 30, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Repositories and ecosystem

No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX