Dynamic Symbolic Data Structures

• Dynamic symbolic data structures are mutable, adaptable representations that support evolving algebraic systems by dynamically updating topology and content.
• They use a two-pass preprocessing strategy to convert flexible symbolic layouts into static memory indices, optimizing performance in parallel architectures.
• Panel-based elimination and block echelon techniques facilitate scalable, load-balanced Gaussian elimination for high-dimensional sparse computations.

Dynamic symbolic data structures are mutable, algorithmically adaptable representations of algebraic or combinatorial information in which both the topology and content change on demand, governed by symbolic rules rather than static numerical layouts. Notable in computational algebra and sparse linear algebra, these structures underpin large-scale polynomial system reduction (e.g., Macaulay matrices in Gröbner basis algorithms) and parallel sparse elimination. Their construction, manipulation, and optimization address challenges distinct from classical fixed-dimension numerical arrays: high-dimensional sparsity, unpredictable fill, memory-latency bottlenecks, and combinatorial reconfiguration. Recent advances leverage two-pass staticization, panel-based elimination, and symbolic-numeric interface compilation to mediate between dynamic algebraic processes and the rigid control/dataflow constraints of massively parallel and distributed-memory architectures (Gokavarapu, 11 Jan 2026, Murri, 2011).

1. Structural Principles of Dynamic Symbolic Data Structures

Dynamic symbolic data structures are designed to support algebraic algorithms where data layout, sparsity pattern, and even the set of variables (e.g., monomials in polynomial systems) evolve during computation. Unlike classical numeric storage, symbolic data structures organize not just values but symbolic labels—indexes in a global monomial dictionary, labels of rows as module elements, and arbitrary coefficient domains.

Allocation is typically driven by term discovery: new monomials, variables, or combinatorial features found on-the-fly. A dominant requirement is deduplication (stateless assembly of sparse rows obeying module or relation constraints), necessitating sorting and merging in-line with algebraic orderings. Their mutability and support for symbolic combinatorics distinguish them from traditional Compressed Sparse Row (CSR) or Structure of Arrays (SOA) formats, which presuppose static sparsity and dimension.

2. Symbolic Preprocessing and Two-Pass Compilation

Symbolic preprocessing (SP) is the phase in algebraic reduction where candidate rows/columns are discovered, monomial dictionaries built, and the structural plan for subsequent algorithmic passes is synthesized. For Gröbner basis algorithms (especially F4/F5), this involves:

• Enumerating admissible shifts $(t_i, g_{k_i})$ of basis elements
• Computing supports $|supp(t_i \cdot g_{k_i})|$ per row
• Building a monomial dictionary $T$ via radial sort and uniquification
• Constructing row pointers, keys, and value arrays through prefix sums and merge-joins

A two-pass approach—count then fill—enables conversion from fully dynamic allocation to statically indexed layouts, where all global memory offsets and indices are resolved before parallel execution. This staticization is essential for modern accelerated architectures, allowing all subsequent computation to proceed without atomic operations or dynamic memory management (Gokavarapu, 11 Jan 2026).

3. Panel-Based Parallel Elimination and Block Echelon Structures

Parallel structured Gaussian elimination (PSGE) and related algorithms exploit dynamic symbolic data structures by dividing the global elimination problem into blocks or panels that are reduced independently. In the "Rheinfall" algorithm, for instance, matrices are maintained in block echelon form: rows grouped by their first nonzero column (the $z_i$ invariant), enabling independent pivoting and local elimination within each block (Murri, 2011).

Key panel/block features include:

• Partitioning the global index set into panels (contiguous blocks or block-cyclic stripes) for load balancing and data locality
• Ensuring that within a panel/block, elimination (including pivot selection and fill control) is parallelizable and has predictable communication requirements
• Circulation of rows between blocks/panels as their leading nonzero shifts during elimination

This approach underlies both MPI-distributed architectures (with each "processing unit" responsible for a column block) and GPU-resident PSGE (with panels aligned to target dense kernels), facilitating scalable reduction and minimizing inter-panel dependencies.

4. Data Layout and Memory Optimization

Efficient realization of dynamic symbolic data structures requires careful translation of symbolic indices into layouts well-suited for high-bandwidth, parallel access. For example, in GPU settings:

• Monomial dictionaries are stored as flat sorted arrays (dict_keys), supporting coalesced access and ensuring global order
• Sparse rows use SOA or CSR formats after two-pass compilation: arrays of row_key, row_val, col_ind, row_ptr
• Per-panel/block metadata encodes panel column ranges, row-buckets, and offset lists

All nonzeros for a given row are stored contiguously, allowing each GPU thread to process its row independently. Memory coalescing is ensured by design: static plans are compiled so that all threads in a parallel kernel access contiguous memory regions, avoiding races or need for atomic updates (Gokavarapu, 11 Jan 2026). For distributed-memory CPUs, direct memory push is used for intra-rank messaging; MPI_Isend/Irecv is used for inter-rank communication between processing units (Murri, 2011).

5. Algorithmic Adaptations: Symbolic-Numeric Bridges

Dynamic symbolic structures serve as a bridge between the symbolic (algebraic, combinatorial) aspects and the numeric (coefficient arithmetic, elimination) stages of major algorithms. In F4/F5-style Gröbner basis computation, the S-polynomial reduction phase is reframed as syzygy (module relation) discovery: the kernel of a constructed Macaulay matrix corresponds to the syzygy module (Gokavarapu, 11 Jan 2026). In the "Rheinfall" method, the focus is on block-wise local elimination, with data structures tracking not only values but symbolic dependencies (e.g., first nonzero locations, row assignments per block).

The preprocessing stage (e.g., "FBSP two-pass" in (Gokavarapu, 11 Jan 2026)) compiles a symbolic execution plan Π, which is subsequently consumed by numerical kernels, insulating the dynamic aspects from the regular global access patterns demanded by accelerators or distributed-memory libraries.

6. Performance Characteristics and Complexity

Dynamic symbolic data structures induce algorithmic costs and bottlenecks distinct from those in numeric-only processing. Memory traffic at the symbolic assembly stage is bandwidth-bound, with a lower bound $\Omega(M+N)$ for $M$ nonzeros and $N$ columns (Gokavarapu, 11 Jan 2026). The complexity of symbolic preprocessing is controlled by pass counts, global radix-sort/unique passes, and merge-joins for row assembly. For elimination:

• PSGE's panel-based kernels generally achieve $O(M + fill(A))$ total memory traffic, where $fill(A)$ captures induced fill-in through panel-local dense updates
• The "Rheinfall" algorithm's computational span is dominated by the heaviest block, with $T[c] \approx O(n^c \langle nnz \rangle)$ for block $c$ and $\langle nnz \rangle$ the mean row sparsity (Murri, 2011)

Fill minimization, communication avoidance, and static plan compilation are recurrent themes for performance portability. Bottlenecks may arise from fill-induced memory pressure, late-block over-concentration, or imbalance from irregular sparsity patterns.

7. Comparative Algorithms and Trade-Offs

Dynamic symbolic data structures enable flexible selection among elimination strategies:

Strategy	Dynamic Symbolic Role	Performance Impact
Classical Gaussian Elimination	Dynamic row/column, unpredictable fill	Irregular, race-prone, poor parallel and accelerator mapping
Panel-Based PSGE	Static plans on dynamic symbolic precompilation	High GPU throughput, fill confined to panel, robust coalescing
Block Wiedemann/Lanczos	Only symbolic SpMV/SpMM, kernel vectors	Iterative, no fill-in, optimal for pure relation computation
Distributed "Rheinfall"	Row/candidate queues, block assignment, MPI messaging	Effective for exact integer/finite field, blockwise parallelism

PSGE is favorable when fill-in remains modest, direct reduced rows are essential, and kernel throughput is critical. Iterative black-box methods (Wiedemann or Lanczos) avoid fill, requiring only dynamic SpMV/SpMM data structures, and outperform PSGE for highly filled systems or purely relation-discovery goals (Gokavarapu, 11 Jan 2026). The "Rheinfall" algorithm stands out for sparse integer or finite field computation at scale, while exhibiting sensitivity to matrix structure and load-balancing granularity (Murri, 2011).

---

Dynamic symbolic data structures are central in the advancement of parallel algebraic algorithms, enabling new performance regimes for exact, large-scale, and high-dimensional computations by bridging symbolic combinatorics and accelerator or distributed hardware requirements. Their evolution is characterized by a continued interplay of symbolic preprocessing, static plan compilation, and memory-constrained parallelism.