Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fixed and improvements in is_LLL_reduced and approximate_closest_vector #38259

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Oct 26, 2024

Conversation

TheBlupper
Copy link
Contributor

@TheBlupper TheBlupper commented Jun 22, 2024

This fixes #38115. Along with the goal stated there I have fixed some stuff I wasn't happy with from the first iteration of approximate_closest_vector. These changes could be breaking but seeing as there has been no release since its introduction this shouldn't be a problem.

Changes:

  • Added the algorithm parameter to is_LLL_reduced along with the new algorithm fpLLL which uses fpylll's LLL.is_reduced method, and made it the default, as I see no advantages with the old implementation.
  • Added the algorithm parameter to approximate_closest_vector along with the new algorithms embedding and rounding_off, and made embedding the default.
  • Changed the alias of approximate_closest_vector from babai to cvp to be more accurate but still short.

I'm getting weird errors when building documentation locally but I don't think it's related to my changes, so I haven't been able to check if the doc build looks alright yet. (and it won't build on my own repo b/c my GitHub username has uppercase letters in it :)

📝 Checklist

  • The title is concise and informative.
  • The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
  • I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
  • I have created tests covering the changes.
  • I have updated the documentation and checked the documentation preview.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jun 23, 2024

Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit 605c02a; changes) is ready! 🎉
This preview will update shortly after each push to this PR.

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

mkoeppe commented Jun 23, 2024

Lint failures

@TheBlupper
Copy link
Contributor Author

The code coverage that's missing feels a bit silly, should I still create tests for them? (one of them is unreachable so idk)

Copy link
Contributor

@GiacomoPope GiacomoPope left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Small comment about comment formatting, otherwise good

@vbraun vbraun merged commit 67e6234 into sagemath:develop Oct 26, 2024
18 of 20 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Reduce usage of sage.modules.misc.gram_schmidt in lattice-related methods
4 participants