UPDATE: I ended up not using Eigen and implementing my own GF(2) matrix representation where each row is an array of integers, and each bit of the integer represents a single entry. I then use a modified Gaussian Elimination with bit operations to obtain the desired vectors
I currently have a (large) rectangular sparse matrix that I'm storing using Eigen3 that I want to find the (right) null space over GF(2). I researched around and found some possible approaches to this:
This means simply using some form of Gaussian Elimination to find a reduced form of the matrix that preserves the nullspace then extract the nullspace off of that. Though I know how I would do this by hand, I'm quite clueless as to how I would actually implement this.
I'm not familiar with these, but I from my understanding the (orthonormal) basis vectors of the nullspace can be extracted from the decomposed form of the matrix.
Now my question is: Which approach should I use in my case (i.e. rectangular sparse matrix over GF(2)) that doesn't involve converting into a dense matrix? And if there are many approaches, what would recommended in terms of performance and ease of implementation?
I'm also open to using other libraries besides Eigen as well.
For context, I'm trying to find combine equivalence relations for factoring algorithms (e.g. as in Quadratic Sieve). Also, if possible, I would like to look into parallelising these algorithms in the future, so if there exists an approach that would allow this, that would be great!
Let's call the matrix in question M. Then (please correct me if I'm wrong):
GF(2) implies that M is a equivalent to a matrix of bits - each element can have one of two values.
Arithmetic on GF(2) is just like integer arithmetic on non-negative numbers, but done modulo 2, so addition is a bitwise XOR, and multiplication is a bitwise AND. It won't matter what exact elements the GF(2) has - they are all equivalent to bits.
Vectors in GF(2) are linearly independent as long as they are not equal, or as long as they differ by at least on bit, or v_1 + v_2 ≠ 0 (since addition in GF(2) is boolean XOR).
By definition, the (right) nullspace spans basis vectors that the matrix transforms to 0. A vector v would be in the nullspace if one multiplies each j-th column of M with the j-th bit of v, sum them, and the result is zero.
I see at least two ways of going about it.
Do dense Gaussian elimination in terms of bit operations, and organize the data and write the loops so that the compiler vectorizes everything and operates on 512-bit data types. You could use Compiler Explorer on godbolt.org to easily check that the vectorization takes place and e.g. AVX512 instructions are used. Linear gains will eventually lose out with the squared scaling of the problem, of course, but the performance increase over naive bool-based implementation will be massive and may be sufficient for your needs. The sparsity adds a possible complication: if the matrix won't comfortably fit in memory in a dense representation, then a suitable representation has to be devised that makes Gaussian elimination perform well. More is need to be known about the matrices you work on. Generally speaking, row operations will be performed at memory bandwidth if the implementation is correct, on the order of 1E10 elements/s, so a 1E3x1E3 M should process in about a second at most.
Since the problem is equivalent to a set of boolean equations, use a SAT solver (Boolean satisfiability problem solver) to incrementally generate the nullspace. The initial equation set is M × v = 0 and v ≠ 0, where v is a bit vector. Run the SAT until it finds some v, let's call it v_i. Then add a constraint v ≠ v_i, and run SAT again - adding the constraints in each iteration. That is, k-th iteration has constraints v ≠ 0, v ≠ v1, ... v ≠ v(k-1).
Since all bit vectors that are different are also linearly independent, the inequality constraints will force incremental generation of nullspace basis vectors.
Modern SAT excels at sparse problems with more boolean equations than variables, so I imagine this would work very well - the sparser the matrix, the better. The problem should be pre-processed to remove all zero columns in M to minimize the combinatorial explosion. Open source SAT solvers can easily deal with 1M variable problems - so, for a sparse problem, you could be realistically solving with 100k-1M columns in M, and about 10 "ones" in each row. So a 1Mx1M sparse matrix with 10 "ones" in each row on average would be a reasonable task for common SAT solvers, and I imagine that state of the art could deal with 10Mx10M matrices and beyond.
Furthermore, your application is ideal for incremental solvers: you find one solution, stop, add a constraint, resume, and so on. So I imagine you may get very good results, and there are several good open source solvers to choose from.
Since you use Eigen already, the problem would at least fit into the SparseMatrix representation with byte-sized elements, so it's not a very big problem as far as SAT is concerned.
I wonder whether this nullspace basis finding is a case of a cover problem, possibly relaxed. There are some nice algorithms for those, but it's always a question of whether the specialized algorithm will work better than just throwing SAT at it and waiting it out, so to speak.