MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992893569 · doi:10.1080/00207160.2012.681305

Composition and orbits of language operations: finiteness and upper bounds

2012· article· en· W1992893569 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computer Mathematics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClosure (psychology)MathematicsComplement (music)SuffixPrefixEquivalence (formal languages)Regular languageNatural numberBounded functionDiscrete mathematicsSet (abstract data type)MonoidEquivalence relationCombinatoricsComputer scienceLinguisticsAutomaton

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a set of eight natural operations on formal languages (Kleene closure, positive closure, complement, prefix, suffix, factor, subword, and reversal), and compositions of them. If x and y are compositions, we say x is equivalent to y if they have the same effect on all languages L. We prove that the number of equivalence classes of these eight operations is finite. This implies that the orbit of any language L under the elements of the monoid is finite and bounded, independent of L. This generalizes previous results about complement, Kleene closure, and positive closure. We also estimate the number of distinct languages generated by various subsets of these operations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it