MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993598446 · doi:10.1142/s0129054102000960

AN EFFICIENT ALGORITHM FOR CONSTRUCTING MINIMAL COVER AUTOMATA FOR FINITE LANGUAGES

2002· article· en· W1993598446 on OpenAlexafffund
Cezar Câmpeanu, Andrei Păun, Sheng Yü

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCover (algebra)Nondeterministic finite automatonDFA minimizationDeterministic finite automatonQuantum finite automataNested wordRegular languageFinite-state machineAutomatonDeterministic automatonω-automatonComputer scienceTime complexityAlgorithmFormal languageTimed automatonMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceAutomata theoryTwo-way deterministic finite automaton

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of cover automata for finite languages was formally introduced in [3]. Cover automata have been studied as an efficient representation of finite languages. In [3], an algorithm was given to transform a DFA that accepts a finite language to a minimal deterministic finite cover automaton (DFCA) with the time complexity O(n4), where n is the number of states of the given DFA. In this paper, we review the basic concept of cover automata and describe a new efficient transformation algorithm with the time complexity O(n2), which is a significant improvement from the previous algorithm.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer ScienceSame topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207