MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997489826 · doi:10.4204/eptcs.31.5

On the Complexity of the Evaluation of Transient Extensions of Boolean Functions

2010· article· en· W1997489826 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsBoolean functionProduct termBoolean circuitBoolean algebraBoolean expressionAnd-inverter graphTransient (computer programming)Parity functionXOR gateCircuit minimization for Boolean functions

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transient algebra is a multi-valued algebra for hazard detection in gate circuits. Sequences of alternating 0's and 1's, called transients, represent signal values, and gates are modeled by extensions of boolean functions to transients. Formulas for computing the output transient of a gate from the input transients are known for NOT, AND, OR} and XOR gates and their complements, but, in general, even the problem of deciding whether the length of the output transient exceeds a given bound is NP-complete. We propose a method of evaluating extensions of general boolean functions. We introduce and study a class of functions with the following property: Instead of evaluating an extension of a boolean function on a given set of transients, it is possible to get the same value by using transients derived from the given ones, but having length at most 3. We prove that all functions of three variables, as well as certain other functions, have this property, and can be efficiently evaluated.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.016
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer ScienceSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207