MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011276709 · doi:10.1142/s0129054114400152

DESCRIPTIONAL COMPLEXITY IN ENCODED BLUM STATIC COMPLEXITY SPACES

2014· article· en· W2011276709 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 Foundations of Computer Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAxiomMathematicsDescriptive complexity theoryComplexity classQuantum complexity theoryDiscrete mathematicsTheoretical computer scienceComputer scienceTime complexityQuantumQuantum information

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Algorithmic Information Theory is based on the notion of descriptional complexity known as Chaitin-Kolmogorov complexity, defined in the '60s in terms of minimal description length. Blum Static Complexity spaces defined using Blum axioms, and Encoded Function spaces defined using properties of the complexity function, were introduced in 2012 to generalize the concept of descriptional complexity. In formal language theory we also use the concept of descriptional complexity for the number of states, or the number of transitions in a minimal finite automaton accepting a regular language, and apparently, this number has no connection to the general case of descriptional complexity. In this paper we prove that all the definitions of descriptional complexity, including complexity of operations, can be defined within the framework of Encoded Blum Static Complexity spaces, which extend both Blum Static Complexity spaces and Encoded Function spaces.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0050.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.331
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