MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034751457 · doi:10.1142/s0129054107004978

THE STRUCTURE OF FACTOR ORACLES

2007· article· en· W2034751457 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 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOracleFactor (programming language)TrieSuffixSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceString (physics)Simple (philosophy)Generalized suffix treeMatching (statistics)QuotientTheoretical computer scienceData structureMathematicsSuffix treeAlgorithmCombinatoricsProgramming languageStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The factor oracle is a relatively new data structure for the set of factors of a string. It has been introduced by Allauzen, Crochemore, and Raffinot in 1999. It may recognize non-factors (hence the name "oracle") but its implementational simplicity and experimental behaviour are stunning; factor oracle based string matching has been conjectured optimal on average. However, its structure is not well understood. We take important steps in clarifying its structure by explaining how it can be obtained as a quotient of the trie of the set of factors. When seen this way, all known properties of the factor oracle become simple observations. Also, we introduce a framework where various oracles can be compared. The factor oracle is better than several natural ones obtained from the trie of the set of factors, the suffix and the factor automata, respectively.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0040.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.300 · 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