MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082796216 · doi:10.1142/s0129054108006169

STATE COMPLEXITY OF THE SUBWORD CLOSURE OPERATION WITH APPLICATIONS TO DNA CODING

2008· article· en· W2082796216 on OpenAlexaff
Cezar Câmpeanu, Stavros Konstantinidis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Biological Computing
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClosure (psychology)Constraint (computer-aided design)Upper and lower boundsState (computer science)Coding (social sciences)Regular languageComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Theoretical computer scienceMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithmAutomatonProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are interested in the state complexity of languages that are defined via the subword closure operation. The subword closure of a set S of fixed-length words is the set of all words w for which any subword of w of the fixed length is in S. This type of constraint appears to be useful in various situations related to data encodings and in particular to DNA encodings. We present a few results related to this concept. In particular we give a general upper bound on the state complexity of a subword closed language and show that this bound is tight infinitely often. We also discuss the state complexity of DNA computing related cases of the subword closure operation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
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 head0.307
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer ScienceSame topicDNA and Biological ComputingFrench-language works237,207