MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083735143 · doi:10.1142/s012905410300214x

A FORMAL STUDY OF PRACTICAL REGULAR EXPRESSIONS

2003· article· en· W2083735143 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 · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityQueen's UniversityUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegular expressionRegular languageComputer sciencePumping lemma for regular languagesContext-free languageContext (archaeology)Theoretical computer scienceProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceAutomatonBiologyRule-based machine translationProgramming paradigmFifth-generation programming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regular expressions are used in many practical applications. Practical regular expressions are commonly called "regex". It is known that regex are different from regular expressions. In this paper, we give regex a formal treatment. We make a distinction between regex and extended regex; while regex represent regular languages, extended regex represent a family of languages larger than regular languages. We prove a pumping lemma for the languages expressed by extended regex. We show that the languages represented by extended regex are incomparable with context-free languages and a proper subset of context-sensitive languages. Other properties of the languages represented by extended regex are also studied.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.316 · 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