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

A FORMAL STUDY OF PRACTICAL REGULAR EXPRESSIONS

2003· article· en· W2083735143 on OpenAlexaff
Cezar Câmpeanu, Kai Salomaa, Sheng Yü

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.013
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.026
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

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

Citations98
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer ScienceSame topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207