Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate deterministically simulating (i.e., solving the membership problem for) nondeterministic finite automata (NFA), relying solely on the NFA's resources (states and transitions). Unlike the standard NFA simulation, involving an algorithm which stores at each step all the states reached nondeterministically while reading the input, we consider deterministic finite automata (DFA) with lookahead, which choose the “right” NFA transitions based on a fixed number of input symbols read ahead. This concept, known as lookahead delegation, arose in a formal study of web services composition and its subsequent practical applications. Here we answer several related questions, such as “when is lookahead delegation possible?” and “how hard is it to find a delegator with a given lookahead buffer size?”. In particular, we show that only finite languages have the property that all their NFA have delegators. This implies, among others, that delegation is a machine property, rather than a language property. We also prove that the existence of lookahead delegators for unambiguous NFA is decidable, thus partially solving an open problem. Finally, we show that finding delegators (even for a given buffer size) is hard in general, and is more efficient for unambiguous NFA, and we give an algorithm and a compact characterization for NFA delegation in general.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".