MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091011159 · doi:10.1080/0020716031000148205

Language equations for timed alternating finite automata

2003· article· en· W2091011159 on OpenAlexaff
Abdelaziz Fellah, Carma Harding

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computer Mathematics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputationComputer scienceAutomatonFinite-state machineTimed automatonDeterministic automatonω-automatonSet (abstract data type)Quantum finite automataAsynchronous communicationTheoretical computer scienceAutomata theoryAlgorithmAlgebra over a fieldMathematicsProgramming languagePure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditionally, finite state automata are untimed or asynchronous models of computation in which only the ordering of events, not the time at which events occur, would affect the result of a computation. For real-time systems, it is important to augment these models of computation with a notion of time. For this purpose timed automata have become a powerful canonical model for describing timed behaviors and an effective tool for modeling real-time computations. In this paper, we extend the notion of timed alternating finite automata (TAFA), a class of alternating finite automata (AFA) extended with a finite set of real-valued clocks, and we present an algebraic interpretation of TAFA which parallels that of timed regular expressions and language equations. We further extend the equational representation of AFA to describe timed alternating finite automata, and explore solutions for such equations over time languages.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computer MathematicsSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207