On the Shannon Covers of Certain Irreducible Constrained Systems of Finite Type
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A construction of Crocheniore, Mignosi and Restivo in the automata theory literature gives a presentation of a finite-type constrained system (FTCS) that is deterministic and has a relatively small number of states. This construction is thus a good starting point for determining the minimal deterministic presentation, known as the Shannon cover, of an FTCS. We analyze in detail the Crochemore-Mignosi-Restivo (CMR) construction in the case when the list of forbidden words defining the FTCS is of size at most two. We show that if the FTCS is irreducible, then an irreducible presentation for the system can be easily obtained from the CMR presentation. By studying the follower sets of the states in this irreducible presentation, we are able to explicitly determine the Shannon cover in some cases. In particular, our results show that the CMR construction directly yields the Shannon cover in the case of an irreducible FTCS with exactly one forbidden word, but this is not in general the case for FTCS's with two forbidden words
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".