FORMAL DESCRIPTIONS OF CODE PROPERTIES: DECIDABILITY, COMPLEXITY, IMPLEMENTATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The branch of coding theory that is based on formal languages has produced several methods for defining code properties, including word relations, dependence systems, implicational conditions, trajectories, and language inequations. Of those, the latter three can be viewed as formal methods in the sense that a certain formal expression can be used to denote a code property. Here we present a formal method which is based on transducers. Each transducer of a certain type defines/describes a desired code property. The method provides simple and uniform decision procedures for the basic questions of property satisfaction and maximality for regular languages. Our work includes statements about the hardness of deciding some of the problems involved. It turns out that maximality can be hard to decide even for "classical" code properties of finite languages. We also present an initial implementation of a LAnguage SERver capable of deciding the satisfaction problem for a given transducer code property and regular language.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".