MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146441371 · doi:10.1142/s0129054114400103

NONDETERMINISTIC STATE COMPLEXITY OF PROPORTIONAL REMOVALS

2014· article· en· W2146441371 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Goč, Alexandros Palioudakis, Kai Salomaa

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNondeterministic algorithmMonomialMathematicsCombinatoricsUpper and lower boundsTime complexityPolynomialState (computer science)PSPACEMatching (statistics)Discrete mathematicsConstant (computer programming)Regular languageNPComputational complexity theoryAutomatonComputer scienceAlgorithmTuring machineTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The language [Formula: see text] consists of first halfs of strings in L. Many other variants of a proportional removal operation have been considered in the literature and a characterization of removal operations that preserve regularity is known. We consider the nondeterministic state complexity of the operation [Formula: see text] and, more generally, of polynomial removals as defined by Domaratzki (J. Automata, Languages and Combinatorics 7(4), 2002). We give an O(n2) upper bound for the nondeterministic state complexity of polynomial removals and a matching lower bound in cases where the polynomial is a sum of a monomial and a constant, or when the polynomial has rational roots.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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