MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149893488 · doi:10.26493/1855-3974.46.b2f

Deciding the deterministic property for soliton graphs

2009· article· en· W2149893488 on OpenAlexaff
Miklós Bartha, Miklós Krész

Bibliographic record

VenueArs Mathematica Contemporanea · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersDeutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
KeywordsMathematicsAutomatonDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsMatching (statistics)Deterministic automatonAlgorithmFinite-state machineTheoretical computer scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soliton automata are a graph theoretic model for electronic switching at the molecular level. In the design of soliton circuits, the deterministic property of the corresponding automata is of primary importance. The underlying graphs of such automata, called deterministic soliton graphs, are characterized in terms of graphs not having even-length cycles and graphs having a unique perfect matching. On the basis of this characterization, a modification of the currently most efficient unique perfect matching algorithm is worked out to decide in O ( m log 4 n ) time if a graph with n vertices and m edges defines a deterministic soliton automaton. A yet more efficient O ( m ) algorithm is given for the special case of chestnut and elementary soliton graphs. All of these algorithms are capable of constructing a state for the corresponding soliton automaton, and the general algorithm can also be used to simplify the automaton to an isomorphic elementary one.

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)0.022
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArs Mathematica ContemporaneaSame topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207