MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163125260 · doi:10.1142/s0129054113400339

UNAMBIGUOUS CONSTRAINED AUTOMATA

2013· article· en· W2163125260 on OpenAlexaff
Michaël Cadilhac, Alain Finkel, Pierre McKenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecidabilityClass (philosophy)AutomatonClosure (psychology)Set (abstract data type)Bounded functionDiscrete mathematicsMathematicsTree automatonComputer scienceCombinatoricsTheoretical computer scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The class of languages captured by Constrained Automata (CA) that are unambiguous is shown to possess more closure properties than the provably weaker class captured by deterministic CA. Problems decidable for deterministic CA are nonetheless shown to remain decidable for unambiguous CA, and testing for regularity is added to this set of decidable problems. Unambiguous CA are then shown incomparable with deterministic reversal-bounded machines in terms of expressivity, and a deterministic model equivalent to unambiguous CA is identified.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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