MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2396714452 · doi:10.1142/s0129054105003327

REPRESENTATION OF SEMIAUTOMATA BY CANONICAL WORDS AND EQUIVALENCES

2005· article· en· W2396714452 on OpenAlexaff
Janusz Brzozowski, Helmut Jürgensen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrefixRewritingMathematicsCanonical formEquivalence (formal languages)State (computer science)Word (group theory)Set (abstract data type)Discrete mathematicsComputer scienceAlgorithmPure mathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study a novel representation of semiautomata, which is motivated by the method of trace-assertion specifications of software modules. Each state of the semiautomaton is represented by an arbitrary word leading to that state, the canonical word. The transitions of the semiautomaton give rise to a right congruence, the state-equivalence, on the set of input words of the semiautomaton: two words are state-equivalent if and only if they lead to the same state. We present a simple algorithm for finding a set of generators for state-equivalence. Directly from this set of generators, we construct a confluent prefix-rewriting system which permits us to transform any word to its canonical representative. In general, the rewriting system may allow infinite derivations. To address this issue, we impose the condition of prefix-continuity on the set of canonical words. A set is prefix-continuous if, whenever a word w and a prefix u of w are in the set, then all the prefixes of w longer than u are also in the set. Prefix-continuous sets include prefix-free and prefix-closed sets as special cases. We prove that the rewriting system is Noetherian if and only if the set of canonical words is prefix-continuous. Furthermore, if the set of canonical words is prefix-continuous, then the set of rewriting rules is irredundant. We show that each prefix-continuous canonical set corresponds to a spanning forest of the semiautomaton.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer ScienceSame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207