REPRESENTATION OF SEMIAUTOMATA BY CANONICAL WORDS AND EQUIVALENCES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".