MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407962255

State-Complexity Hierarchies of Uniform Languages of Alphabet-Size Length.

2008· article· en· W2407962255 on OpenAlexaff
Janusz Brzozowski, Stavros Konstantinidis

Bibliographic record

VenueDCFS · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlphabetRegular languageMathematicsCombinatoricsState (computer science)Class (philosophy)HierarchyDiscrete mathematicsFormal languageComplexity classSimple (philosophy)Pumping lemma for regular languagesSet (abstract data type)AutomatonTime complexityComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the state complexity of certain simple languages. If A is an alphabet of k letters, then a k-language is a nonempty set of words of length k, that is, a uniform language of length k. We show that the minimal state complexity of a k-language is k+2, and the maximal, (k^k^-^1-1)/(k-1)+2^k+1. We prove constructively that, for every i between the minimal and maximal bounds, there is a language of state complexity i. We introduce a class of automata accepting sets of words that are permutations of A; these languages define a complete hierarchy of complexities between k^2-k+3 and 2^k+1. The languages of another class of automata, based on k-ary trees, define a complete hierarchy of complexities between 2^k+1 and (k^k^-^1-1)/(k-1)+2^k+1. This provides new examples of uniform languages of maximal complexity.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.247
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDCFSSame topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207