MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520022270 · doi:10.37236/6450

Lower Bounds on Words Separation: Are There Short Identities in Transformation Semigroups?

2017· article· en· W2520022270 on OpenAlexafffund
Andreĭ A. Bulatov, Olga M. Karpova, Arseny M. Shur, Konstantin Startsev

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electronic Journal of Combinatorics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsUnary operationMathematicsCombinatoricsIdentity (music)Multiplicative functionUpper and lower boundsInverseIdentity functionFunction (biology)Discrete mathematicsConstant (computer programming)Mathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The words separation problem, originally formulated by Goralcik and Koubek (1986), is stated as follows. Let $Sep(n)$ be the minimum number such that for any two words of length $\le n$ there is a deterministic finite automaton with $Sep(n)$ states, accepting exactly one of them. The problem is to find the asymptotics of the function $Sep$. This problem is inverse to finding the asymptotics of the length of the shortest identity in full transformation semigroups $T_k$. The known lower bound on $Sep$ stems from the unary identity in $T_k$. We find the first series of identities in $T_k$ which are shorter than the corresponding unary identity for infinitely many values of $k$, and thus slightly improve the lower bound on $Sep(n)$. Then we present some short positive identities in symmetric groups, improving the lower bound on separating words by permutational automata by a multiplicative constant. Finally, we present the results of computer search for short identities for small $k$.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Electronic Journal of CombinatoricsSame topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207