Limitations of Coverability Trees for Context-Free Parallel Communicating Grammar Systems and Why these Grammar Systems are not Linear Space
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coverability trees offer a finite characterization of all the derivations of a context-free parallel grammar system (CF-PCGS). Their finite nature implies that they necessarily omit some information about these derivations. We demonstrate that the omitted information is most if not all of the time too much, and so coverability trees are not useful as an analysis tool except for their limited use already considered in the paper that introduces them (namely, determining the decidability of certain decision problems over PCGS). We establish this result by invalidating an existing proof that synchronized CF-PCGS are less expressive than context-sensitive grammars. Indeed, we discover that this proof relies on coverability trees for CF-PCGS, but that such coverability trees do not in fact contain enough information to support the proof.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it