Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that the resulting language obtained by inserting a regular language to a regular language is regular. We study the nondeterministic and deterministic state complexity of the insertion operation. Given two incomplete DFAs of sizes m and n, we give an upper bound <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline" overflow="scroll" altimg="eq-00001.gif"><mml:mrow><mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>2</mml:mn><mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo><mml:mo>·</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>2</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>−</mml:mo><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo>−</mml:mo><mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>·</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>3</mml:mn><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math> and find a lower bound for an asymp-totically tight bound. We also present the tight nondeterministic state complexity by a fooling set technique. The deterministic state complexity of insertion is <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline" overflow="scroll" altimg="eq-00002.gif"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mn>2</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Θ</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math> and the nondeterministic state complexity of insertion is precisely <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline" overflow="scroll" altimg="eq-00003.gif"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>2</mml:mn><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math>, where m and n are the size of input finite automata. We also consider the state complexity of insertion in the case where the inserted language is bifix-free or non-returning.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".