MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590512199 · doi:10.1142/s0129054116500386

Decision Algorithms for Fibonacci-Automatic Words, III: Enumeration and Abelian Properties

2016· article· en· W2590512199 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibonacci numberEnumerationAbelian groupRepresentation (politics)MathematicsWord (group theory)CombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsClass (philosophy)State (computer science)Function (biology)AlgorithmComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We continue our study of the class of Fibonacci-automatic words. These are infinite words whose nth term is defined in terms of a finite-state function of the Fibonacci representation of n. In this paper, we show how enumeration questions (such as counting the number of squares of length n in the Fibonacci word) can be decided purely mechanically, using a decision procedure. We reprove some known results, in a unified way, using our technique, and we prove some new results. We also examine abelian properties of these words. As a consequence of our results on abelian properties, we get the result that every nontrivial morphic image of the Fibonacci word is Fibonacci-automatic.

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 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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.271 · 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