MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610921159 · doi:10.14232/actacyb.23.1.2017.3

Complexity of Right-Ideal, Prefix-Closed, and Prefix-Free Regular Languages

2017· article· en· W2610921159 on OpenAlexafffund
Janusz Brzozowski, Corwin Sinnamon

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Cybernetica · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPrefixRegular languagePrefix codeConcatenation (mathematics)Ideal (ethics)MathematicsQuotientCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsAlphabetComputer scienceAutomatonAlgorithmTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A language L over an alphabet Σ is prefix-convex if, for any words x, y, z ϵ Σ* , whenever x and xyz are in L, then so is xy. Prefix-convex languages include right-ideal, prefix-closed, and prefix-free languages as special cases. We examine complexity properties of these special prefix-convex languages. In particular, we study the quotient/state complexity of boolean operations, product (concatenation), star, and reversal, the size of the syntactic semigroup, and the quotient complexity of atoms. For binary operations we use arguments with different alphabets when appropriate; this leads to higher tight upper bounds than those obtained with equal alphabets. We exhibit right-ideal, prefix-closed, and prefix-free languages that meet the complexity bounds for all the measures listed above.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa CyberneticaSame topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207