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 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.019
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