MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616617106 · doi:10.1142/s0129054117500137

Worst Case Branching and Other Measures of Nondeterminism

2017· article· en· W2616617106 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandros Palioudakis, Kai Salomaa, Selim G. Akl

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNondeterministic algorithmTRACE (psycholinguistics)MathematicsComputationUpper and lower boundsNondeterministic finite automatonTree (set theory)Bounded functionDiscrete mathematicsBranching (polymer chemistry)AutomatonCombinatoricsComputer scienceAlgorithmAutomata theoryTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many nondeterminism measures for finite automata have been studied in the literature. The tree width of an NFA (nondeterministic finite automaton) counts the number of leaves of computation trees as a function of input length. The trace of an NFA is defined in terms of the largest product of the degrees of nondeterministic choices in computations on inputs of given length. Branching is the corresponding best case measure based on the product of nondeterministic choices in the computation that minimizes this value. We establish upper and lower bounds for the trace of an NFA in terms of its tree width. We give a tight bound for the size blow-up of determinizing an NFA with finite trace. Also we show that the trace of any NFA either is bounded by a constant or grows exponentially.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.013
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer ScienceSame topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207