MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786516640 · doi:10.1142/s0129054113400133

IN SEARCH OF MOST COMPLEX REGULAR LANGUAGES

2013· article· en· W2786516640 on OpenAlexaff
Janusz Brzozowski

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsRegular languageCombinatoricsConcatenation (mathematics)State (computer science)QuotientAlphabetPermutation (music)Discrete mathematicsInteger (computer science)Binary logarithmAutomatonAlgorithmComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sequences (L n | n ≥ k), called streams, of regular languages L n are considered, where k is some small positive integer, n is the state complexity of L n , and the languages in a stream differ only in the parameter n, but otherwise, have the same properties. The following measures of complexity are proposed for any stream: (1) the state complexity n of L n , that is, the number of left quotients of L n (used as a reference); (2) the state complexities of the left quotients of L n ; (3) the number of atoms of L n ; (4) the state complexities of the atoms of L n ; (5) the size of the syntactic semigroup of L n ; and the state complexities of the following operations: (6) the reverse of L n ; (7) the star of L n ; (8) union, intersection, difference and symmetric difference of L m and L n ; and (9) the concatenation of L m and L n . A stream that has the highest possible complexity with respect to these measures is then viewed as a most complex stream. The language stream (U n (a, b, c) | n ≥ 3) is defined by the deterministic finite automaton with state set {0, 1, … , n−1}, initial state 0, set {n−1} of final states, and input alphabet {a, b, c}, where a performs a cyclic permutation of the n states, b transposes states 0 and 1, and c maps state n − 1 to state 0. This stream achieves the highest possible complexities with the exception of boolean operations where m = n. In the latter case, one can use U n (a, b, c) and U n (b, a, c), where the roles of a and b are interchanged in the second language. In this sense, U n (a, b, c) is a universal witness. This witness and its extensions also apply to a large number of combined regular operations.

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)0.012
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations52
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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