MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797999682 · doi:10.1142/s0129054118400099

State Complexity of Neighbourhoods and Approximate Pattern Matching

2018· article· en· W2797999682 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy Ng, David Rappaport, Kai Salomaa

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubstringNeighbourhood (mathematics)MathematicsCombinatoricsUpper and lower boundsDeterministic finite automatonState (computer science)Nondeterministic algorithmString (physics)Discrete mathematicsFinite-state machineSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neighbourhood of a language [Formula: see text] with respect to an additive distance consists of all strings that have distance at most the given radius from some string of [Formula: see text]. We show that the worst case deterministic state complexity of a radius [Formula: see text] neighbourhood of a language recognized by an [Formula: see text] state nondeterministic finite automaton [Formula: see text] is [Formula: see text]. In the case where [Formula: see text] is deterministic we get the same lower bound for the state complexity of the neighbourhood if we use an additive quasi-distance. The lower bound constructions use an alphabet of size linear in [Formula: see text]. We show that the worst case state complexity of the set of strings that contain a substring within distance [Formula: see text] from a string recognized by [Formula: see text] is [Formula: see text].

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)0.021
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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