MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890948056 · doi:10.1142/s0129054119500308

Cobham’s Theorem and Automaticity

2019· preprint· en· W2890948056 on OpenAlexafffund
Lucas Mol, Narad Rampersad, Jeffrey Shallit, Manon Stipulanti

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer Science · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersFonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’AgricultureNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité de Liège
KeywordsAperiodic graphAutomaticityPrefixSequence (biology)MathematicsDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We make certain bounds in Krebs’ proof of Cobham’s theorem explicit and obtain corresponding upper bounds on the length of a common prefix of an aperiodic [Formula: see text]-automatic sequence and an aperiodic [Formula: see text]-automatic sequence, where [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] are multiplicatively independent. We also show that an automatic sequence cannot have arbitrarily large factors in common with a Sturmian sequence.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0060.003
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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