Efficient Algorithms for Computing the Inner Edit Distance of a Regular Language via Transducers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of edit distance and its variants has applications in many areas such as computational linguistics, bioinformatics, and synchronization error detection in data communications. Here, we revisit the problem of computing the inner edit distance of a regular language given via a Nondeterministic Finite Automaton (NFA). This problem relates to the inherent maximal error-detecting capability of the language in question. We present two efficient algorithms for solving this problem, both of which execute in time O ( r 2 n 2 d ) , where r is the cardinality of the alphabet involved, n is the number of transitions in the given NFA, and d is the computed edit distance. We have implemented one of the two algorithms and present here a set of performance tests. The correctness of the algorithms is based on the connection between word distances and error detection and the fact that nondeterministic transducers can be used to represent the errors (resp., edit operations) involved in error-detection (resp., in word distances).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it