MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922654736 · doi:10.23638/dmtcs-22-1-3

A Characterization of Morphic Words with Polynomial Growth

2020· preprint· en· W2922654736 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Science · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZigzagMultilinear mapWord (group theory)MorphismMathematicsString (physics)CombinatoricsCharacterization (materials science)PolynomialType (biology)Discrete mathematicsPure mathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A morphic word is obtained by iterating a morphism to generate an infinite word, and then applying a coding. We characterize morphic words with polynomial growth in terms of a new type of infinite word called a $\textit{zigzag word}$. A zigzag word is represented by an initial string, followed by a finite list of terms, each of which repeats for each $n \geq 1$ in one of three ways: it grows forward [$t(1)\ t(2)\ \dotsm\ t(n)]$, backward [$t(n)\ \dotsm\ t(2)\ t(1)$], or just occurs once [$t$]. Each term can recursively contain subterms with their own forward and backward repetitions. We show that an infinite word is morphic with growth $\Theta(n^k)$ iff it is a zigzag word of depth $k$. As corollaries, we obtain that the morphic words with growth $O(n)$ are exactly the ultimately periodic words, and the morphic words with growth $O(n^2)$ are exactly the multilinear words.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open 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 score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · 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