MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943660833 · doi:10.1017/jsl.2019.26

AUTOMATIC AND POLYNOMIAL-TIME ALGEBRAIC STRUCTURES

2019· article· en· W2943660833 on OpenAlexafffund
Nikolay Bazhenov, Matthew Harrison‐Trainor, I. Sh. Kalimullin, Alexander Melnikov, Keng Meng Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Symbolic Logic · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersMarsden FundMassey UniversityRussian Science FoundationKazan Federal UniversityMinistry of Education, IndiaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDecidabilityAlgebraic structureComputer sciencePresentation (obstetrics)Set (abstract data type)AutomatonTuring machineAlgebra over a fieldDiscrete mathematicsMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceProgramming languagePure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A structure is automatic if its domain, functions, and relations are all regular languages. Using the fact that every automatic structure is decidable, in the literature many decision problems have been solved by giving an automatic presentation of a particular structure. Khoussainov and Nerode asked whether there is some way to tell whether a structure has, or does not have, an automatic presentation. We answer this question by showing that the set of Turing machines that represent automata-presentable structures is ${\rm{\Sigma }}_1^1 $ -complete. We also use similar methods to show that there is no reasonable characterisation of the structures with a polynomial-time presentation in the sense of Nerode and Remmel.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations28
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Symbolic LogicSame topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207