MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951629521 · doi:10.1142/s0129054119400239

Most Complex Non-Returning Regular Languages

2019· preprint· en· W2951629521 on OpenAlexafffund
Janusz Brzozowski, Sylvie Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer Science · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConcatenation (mathematics)Upper and lower boundsRegular languageState (computer science)SemigroupDiscrete mathematicsStar (game theory)MathematicsCombinatoricsBinary numberAutomatonComputer scienceAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A regular language [Formula: see text] is non-returning if in the minimal deterministic finite automaton accepting it there are no transitions into the initial state. Eom, Han and Jirásková derived upper bounds on the state complexity of boolean operations and Kleene star, and proved that these bounds are tight using two different binary witnesses. They derived tight upper bounds for concatenation and reversal using three different ternary witnesses. These five witnesses use a total of six different transformations. We show that for each [Formula: see text], there exists a ternary witness of state complexity [Formula: see text] that meets the bound for reversal, and restrictions of this witness to binary alphabets meet the bounds for star, product, and boolean operations. Hence all of these operations can be handled simultaneously with a single witness, using only three different transformations. We also derive tight upper bounds on the state complexity of binary operations that take arguments with different alphabets. We prove that the maximal syntactic semigroup of a non-returning language has [Formula: see text] elements and requires at least [Formula: see text] generators. We find the maximal state complexities of atoms of non-returning languages. We show that there exists a most complex sequence of non-returning languages that meet the bounds for all of these complexity measures. Furthermore, we prove there is a most complex sequence that meets all the bounds using alphabets of minimal size.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0090.003
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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