MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952024306

Indeterminate Strings, Prefix Arrays & Undirected Graphs

2014· preprint· en· W2952024306 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

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2014
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)McMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsString (physics)Cardinality (data modeling)IndeterminatePrefixMathematicsAlphabetDiscrete mathematicsGraphComputer sciencePure mathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An integer array y = y[1..n] is said to be feasible if and only if y[1] = n and, for every i \in 2..n, i \le i+y[i] \le n+1. A string is said to be indeterminate if and only if at least one of its elements is a subset of cardinality greater than one of a given alphabet Sigma; otherwise it is said to be regular. A feasible array y is said to be regular if and only if it is the prefix array of some regular string. We show using a graph model that every feasible array of integers is a prefix array of some (indeterminate or regular) string, and for regular strings corresponding to y, we use the model to provide a lower bound on the alphabet size. We show further that there is a 1-1 correspondence between labelled simple graphs and indeterminate strings, and we show how to determine the minimum alphabet size |Sigma| of an indeterminate string x based on its associated graph Gx. Thus, in this sense, indeterminate strings are a more natural object of combinatorial interest than the strings on elements of Sigma that have traditionally been studied.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.004
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.133 · 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