MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962904359 · doi:10.1007/s00224-017-9803-8

Syntactic Complexity of Regular Ideals

2017· article· en· W2962904359 on OpenAlexafffund
Janusz Brzozowski, Marek Szykuła, Yuli Ye

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory of Computing Systems · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
FundersEuropean Social FundUniwersytet WrocławskiUniversity of WaterlooNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionNarodowe Centrum NaukiUniversity of TorontoNarodowym Centrum Nauki
KeywordsRegular languageCardinality (data modeling)SuffixMathematicsPrefixDiscrete mathematicsNondeterministic finite automatonDescriptive complexity theoryCombinatoricsComputer scienceTime complexityAutomatonAutomata theoryLinguisticsTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The state complexity of a regular language is the number of states in a minimal deterministic finite automaton accepting the language. The syntactic complexity of a regular language is the cardinality of its syntactic semigroup. The syntactic complexity of a subclass of regular languages is the worst-case syntactic complexity taken as a function of the state complexity n of languages in that class. We prove that n n−1, n n−1 + n − 1, and n n−2 + (n − 2)2 n−2 + 1 are tight upper bounds on the syntactic complexities of right ideals and prefix-closed languages, left ideals and suffix-closed languages, and two-sided ideals and factor-closed languages, respectively. Moreover, we show that the transition semigroups meeting the upper bounds for all three types of ideals are unique, and the numbers of generators (4, 5, and 6, respectively) cannot be reduced.

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory of Computing SystemsSame topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207