MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989980706 · doi:10.3233/fi-2020-1875

Insertions Yielding Equivalent Double Occurrence Words

2019· article· en· W2989980706 on OpenAlex
Daniel A. Cruz, Margherita Maria Ferrari, Nataša Jonoska, Lukas Nabergall, Masahico Saito

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

VenueFundamenta Informaticae · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWord (group theory)Symbol (formal)PalindromeMathematicsComputer scienceArithmeticCharacterization (materials science)CombinatoricsGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A double occurrence word (DOW) is a word in which every symbol appears exactly twice; two DOWs are equivalent if one is a symbol-to-symbol image of the other. We consider the so called repeat pattern (αα) and the return pattern (ααR), with gaps allowed between the α’s. These patterns generalize squ are and palindromic factors of DOWs, respectively. We introduce a notion of inserting repeat/return words into DOWs and study how two distinct insertions into the same word can produce equivalent DOWs. Given a DOW w, we characterize the structure of w which allows two distinct insertions to yield equivalent DOWs. This characterization depends on the locations of the insertions and on the length of the inserted repeat/return words and implies that when one inserted word is a repeat word and the other is a return word, then both words must be trivial (i.e., have only one symbol). The characterization also introduces a method to generate families of words recursively.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.004

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.235 · 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