Concatenation Operations and Restricted Variants of Two-Dimensional Automata
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A two-dimensional automaton operates on arrays of symbols. While a standard (four-way) two-dimensional automaton can move its input head in four directions, restricted two-dimensional automata are only permitted to move their input heads in three or two directions; these models are called three-way and two-way two-dimensional automata, respectively. In two dimensions, we may extend the notion of concatenation in multiple ways, depending on the words to be concatenated. We may row-concatenate (resp., column-concatenate) a pair of two-dimensional words when they have the same number of columns (resp., rows). In addition, the diagonal concatenation operation combines two words at their lower-right and upper-left corners, and is not dimension-dependent. In this paper, we investigate closure properties of restricted models of two-dimensional automata under various concatenation operations. We give non-closure results for two-way two-dimensional automata under row and column concatenation in both the deterministic and nondeterministic cases. We further give positive closure results for the same concatenation operations on unary nondeterministic two-way two-dimensional automata. Finally, we study closure properties of diagonal concatenation on both two- and three-way two-dimensional automata.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".