MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082628805 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.00602

Recognition and Complexity Results for Projection Languages of Two-Dimensional Automata

2020· preprint· en· W3082628805 on OpenAlexaff
Taylor J. Smith, Kai Salomaa

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Biological Computing
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcatenation (mathematics)Projection (relational algebra)Computer scienceColumn (typography)Context (archaeology)Unary operationNondeterministic finite automatonCover (algebra)AutomatonRegular languageMathematicsAutomata theoryDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsAlgorithmTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The row projection (resp., column projection) of a two-dimensional language $L$ is the one-dimensional language consisting of all first rows (resp., first columns) of each two-dimensional word in $L$. The operation of row projection has previously been studied under the name "frontier language", and previous work has focused on one- and two-dimensional language classes. In this paper, we study projections of languages recognized by various two-dimensional automaton classes. We show that both the row and column projections of languages recognized by (four-way) two-dimensional automata are exactly context-sensitive. We also show that the column projections of languages recognized by unary three-way two-dimensional automata can be recognized using nondeterministic logspace. Finally, we study the state complexity of projection languages for two-way two-dimensional automata, focusing on the language operations of union and diagonal concatenation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.060 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicDNA and Biological ComputingFrench-language works237,207