MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123946441 · doi:10.1145/3558549

Continuous One-counter Automata

2022· article· en· W3123946441 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Computational Logic · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersVlaamse regeringNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsReachabilityDecidabilityUpper and lower boundsReachability problemAutomatonMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsCounterexampleParametric statisticsComputer scienceTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the reachability problem for continuous one-counter automata, COCA for short. In such automata, transitions are guarded by upper- and lower-bound tests against the counter value. Additionally, the counter updates associated with taking transitions can be (non-deterministically) scaled down by a nonzero factor between zero and one. Our three main results are as follows: we prove (1) that the reachability problem for COCA with global upper- and lower-bound tests is in NC 2 ; (2) that, in general, the problem is decidable in polynomial time; and (3) that it is NP-complete for COCA with parametric counter updates and bound tests.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.248 · 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