MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190354679 · doi:10.3384/ecp183159

Experimental Analysis of the Dorabella Cipher with Statistical Language Models

2021· article· en· W3190354679 on OpenAlexafffund
Bradley Hauer, Colin Choi, Anirudh S. Sundar, Abram Hindle, Scott Smallwood, Grzegorz Kondrak

Bibliographic record

VenueLinköping electronic conference proceedings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFractal and DNA sequence analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Machine Intelligence Institute
KeywordsComputer scienceCipherDeciphermentnobodyRunning key cipherDECIPHERSimple (philosophy)Stream cipherNatural languageTheoretical computer scienceNatural language processingProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceCryptographyAlgorithmLinguisticsComputer securityEncryption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Dorabella cipher is a symbolic message written in 1897 by English composer Edward Elgar. We analyze the cipher using modern computational and statistical techniques. We consider several open questions: Is the underlying message natural language text or music? If it is language, what is the most likely language? Is Dorabella a simple substitution cipher? If so, why has nobody managed to produce a plausible decipherment? Are some unusual-looking patterns in the cipher likely to occur by chance? Can stateof-the-art algorithmic solvers decipher at least some words of the message? This work is intended as a contribution towards finding answers to these questions.

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)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLinköping electronic conference proceedingsSame topicFractal and DNA sequence analysisFrench-language works237,207