On the Expressive Power of String Constraints
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate properties of strings which are expressible by canonical types of string constraints. Specifically, we consider a landscape of 20 logical theories, whose syntax is built around combinations of four common elements of string constraints: language membership (e.g. for regular languages), concatenation, equality between string terms, and equality between string-lengths. For a variable x and formula f from a given theory, we consider the set of values for which x may be substituted as part of a satisfying assignment, or in other words, the property f expresses through x. Since we consider string-based logics, this set is a formal language. We firstly consider the relative expressive power of different combinations of string constraints by comparing the classes of languages expressible in the corresponding theories, and are able to establish a mostly complete picture in this regard. Secondly, we consider the question of deciding whether the language or property expressed by a variable/formula in one theory can be expressed in another theory. We establish several negative results which are relevant to preprocessing and normalisation of string constraints in practice. Some of our results have strong connections to important open problems regarding word equations and the theory of string solving.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 it