MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383554657 · doi:10.1145/3607471

Co-lexicographically Ordering Automata and Regular Languages - Part I

2023· article· en· W4383554657 on OpenAlexaff
Nicola Cotumaccio, Giovanna D’Agostino, Alberto Policriti, Nicola Prezza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the ACM · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsLexicographical orderRegular languageMathematicsAutomatonDiscrete mathematicsConstant (computer programming)Nondeterministic finite automatonω-automatonCombinatoricsPrefixDeterministic automatonRegular expressionOrder (exchange)State (computer science)Nested wordClosure (psychology)Finite-state machineQuantum finite automataAutomata theoryComputer scienceAlgorithmTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The states of a finite-state automaton 𝒩 can be identified with collections of words in the prefix closure of the regular language accepted by 𝒩. But words can be ordered, and among the many possible orders a very natural one is the co-lexicographic order. Such naturalness stems from the fact that it suggests a transfer of the order from words to the automaton’s states. This suggestion is, in fact, concrete and in a number of articles automata admitting a total co-lexicographic ( co-lex for brevity) ordering of states have been proposed and studied. Such class of ordered automata — Wheeler automata — turned out to require just a constant number of bits per transition to be represented and enable regular expression matching queries in constant time per matched character. Unfortunately, not all automata can be totally ordered as previously outlined. In the present work, we lay out a new theory showing that all automata can always be partially ordered, and an intrinsic measure of their complexity can be defined and effectively determined, namely, the minimum width p of one of their admissible co-lex partial orders –dubbed here the automaton’s co-lex width . We first show that this new measure captures at once the complexity of several seemingly-unrelated hard problems on automata. Any NFA of co-lex width p : (i) has an equivalent powerset DFA whose size is exponential in p rather than (as a classic analysis shows) in the NFA’s size; (ii) can be encoded using just Θ(log p ) bits per transition; (iii) admits a linear-space data structure solving regular expression matching queries in time proportional to p 2 per matched character. Some consequences of this new parameterization of automata are that PSPACE-hard problems such as NFA equivalence are FPT in p , and quadratic lower bounds for the regular expression matching problem do not hold for sufficiently small p . Having established that the co-lex width of an automaton is a fundamental complexity measure, we proceed by (i) determining its computational complexity and (ii) extending this notion from automata to regular languages by studying their smallest-width accepting NFAs and DFAs. In this work we focus on the deterministic case and prove that a canonical minimum-width DFA accepting a language ℒ–dubbed the Hasse automaton ℋ of ℒ–can be exhibited. ℋ provides, in a precise sense, the best possible way to (partially) order the states of any DFA accepting ℒ, as long as we want to maintain an operational link with the (co-lexicographic) order of ℒ’s prefixes. Finally, we explore the relationship between two conflicting objectives: minimizing the width and minimizing the number of states of a DFA. In this context, we provide an analogue of the Myhill-Nerode Theorem for co-lexicographically ordered regular languages.

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)0.009
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the ACMSame topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207