MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396892922 · doi:10.1145/3651613

A faster FPRAS for #NFA

2024· article· en· W4396892922 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversitas Brawijaya
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a non-deterministic finite automaton (NFA) A with m states, and a natural number n (presented in unary), the #NFA problem asks to determine the size of the set L(A,n) of words of length n accepted by A. While the corresponding decision problem of checking the emptiness of L(A,n) is solvable in polynomial time, the #NFA problem is known to be #P-hard. Recently, the long-standing open question --- whether there is an FPRAS (fully polynomial time randomized approximation scheme) for #NFA --- was resolved by Arenas, Croquevielle, Jayaram, and Riveros in [ACJR19]. The authors demonstrated the existence of a fully polynomial randomized approximation scheme with a time complexity of ~O(m 17 n 17 • 1/ε 14 • log (1/δ)), for a given tolerance ε and confidence parameter δ. Given the prohibitively high time complexity in terms of each of the input parameters, and considering the widespread application of approximate counting (and sampling) in various tasks in Computer Science, a natural question arises: is there a faster FPRAS for #NFA that can pave the way for the practical implementation of approximate #NFA tools? In this work, we answer this question in the positive. We demonstrate that significant improvements in time complexity are achievable, and propose an FPRAS for #NFA that is more efficient in terms of both time and sample complexity. A key ingredient in the FPRAS due to Arenas, Croquevielle, Jayaram, and Riveros [ACJR19] is inter-reducibility of sampling and counting, which necessitates a closer look at the more informative measure --- the number of samples maintained for each pair of state q and length i <= n. In particular, the scheme of [ACJR19] maintains O(m 7 /n 7 ε 7 ) samples per pair of state and length. In the FPRAS we propose, we systematically reduce the number of samples required for each state to be only poly-logarithmically dependent on m, with significantly less dependence on n and ε, maintaining only ~O(n 4 /ε 2 ) samples per state. Consequently, our FPRAS runs in time ~O((m 2 n 10 + m 3 n 6 ) • 1/ε 4 • log 2 (1/δ)). The FPRAS and its analysis use several novel insights. First, our FPRAS maintains a weaker invariant about the quality of the estimate of the number of samples for each state q and length i <= n. Second, our FPRAS only requires that the distribution of the samples maintained is close to uniform distribution only in total variation distance (instead of maximum norm). We believe our insights may lead to further reductions in time complexity and thus open up a promising avenue for future work towards the practical implementation of tools for approximate #NFA.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0070.006
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.268 · 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