Towards Practical FPRAS for #NFA: Exploiting the Power of Dependence
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
#NFA refers to the problem of counting the words of length n accepted by a non-deterministic finite automaton. #NFA is #P-hard, and although fully-polynomial-time randomized approximation schemes (FPRAS) exist, they are all impractical. The first FPRAS for #NFA had a running time of Õ(n 17 m 17 ε -14 łog(δ -1 )), where m is the number of states in the automaton, δ ∈ (0,1] is the confidence parameter, and ε > 0 is the tolerance parameter (typically smaller than 1). The current best FPRAS achieved a significant improvement in the time complexity relative to the first FPRAS and obtained FPRAS with time complexity Õ((n 10 m 2 + n 6 m 3 )ε -4 łog 2 (δ -1 )). The complexity of the improved FPRAS is still too intimidating to attempt any practical implementation. In this paper, we pursue the quest for practical FPRAS for #NFA by presenting a new algorithm with a time complexity of O(n 2 m 3 łog(nm)ε -2 łog(δ -1 )). Observe that evaluating whether a word of length n is accepted by an NFA has a time complexity of O(nm 2 ). Therefore, our proposed FPRAS achieves sub-quadratic complexity with respect to membership checks.
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 | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| 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