MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416007859

Effective Computation of Generalized Abelian Complexity for Pisot Type Substitutive Sequences

2025· article· en· W4416007859 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Michel Couvreur, Martin Delacourt, Nicolas Ollinger, Pierre Popoli, Jeffrey Shallit, Manon Stipulanti

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbelian groupBounded functionEquivalence (formal languages)Substitution (logic)Fixed pointType (biology)Function (biology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generalized abelian equivalence compares words by their factors up to a certain bounded length. The associated complexity function counts the equivalence classes for factors of a given size of an infinite sequence. How practical is this notion? When can these equivalence relations and complexity functions be computed efficiently? We study the fixed points of substitution of Pisot type. Each of their $k$-abelian complexities is bounded and the Parikh vectors of their length-$n$ prefixes form synchronized sequences in the associated Dumont--Thomas numeration system. Therefore, the $k$-abelian complexity of Pisot substitution fixed points is automatic in the same numeration system. Two effective generic construction approaches are investigated using the \texttt{Walnut} theorem prover and are applied to several examples. We obtain new properties of the Tribonacci sequence, such as a uniform bound for its factor balancedness together with a two-dimensional linear representation of its generalized abelian complexity functions.

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)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207