Computing Distances between Probabilistic Automata
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present relaxed notions of simulation and bisimulation on Probabilistic Automata (PA), that allow some error epsilon. When epsilon is zero we retrieve the usual notions of bisimulation and simulation on PAs. We give logical characterisations of these notions by choosing suitable logics which differ from the elementary ones, L with negation and L without negation, by the modal operator. Using flow networks, we show how to compute the relations in PTIME. This allows the definition of an efficiently computable non-discounted distance between the states of a PA. A natural modification of this distance is introduced, to obtain a discounted distance, which weakens the influence of long term transitions. We compare our notions of distance to others previously defined and illustrate our approach on various examples. We also show that our distance is not expansive with respect to process algebra operators. Although L without negation is a suitable logic to characterise epsilon-(bi)simulation on deterministic PAs, it is not for general PAs; interestingly, we prove that it does characterise weaker notions, called a priori epsilon-(bi)simulation, which we prove to be NP-difficult to decide.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".