Mathematical systems theory

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 599–634 | Cite as

Set-driven and rearrangement-independent learning of recursive languages

  • S. Lange
  • T. Zeugmann


This paper studies the impact of order independence to the learnability of indexed families\(\mathcal{L}\) of uniformly recursive languages from positive data. In particular, we considerset-driven andrearrangement-independent learners, i.e., learning devices whose output exclusively depends on the range and on the range and length of their input, respectively. The impact of set-drivenness and rearrangement-independence on the behavior of learners to their learning power is studied in dependence on thehypothesis space the learners may use. We distinguish betweenexact learnability (\(\mathcal{L}\) has to be inferred with respect to\(\mathcal{L}\)),class-preserving learning (\(\mathcal{L}\) has to be inferred with respect to some suitably chosen enumeration of all the languages from\(\mathcal{L}\)), andclass-comprising inference (\(\mathcal{L}\) has to be learned with respect to some suitably chosen enumeration of uniformly recursive languages containing at least all the languages from\(\mathcal{L}\)).

Furthermore, we consider the influence of set-drivenness and rearrangement-independence for learning devices that realize thesubset principle to different extents. Thereby we distinguish betweenstrong-monotonic, monotonic, andWeakmonotonic orconservative learning.

The results obtained are threefold. First, rearrangement-independent learning does not constitute a restriction except in the case of monotonic learning. Next, we prove that for all but two of the learning models considered set-drivenness is a severe restriction. However, class-comprising set-drivenconservative learning is exactly as powerful as unrestricted class-comprisingconservative learning. Finally, the power of class-comprising set-driven learning in the limit is characterized by equating the collection of learnable indexed families with the collection of class-comprisingly conservatively inferable indexed families. These results considerably extend previous work done in the field (see, e.g., [20] and [5]).


Target Language Hypothesis Space Monotonicity Constraint Correct Hypothesis Canonical Text 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    D. Angluin, Finding patterns common to a set of strings,Journal of Computer and System Sciences,21 (1980), 46–62.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    D. Angluin, Inductive inference of formal languages from positive data,Information and Control,45 (1980), 117–135.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    R. Berwick,The Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    L. Blum and M. Blum, Toward a mathematical theory of inductive inference,Information and Control,28 (1975), 122–155.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. Fulk, Prudence and other restrictions in formal language learning,Information and Computation,85 (1990), 1–11.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    E. M. Gold, Language identification in the limit,Information and Control,10 (1967), 447–474.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. E. Hopcroft and J. D. Ullman,Formal Languages and Their Relation to Automata, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1969.MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    K. P. Jantke, Monotonic and non-monotonic inductive inference,New Generation Computing,8 (1991), 349–360.MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    S. Lange and R. Wiehagen, Polynomial-time inference of arbitrary pattern languages,New Generation Computing,8 (1991), 361–370.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    S. Lange and T. Zeugmann, Types of monotonic language learning and their characterization,Proc. 5th Annual ACM Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, ACM Press, New York, 1992, pp. 377–390.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. Lange and T. Zeugmann, Monotonic versus non-monotonic language learning,Proc. 2nd International Workshop on Nonmonotonic and Inductive Logic (G. Brewka, K. P. Jantke, and P. H. Schmitt, Eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 659, pp. 254–269.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    S. Lange and T. Zeugmann, Language learning in dependence on the space of hypotheses,Proc. 6th Annual ACM Conference on Computational Learning Theory, ACM Press, New York, 1993, pp. 127–136.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    S. Lange and T. Zeugmann, The learnability of recursive languages in dependence on the hypothesis space, GOSLER-Report 20/93, FB Mathematik, Informatik und Naturwissenschaften, HTWK Leipzig, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    S. Lange and T. Zeugmann, Learning recursive languages with bounded mind changes,International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science,4 (1993), 157–178.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    S. Lange and T. Zeugmann, Characterization of language learning from informant under various monotonicity constraints,Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence,6 (1994), 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    S. Lange, T. Zeugmann, and S. Kapur, Monotonic and dual-monotonic language learning,Theoretical Computer Science,155 (1996), 365–410.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    M. Machtey and P. Young,An Introduction to the General Theory of Algorithms, North-Holland, New York, 1978.MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Y. Mukouchi, Inductive inference with bounded mind changes,Proc. 3rd Workshop on Algorithmic Learning Theory (S. Doshita, K. Furukawa, K. P. Jantke, and T. Nishida, Eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 743, pp. 125–134.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    D. Osherson, M. Stob, and S. Weinstein,Systems that Learn: An Introduction to Learning Theory for Cognitive and Computer Scientists, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    G. Schafer-Richter, Über Eingabeabhangigkeit und Komplexität von Inferenzstrategien, Dissertation, Rheinisch Westfälische Technische Hochschule, Aachen, 1984.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    F. Stephan, Personal communication.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    K. Wexler, The subset principle is an intensional principle, inKnowledge and Language: Issues in Representation and Acquisition (E. Reuland and W. Abraham, Eds.), Vol. 1, From Orwell's Problem to Plato's Problem, Chapter 9, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    K. Wexler and P. Culicover,Formal Principles of Language Acquisition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1980.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    R. Wiehagen, A thesis in inductive inference,Proc. First International Workshop on Nonmonotonic and Inductive Logic (J. Dix, K. P. Jantke, and P. H. Schmitt, Eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 543, pp. 184–207.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    R. Wiehagen and T. Zeugmann, Ignoring data may be the only way to learn efficiently,Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence,6 (1994), 131–144.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    T. Zeugmann, Lange and Wiehagen's pattern language learning algorithm: an average-case analysis with respect to its total learning time, RIFIS Technical Report RIFIS-TR-CS-111, RIFIS, Kyushu University 33, 1995.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    T. Zeugmann and S. Lange, A guided tour across the boundaries of learning recursive languages,Algorithmic Learning for Knowledge-Based Systems (K. P. Jantke and S. Lange, Eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 961, pp. 193–262.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Lange
    • 1
  • T. Zeugmann
    • 2
  1. 1.FB Mathematik und InformatikHTWK LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Department of Informatics, Graduate School of Information Science and EEKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations