Learning Recursive Functions Refutably
Learning of recursive functions refutably means that for every recursive function, the learning machine has either to learn this function or to refute it, i.e., to signal that it is not able to learn it. Three modi of making precise the notion of refuting are considered. We show that the corresponding types of learning refutably are of strictly increasing power, where already the most stringent of them turns out to be of remarkable topological and algorithmical richness. All these types are closed under union, though in different strengths. Also, these types are shown to be different with respect to their intrinsic complexity; two of them do not contain function classes that are “most difficult” to learn, while the third one does. Moreover, we present characterizations for these types of learning refutably. Some of these characterizations make clear where the refuting ability of the corresponding learning machines comes from and how it can be realized, in general.
For learning with anomalies refutably, we show that several results from standard learning without refutation stand refutably. Then we derive hierarchies for refutable learning. Finally, we show that stricter refutability constraints cannot be traded for more liberal learning criteria.
KeywordsLearning Machine Accumulation Point Partial Function Recursive Function Inductive Inference
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.J. Bārzdiņš. Two theorems on the limiting synthesis of functions. In Theory of Algorithms and Programs, Vol. 1, pp. 82–88. Latvian State University, 1974. In Russian.Google Scholar
- 3.J. Bārzdiņš and R. Freivalds. Prediction and limiting synthesis of recursively enumerable classes of functions. Latvijas Valsts Univ. Zimatm. Raksti, 210:101–111, 1974.Google Scholar
- 4.S. Ben-David. Can finite samples detect singularities of real-valued functions? In 24th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pp. 390–399, 1992.Google Scholar
- 9.J. Case, E. Kinber, A. Sharma, and F. Stephan. On the classification of computable languages. In Proc. 14th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, Vol. 1200 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 225–236. Springer, 1997.Google Scholar
- 14.J. Grabowski. Starke Erkennung. In Strukturerkennung diskreter kybernetischer Systeme, Teil I, pp. 168–184. Seminarbericht Nr. 82, Department of Mathematics, Humboldt University of Berlin, 1986.Google Scholar
- 15.G. Grieser. Reflecting inductive inference machines and its improvement by therapy. In Algorithmic Learning Theory: 7th International Workshop (ALT’ 96), Vol. 1160 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 325–336. Springer, 1996.Google Scholar
- 17.S. Jain, E. Kinber, R. Wiehagen and T. Zeugmann. Refutable inductive inference of recursive functions. Schriftenreihe der Institute für Informatik/Mathematik, Serie A, SIIM-TR-A-01-06, Medical University at Lübeck, 2001.Google Scholar
- 18.S. Jain, D. Osherson, J. S. Royer, and A. Sharma. Systems that Learn: An Introduction to Learning Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., second edition, 1999.Google Scholar
- 19.K. P. Jantke. Reflecting and self-confident inductive inference machines. In Algorithmic Learning Theory: 6th International Workshop (ALT’ 95), Vol. 997 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 282–297. Springer, 1995.Google Scholar
- 20.W. Jekeli. Universelle Strategien zur Lösung induktiver Lernprobleme. MSc Thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Kaiserslautern, 1997.Google Scholar
- 24.S. Lange and P. Watson. Machine discovery in the presence of incomplete or ambiguous data. In Algorithmic Learning Theory: 4th International Workshop on Analogical and Inductive Inference (AII’ 94) and 5th International Workshop on Algorithmic Learning Theory (ALT’ 94), Vol. 872 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 438–452. Springer, 1994.Google Scholar
- 25.R. Lindner. Algorithmische Erkennung. Dissertation B, University of Jena, 1972.Google Scholar
- 26.M. Machtey and P. Young. An Introduction to the General Theory of Algorithms. North Holland, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
- 28.T. Miyahara. Refutable inference of functions computed by loop programs. Technical Report RIFIS-TR-CS-112, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, 1995.Google Scholar
- 29.Y. Mukouchi and S. Arikawa. Inductive inference machines that can refute hypothesis spaces. In Algorithmic Learning Theory: 4th International Workshop (ALT’ 93), Vol. 744 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 123–136. Springer, 1993.Google Scholar
- 31.K. R. Popper. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Harper and Row, 1965.Google Scholar
- 33.H. Rogers. Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability. McGraw-Hill, 1967. Reprinted by MIT Press in 1987.Google Scholar
- 35.F. Stephan. On one-sided versus two-sided classification. Technical Report Forschungsberichte Mathematische Logik 25/1996, Mathematical Institute, University of Heidelberg, 1996.Google Scholar
- 36.R. Wiehagen. Characterization problems in the theory of inductive inference. In Proc. of the 5th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, Vol. 62 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 494–508. Springer, 1978.Google Scholar