Advertisement

Strong separation of learning classes

  • John Case
  • Keh-Jiann Chen
  • Sanjay Jain
Submitted Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 642)

Abstract

Suppose LC1 and LC2 are two machine learning classes each based on a criterion of success. Suppose, for every machine which learns a class of functions according to the LC1 criterion of success, there is a machine which learns this class according to the LC2 criterion. In the case where the converse does not hold LC1 is said to be separated from LC2. It is shown that for many such separated learning classes from the literature a much stronger separation holds: (∀∁ ∈ LC1)(∃∁′ ∈ (LC2−LC1))[′ ⊃ ]. It is also shown that there is a pair of separated learning classes from the literature for which the stronger separation just above does not hold. A philosophical heuristic toward the design of artificially intelligent learning programs is presented with each strong separation result.

Keywords

Recursive Function Computable Function Inductive Inference Total Function Learning Class 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AS83]
    D. Angluin and C. Smith. A survey of inductive inference: Theory and methods. Computing Surveys, 15:237–289, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. [Bar74]
    J. M. Barzdin. Two theorems on the limiting synthesis of functions. In Theory of Algorithms and Programs, Latvian State University, Riga, 210:82–88, 1974. In Russian.Google Scholar
  3. [BB75]
    L. Blum and M. Blum. Toward a mathematical theory of inductive inference. Information and Control, 28:125–155, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. [Blu67a]
    M. Blum. A machine, independent theory of the complexity of recursive functions. Journal of the ACM, 14:322–336, 1967.Google Scholar
  5. [Blu67b]
    M. Blum. On the size of machines. Information and Control, 11:257–265, 1967.Google Scholar
  6. [BP73]
    J. M. Barzdin and K. Podnieks. The theory of inductive inference. In Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, 1973.Google Scholar
  7. [Cas74]
    J. Case. Periodicity in generations of automata. Mathematical Systems Theory, 8:15–32, 1974.Google Scholar
  8. [Cas86]
    J. Case. Learning machines. In W. Demopoulos and A. Marras, editors, Language Learning and Concept Acquisition. Ablex Publishing Company, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. [Cas88]
    J. Case. The power of vacillation. In D. Haussler and L. Pitt, editors, Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pages 133–142. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1988.Google Scholar
  10. [Che81]
    K. Chen. Tradeoffs in Machine Inductive Inference. PhD thesis, SUNY at Buffalo, 1981.Google Scholar
  11. [CJS91]
    J. Case, S. Jain, and A. Sharma. Complexity issues for vacillatory function identification. In Proceedings, Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, Eleventh Conference, New Delhi, India. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 560, pages 121–140. Springer-Verlag, December 1991.Google Scholar
  12. [CNM79]
    J. Case and S. Ngo Manguelle. Refinements of inductive inference by Popperian machines. Technical Report 152, SUNY/Buffalo, 1979.Google Scholar
  13. [CS83]
    J. Case and C. Smith. Comparison of identification criteria for machine inductive inference. Theoretical Computer Science, 25:193–220, 1983.Google Scholar
  14. [Fel72]
    J. Feldman. Some decidability results on grammatical inference and complexity. Information and Control, 20:244–262, 1972.Google Scholar
  15. [Ful85]
    M. Fulk. A Study of Inductive Inference machines. PhD thesis, SUNY at Buffalo, 1985.Google Scholar
  16. [Gol67]
    E. M. Gold. Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 10:447–474, 1967.Google Scholar
  17. [HU79]
    J. Hopcroft and J. Ullman. Introduction to Automata Theory Languages and Computation. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1979.Google Scholar
  18. [Kop6l]
    Zdenek Kopal. Numerical Analysis. Chapman and Hall Ltd., London, 1961.Google Scholar
  19. [KW80]
    R. Klette and R. Wiehagen. Research in the theory of inductive inference by GDR mathematicians — A survey. Information Sciences, 22:149–169, 1980.Google Scholar
  20. [Mar89]
    Y. Marcoux. Composition is almost as good as s-1-1. In Proceedings, Structure in Complexity Theory-Fourth Annual Conference. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  21. [MY78]
    M. Machtey and P. Young. An Introduction to the General Theory of Algorithms. North Holland, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  22. [OSW86]
    D. Osherson, M. Stob, and S. Weinstein. Systems that Learn, An Introduction to Learning Theory for Cognitive and Computer Scientists. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1986.Google Scholar
  23. [Pop68]
    K. Popper. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Harper Torch Books, New York, second edition, 1968.Google Scholar
  24. [Ric80]
    G. Riccardi. The Independence of Control Structures in Abstract Programming Systems. PhD thesis, SUNY/ Buffalo, 1980.Google Scholar
  25. [Ric81]
    G. Riccardi. The independence of control structures in abstract programming systems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 22:107–143, 1981.Google Scholar
  26. [Rog58]
    H. Rogers. Gödel numberings of partial recursive functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 23:331–341, 1958.Google Scholar
  27. [Rog67]
    H. Rogers. Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability. McGraw Hill, New York, 1967. Reprinted. MIT Press. 1987.Google Scholar
  28. [Roy87]
    J. Royer. A Connotational Theory of Program Structure. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 273. Springer Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
  29. [Wie78]
    R. Wiehagen. Zur Therie der Algrithmischen Erkennung. PhD thesis, Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin, 1978.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Case
    • 1
  • Keh-Jiann Chen
    • 2
  • Sanjay Jain
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information SciencesUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Information SciencesAcademica SinicaTaipei, 15Taiwan Republic of China

Personalised recommendations