Advertisement

Machine inductive inference and language identification

  • John Case
  • Christopher Lynes
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 140)

Abstract

We show that for some classes ℒ of recursive languages, from the characteristic function of any L in ℒ an approximate decision procedure for L with no more than n+1 mistakes can be (uniformly effectively) inferred in the limit; whereas, in general, a grammar (generation procedure) with no more than n mistakes cannot; for some classes an infinite sequence of perfectly correct decision procedures can be inferred in the limit, but single grammars with finitely many mistakes cannot; and for some classes an infinite sequence of decision procedures each with no more than n+1 mistakes can be inferred, but an infinite sequence of grammars each with no more than n mistakes cannot. This is true even though decision procedures generally contain more information than grammars. We also consider inference of grammars for r.e. languages from arbitrary texts, i.e., enumerations of the languages. We show that for any class of languages ℒ, if some, machine, from arbitrary texts for any L in ℒ, can infer in the limit an approximate grammar for L with no more than 2·n mistakes, then some machine can infer in the limit, for each language in ℒ, an infinite sequence of grammars each with no more than n mistakes. This reduction from 2·n to n is best possible. From these and other results we obtain and compare several natural, inference hierarchies. Lastly we show that if we restrict ourselves to recursive texts, there is a machine which, for any r.e. language, infers in the limit an infinite sequence of grammars each with only finitely many mistakes. We employ recursion theoretic methods including infinitary and ordinary recursion theorems.

Keywords

Decision Procedure Recursive Function Infinite Sequence Inductive Inference Regular Language 
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. [An 80a]
    Angluin, D., “Finding patterns common to a set of strings,” J. of Computer and System Sciences, 21 (1980), 46–62.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [An 80b]
    Angluin, D., “Inductive inference of formal languages from positive data,” Information and Control, 45, 117–135, 1980.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [An 81]
    Angluin, D., “Inference of Reversible Languages,” J. of the ACM, to appear.Google Scholar
  4. [Ba 74]
    Barzdin, J., “Two theorems on the limiting synthesis of functions,” Latvii gosudarst. Univ. ucenye Zapiski, 210, 82–88 (Russian), 1974.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. [BB 75]
    Blum, L. and M. Blum, “Toward a mathematical theory of inductive inference,” Information and Control, 28, 125–155, 1975.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [Ca 74]
    Case, J., “Periodicity in generations of automata,” Math. Systems Theory, 8, 15–32, 1974.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [CN 82]
    Case, J. and S. Ngo Manguelle, “Refinements of inductive inference by Popperian machines I, II,” Kybernetika, to appear.Google Scholar
  8. [CS 78]
    Case, J. and C. Smith, “Anomaly hierarchies of mechanized inductive inference,” Proceedings 10th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, San Diego, Calif., pp. 314–319, 1978.Google Scholar
  9. [CS 82]
    Case, J. and C. Smith, “Comparison of identification criteria for machine inductive inference,” Theoretical Computer Science, to appear.Google Scholar
  10. [Ch 81]
    Chen, K. J., Tradeoffs in Machine Inductive Inference, Ph.D. Dissertation, Computer Science Department, SUNY at Buffalo, Amherst, New York, 1981.Google Scholar
  11. [Ch 82]
    Chen, K. J., “Tradeoffs in the inductive inference of nearly minimal size programs,” Information and Control, to appear in the special issue devoted to papers presented at the Workshop on Recursion Theory in Computer Science held at Purdue University, 1981.Google Scholar
  12. [Da 82]
    Daley, R., “On the error correcting power of pluralism in inductive inference,” preprint.Google Scholar
  13. [Fe 72]
    Feldman, J., “Some decidability results on grammatical inference and complexity,” Information and Control, 20, 244–262, 1972.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [FW 79]
    Freivald, R. and R. Wiehagen, “Inductive inference with additional information,” Electronische Informationsverarbeitung und Kybernetik, 15, 179–185, 1979.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [Go 67]
    Gold, M., “Language identification in the limit,” Information and Control, 10, 447–474, 1967.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [HU 79]
    Hopcroft, J. and J. Ullman, Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1979.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. [KW 80]
    Klette, R. and R. Wiehagen, “Research in the theory of inductive inference by GDR mathematicians — a survey,” Information Sciences, 22, 149–169, 1980.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [MY 78]
    Machtey, M. and P. Young, An Introduction to the General Theory of Algorithms, North-Holland, New York, 1978.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. [Mi 76]
    Minicozzi, E., “Some natural properties of strong-identification in inductive inference,” Theoretical Computer Science, 2, 345–360, 1976.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [OW 82a]
    Osherson, D. and S. Weinstein, “A note on formal learning theory,” Cognition, 11 (1982), 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [OW 82b]
    Osherson, D. and S. Weinstein, “Criteria of language learning,” preprint.Google Scholar
  22. [Pi 79]
    Pinker, S., “Formal models of language learning,” Cognition, 7 (1979), 217–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [Ro 58]
    Rogers, H., “Gödel numberings of the partial recursive functions,” J. of Symbolic logic, 23, 331–341, 1958.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [Ro 67]
    Rogers, H., Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. [Sm 81]
    Smith, C., “The power of parallelism for automatic program synthesis,” Proceedings of the 22nd FOCS Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, October, 1981 (to appear revised in J. of the ACM).Google Scholar
  26. [We 82]
    Wexler, K., “On extensional learnabllity,” Cognition, 11 (1982), 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [WC 80]
    Wexler, K. and P. Culicover, Formal Principles of Language Acquisition, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1980.Google Scholar
  28. [Wi 77]
    Wiehagen, R., “Identification of Formal Languages,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 53, 571–579, 1977.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Case
    • 1
  • Christopher Lynes
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentState University of New York at BuffaloAmherstUSA
  2. 2.Computer Science Department Courant InstituteNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations