Advertisement

On the inference of sequences of functions

  • William I. Gasarch
  • Carl H. Smith
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 265)

Abstract

We have shown that, in some sense, computers can be taught how to learn how to learn. The mathematical result constructed sequences of functions that were easy to learn, provided they were learned one at a time in a specific order. Furthermore, the sequences of functions constructed above are impossible to learn, by an algorithmic device, if the functions are not presented in the specified order.

As with any mathematical model, there is some question as to whether or not our result accurately captures the intuitive notion that it was intended to. Independently of how close our proof paradigm is to the intuitive notion of learning how to learn, if it were no were no formal analogue to the concept of machines that learn how to learn, then our result could not possibly be true. Our proof indicates not only that it is not impossible to program computers that learn based, in part, on their previous experiences, but that it is sometimes impossible to succeed without doing so.

Keywords

Recursive Function Inductive Inference Finite Variant Previous Function Intuitive Notion 
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. 1.
    Angluin, D. Inference of reversible languages. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 29 (1982), 741–765.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angluin, D. and Smith, C. H. Inductive inference: theory and methods. Computing Surveys 15 (1983), 237–269.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Angluin, D. and Smith, C. H. Formal inductive inference. In Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, S. Shapiro, Ed., 1986. To appear.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barzdin, J.A. and Podnieks, K. M. The theory of inductive inference. Proceedings of the Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (1973), 9–15. Russian.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blum, L. and Blum, M. Toward a mathematical theory of inductive inference. Information and Control 28 (1975), 125–155.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Case, J. and Smith, C. Comparison of identification criteria for machine inductive inference. Theoretical Computer Science 25, 2 (1983), 193–220.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cherniavsky, J. C. and Smith, C. H. A recursion theoretic approach to program testing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (1986). To appear.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cherniavsky, J. C. and Smith, C. H. Using telltales in developing program test sets. Computer Science Dept. TR 4, Georgetown University, Washington D. C., 1986.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daley, R. P. and Smith, C. H. On the complexity of inductive inference. Information and Control 69 (1986), 12–40.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freivalds, R. V. and Wiehagen, R. Inductive inference with additional information. Electronische Informationsverabeitung und Kybernetik 15, 4 (1979), 179–184.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gold, E. M. Language identification in the limit. Information and Control 10 (1967), 447–474.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hutchinson, A. A data structure and algorithm for a self-augmenting heuristic program. The Computer Journal 29, 2 (1986), 135–150.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laird, J., Rosenbloom, P., and Newell, A. Towards chunking as a general learning mechanism. In Proceedings of AAAI 1984, Austin, Texas, 1984.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Machtey, M. and Young, P.An Introduction to the General Theory of Algorithms. North-Holland, New York, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller, G. The magic number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychology Review 63 (1956), 81–97.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Osherson, D., Stob, M., and Weinstein, S.Systems that Learn. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1986.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pitt, L. and Smith, C. Probability and plurality for aggregations of learning machines. Computer Science Department TR 1686, UMIACS TR 86-16, 1968.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rogers, H. Jr. Gödel numberings of partial recursive functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 23 (1958), 331–341.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rogers, H. Jr.Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability. McGraw Hill, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith, C. H. The power of pluralism for automatic program synthesis. Journal of the ACM 29, 4 (1982), 1144–1165.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weyuker, E. J. Assessing test data adequacy through program inference. ACM Transactions on Programming, Languages and Systems 5, 4 (1983), 641–655.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wiehagen, R. Characterization problems in the theory of inductive inference. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 62 (1978), 494–508.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wiehagen, R., Freivalds, R., and Kinber, E. K. On the power of probabilistic strategies in inductive inference. Theoretical Computer Science 28 (1984), 111–133.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • William I. Gasarch
    • 1
  • Carl H. Smith
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MarylandCollege Park
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Institute for Advanced Computer StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege Park

Personalised recommendations