# Characteristic sets for polynomial grammatical inference

## Abstract

When concerned about efficient grammatical inference two issues are relevant: the first one is to determine the quality of the result, and the second is to try to use polynomial time and space. A typical idea to deal with the first point is to say that an algorithm performs well if it identifies *in the limit* the correct language. The second point has led to debate about how to define polynomial time: the main definitions of polynomial inference have been proposed by Pitt and Angluin. We return in this paper to another definition proposed by Gold that requires a characteristic set of strings to exist for each grammar, and this set to be polynomial in the size of the grammar or automaton that is to be learnt, where the size of the sample is the sum of the lengths of all its words. The learning algorithm must also infer correctly as soon as the characteristic set is included in the data. We first show that this definition corresponds to a notion of teachability as defined by Goldman and Mathias. By adapting their teacher/learner model to grammatical Inference we prove that languages given by context-free grammars, simple deterministic grammars, linear grammars and nondeterministic finite automata are not polynomially identifiable from given data.

## Keywords

exact identification grammatical inference polynomial learning## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## Bibliography

- Anthony, M., Brightwell, G., Cohen, D. & Shawe-Taylor, J. (1992). On exact specification by examples.
*Proceedings of COLT*92 (pp. 311–318). A.C.M.Google Scholar - Castellanos, A., Galiano I. & Vidal, E. (1994). Application of OSTIA to machine translation tasks.
*Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Grammatical Inference ICGI-94*(pp. 93–105). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence**862**, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar - Freivalds, R., Kinber, E.B. & Wiehagen, R. (1989). Inductive inference from good examples.
*Proceedings of the International Workshop on Analogical and Inductive Inference*(pp. 1–17). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence**397**, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar - García, P., Segarra, E., Vidal, E. & Galiano, I. (1994). On the use of the morphic generator grammatical inference (MGGI) methodology in automatic speech recognition.
*International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence***4**, 667–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - García, P. & Vidal, E. (1990). Inference of
*K*-testable languages in the strict sense and applications to syntactic pattern recognition.*IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence***12**/9, 920–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Garey, M.R. & Johnson, D.S. (1979). Computers and intractability: a guide to the theory of NP-completeness. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
- Gold, E.M. (1967). Language identification in the limit.
*Inform. & Control*.**10**, 447–474.Google Scholar - Gold, E.M. (1978). Complexity of automaton identification from given data.
*Information and Control***37**, 302–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Goldman, S.A. & Kearns M.J. (1991). On the complexity of teaching.
*Proceedings of COLT'*91 (pp. 303–314).Google Scholar - Goldman, S.A. & Mathias, H.D. (1993). Teaching a smarter learner.
*Proceedings of COLT'*93 (pp. 67–76).Google Scholar - Harrison, M.A. (1978). Introduction to formal language theory. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Ishizaka, I. (1989). Learning simple deterministic languages.
*Proceedings of COLT'*89 (pp. 162–174). A.C.M.Google Scholar - Jackson, J. & Tomkins, A. (1992). A computational model of teaching.
*Proceedings of COLT'*92 (pp. 319–326). A.C.M.Google Scholar - Koshiba, T., Mäkinen, E. & Takada, Y. (1995). Learning deterministic even linear languages from positive examples.
*Proceedings of ALT*'95, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence**997**, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar - Oncina, J. & García, P. (1992) Inferring regular languages in polynomial time.
*In Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis, World Scientific*.Google Scholar - Oncina, J., García, P. & Vidal E. (1993). Learning subsequential transducers for pattern recognition tasks.
*IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence***15**, 448–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Pitt, L. (1989). Inductive inference, dfas and computational complexity.
*Proceedings of the International Workshop on Analogical and Inductive Inference*(pp. 18–44). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence**397**, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar - Sempere, J.M. & García, P. (1994). A characterisation of even linear languages and its application to the learning problem.
*Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Grammatical Inference ICGI-94*(pp. 38–44). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence**862**, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar - Takada, Y. (1988). Grammatical inference for even linear languages based on control sets.
*Information Processing Letters***28**, 193–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Takada, Y. (1994). A hierarchy of language families learnable by regular language learners.
*Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Grammatical Inference ICGI*-94 (pp. 16–24). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence**862**, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar - Wiehagen, R. (1992). From inductive inference to algorithmic learning theory.
*Proceedings of ALT' 92*, (pp 13–24). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence**743**, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar - Yokomori, T. (1993). Learning non-deterministic finite automata from queries and counterexamples.
*Machine Intelligence***13**. Furukawa, Michie & Muggleton eds., Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar