Skip to main content

Prudence in vacillatory language identification (Extended abstract)

  • Technical Papers
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Algorithmic Learning Theory (ALT 1992)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 743))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The present paper settles an open question about ‘prudent’ vacillatory identification of grammars from positive data only.

Consider a scenario in which a learner M is learning a language L from positive data. Three different criteria for success of M on L have been investigated in formal language learning theory. If M converges to a single correct grammar for L, then the criterion of success is Gold's seminal notion of TxtEx-identification. If M converges to a finite number of correct grammars for L, then the criterion of success is called TxtFex-identification. And, if M, after a finite number of incorrect guesses, outputs only correct grammars for L (possibly infinitely many distinct grammars), then the criterion of success is known as TxtBc-identification.

A learner is said to be prudent according to a particular criterion of success just in case the only grammars it ever conjectures are for languages that it can learn according to that criterion. This notion was introduced by Osherson, Stob, and Weinstein with a view to investigate certain proposals for characterizing natural languages in linguistic theory. Fulk showed that prudence does not restrict TxtEx-identification, and later Kurtz and Royer were able to show that prudence does not restrict TxtBc-identification. The present paper settles this question by showing that prudence does not restrict TxtFex-identification.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. L. Blum and M. Blum. Toward a mathematical theory of inductive inference. Information and Control, 28:125–155, 1975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. M. Blum. A machine independent theory of the complexity of recursive functions. Journal of the ACM, 14:322–336, 1967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 

  4. J. Case and C. Lynes. Machine inductive inference and language identification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 140:107–115, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  5. M. Fulk. A Study of Inductive Inference machines. PhD thesis, SUNY at Buffalo, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  6. M. Fulk. Prudence and other conditions on formal language learning. Information and Computation, 85:1–11, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  7. E. M. Gold. Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 10:447–474, 1967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. J. Hopcroft and J. Ullman. Introduction to Automata Theory Languages and Computation. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  9. S.A. Kurtz and J.S. Royer. Prudence in language learning. In D. Haussler and L. Pitt, editors, Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pages 143–156. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  10. M. Machtey and P. Young. An Introduction to the General Theory of Algorithms. North Holland, New York, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  11. D. Osherson, M. Stob, and S. Weinstein. Ideal learning machines. Cognitive Science, 6:277–290, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  12. D. Osherson, M. Stob, and S. Weinstein. Learning strategies. Information and Control, 53:32–51, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  13. D. Osherson, M. Stob, and S. Weinstein. Learning theory and natural language. Cognition, 17:1–28, 1984.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. D. Osherson and S. Weinstein. Criteria of language learning. Information and Control, 52:123–138, 1982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. D. Osherson and S. Weinstein. A note on formal learning theory. Cognition, 11:77–88, 1982.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. S. Pinker. Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 7:217–283, 1979.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. H. Rogers. Gödel numberings of partial recursive functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 23:331–341, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  19. H. Rogers. Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability. McGraw Hill, New York, 1967. Reprinted, MIT Press 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  20. K. Wexler and P. Culicover. Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  21. K. Wexler. On extensional learnability. Cognition, 11:89–95, 1982.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Shuji Doshita Koichi Furukawa Klaus P. Jantke Toyaki Nishida

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1993 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Jain, S., Sharma, A. (1993). Prudence in vacillatory language identification (Extended abstract). In: Doshita, S., Furukawa, K., Jantke, K.P., Nishida, T. (eds) Algorithmic Learning Theory. ALT 1992. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 743. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-57369-0_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-57369-0_36

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-57369-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48093-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics