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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Angluin, D., “Finding patterns common to a set of strings,” J. of Computer and System Sciences, 21 (1980), 46–62.
Angluin, D., “Inductive inference of formal languages from positive data,” Information and Control, 45, 117–135, 1980.
Angluin, D., “Inference of Reversible Languages,” J. of the ACM, to appear.
Barzdin, J., “Two theorems on the limiting synthesis of functions,” Latvii gosudarst. Univ. ucenye Zapiski, 210, 82–88 (Russian), 1974.
Blum, L. and M. Blum, “Toward a mathematical theory of inductive inference,” Information and Control, 28, 125–155, 1975.
Case, J., “Periodicity in generations of automata,” Math. Systems Theory, 8, 15–32, 1974.
Case, J. and S. Ngo Manguelle, “Refinements of inductive inference by Popperian machines I, II,” Kybernetika, to appear.
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.
Case, J. and C. Smith, “Comparison of identification criteria for machine inductive inference,” Theoretical Computer Science, to appear.
Chen, K. J., Tradeoffs in Machine Inductive Inference, Ph.D. Dissertation, Computer Science Department, SUNY at Buffalo, Amherst, New York, 1981.
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.
Daley, R., “On the error correcting power of pluralism in inductive inference,” preprint.
Feldman, J., “Some decidability results on grammatical inference and complexity,” Information and Control, 20, 244–262, 1972.
Freivald, R. and R. Wiehagen, “Inductive inference with additional information,” Electronische Informationsverarbeitung und Kybernetik, 15, 179–185, 1979.
Gold, M., “Language identification in the limit,” Information and Control, 10, 447–474, 1967.
Hopcroft, J. and J. Ullman, Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1979.
Klette, R. and R. Wiehagen, “Research in the theory of inductive inference by GDR mathematicians — a survey,” Information Sciences, 22, 149–169, 1980.
Machtey, M. and P. Young, An Introduction to the General Theory of Algorithms, North-Holland, New York, 1978.
Minicozzi, E., “Some natural properties of strong-identification in inductive inference,” Theoretical Computer Science, 2, 345–360, 1976.
Osherson, D. and S. Weinstein, “A note on formal learning theory,” Cognition, 11 (1982), 77–88.
Osherson, D. and S. Weinstein, “Criteria of language learning,” preprint.
Pinker, S., “Formal models of language learning,” Cognition, 7 (1979), 217–283.
Rogers, H., “Gödel numberings of the partial recursive functions,” J. of Symbolic logic, 23, 331–341, 1958.
Rogers, H., Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.
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).
Wexler, K., “On extensional learnabllity,” Cognition, 11 (1982), 89–95.
Wexler, K. and P. Culicover, Formal Principles of Language Acquisition, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1980.
Wiehagen, R., “Identification of Formal Languages,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 53, 571–579, 1977.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1982 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Case, J., Lynes, C. (1982). Machine inductive inference and language identification. In: Nielsen, M., Schmidt, E.M. (eds) Automata, Languages and Programming. ICALP 1982. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 140. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0012761
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0012761
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-11576-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-39308-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive