Results 1  10
of
52
The Power of Vacillation in Language Learning
, 1992
"... Some extensions are considered of Gold's influential model of language learning by machine from positive data. Studied are criteria of successful learning featuring convergence in the limit to vacillation between several alternative correct grammars. The main theorem of this paper is that there ..."
Abstract

Cited by 48 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Some extensions are considered of Gold's influential model of language learning by machine from positive data. Studied are criteria of successful learning featuring convergence in the limit to vacillation between several alternative correct grammars. The main theorem of this paper is that there are classes of languages that can be learned if convergence in the limit to up to (n+1) exactly correct grammars is allowed but which cannot be learned if convergence in the limit is to no more than n grammars, where the no more than n grammars can each make finitely many mistakes. This contrasts sharply with results of Barzdin and Podnieks and, later, Case and Smith, for learnability from both positive and negative data. A subset principle from a 1980 paper of Angluin is extended to the vacillatory and other criteria of this paper. This principle, provides a necessary condition for circumventing overgeneralization in learning from positive data. It is applied to prove another theorem to the eff...
The Structure of Complete Degrees
, 1990
"... This paper surveys investigations into how strong these commonalities are. More concretely, we are concerned with: What do NPcomplete sets look like? To what extent are the properties of particular NPcomplete sets, e.g., SAT, shared by all NPcomplete sets? If there are are structural differences ..."
Abstract

Cited by 30 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper surveys investigations into how strong these commonalities are. More concretely, we are concerned with: What do NPcomplete sets look like? To what extent are the properties of particular NPcomplete sets, e.g., SAT, shared by all NPcomplete sets? If there are are structural differences between NPcomplete sets, what are they and what explains the differences? We make these questions, and the analogous questions for other complexity classes, more precise below. We need first to formalize NPcompleteness. There are a number of competing definitions of NPcompleteness. (See [Har78a, p. 7] for a discussion.) The most common, and the one we use, is based on the notion of mreduction, also known as polynomialtime manyone reduction and Karp reduction. A set A is mreducible to B if and only if there is a (total) polynomialtime computable function f such that for all x, x 2 A () f(x) 2 B: (1) 1
Computational complexity and the existence of complexity gaps
 Dep. of
, 1969
"... ABSTRACT. Some consequences of the Blum axioms for step counting functions are investigated. Complexity classes of recursive functions are introduced analogous to the HartmanisStearns classes of recursive sequences. Arbitrarily large "gaps " are shown to occur throughout any complexity h ..."
Abstract

Cited by 27 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
ABSTRACT. Some consequences of the Blum axioms for step counting functions are investigated. Complexity classes of recursive functions are introduced analogous to the HartmanisStearns classes of recursive sequences. Arbitrarily large "gaps " are shown to occur throughout any complexity hierarchy. KEY WORDS AND PHRASES: computational complexity, measures ofcomplexity, recursive functions, tape complexity, step counting functions, axiomatic omplexity theory
Infinitary Self Reference in Learning Theory
, 1994
"... Kleene's Second Recursion Theorem provides a means for transforming any program p into a program e(p) which first creates a quiescent self copy and then runs p on that self copy together with any externally given input. e(p), in effect, has complete (low level) self knowledge, and p represents ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Kleene's Second Recursion Theorem provides a means for transforming any program p into a program e(p) which first creates a quiescent self copy and then runs p on that self copy together with any externally given input. e(p), in effect, has complete (low level) self knowledge, and p represents how e(p) uses its self knowledge (and its knowledge of the external world). Infinite regress is not required since e(p) creates its self copy outside of itself. One mechanism to achieve this creation is a self replication trick isomorphic to that employed by singlecelled organisms. Another is for e(p) to look in a mirror to see which program it is. In 1974 the author published an infinitary generalization of Kleene's theorem which he called the Operator Recursion Theorem. It provides a means for obtaining an (algorithmically) growing collection of programs which, in effect, share a common (also growing) mirror from which they can obtain complete low level models of themselves and the other prog...
Computational Limits on Team Identification of Languages
, 1993
"... A team of learning machines is essentially a multiset of learning machines. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 17 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
A team of learning machines is essentially a multiset of learning machines.
Synthesizing Enumeration Techniques For Language Learning
 In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory
, 1996
"... this paper we assume, without loss of generality, that for all oe ` ø , [M(oe) 6=?] ) [M(ø) 6=?]. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 16 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper we assume, without loss of generality, that for all oe ` ø , [M(oe) 6=?] ) [M(ø) 6=?].
On abstract computer virology from a recursion theoretic perspective
 Journal in Computer Virology
, 2006
"... ..."
(Show Context)
Complexity issues for vacillatory function identification
 Information and Computation
, 1995
"... It was previously shown by Barzdin and Podnieks that one does not increase the power of learning programs for functions by allowing learning algorithms to converge to a finite set of correct programs instead of requiring them to converge to a single correct program. In this paper we define some new, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
It was previously shown by Barzdin and Podnieks that one does not increase the power of learning programs for functions by allowing learning algorithms to converge to a finite set of correct programs instead of requiring them to converge to a single correct program. In this paper we define some new, subtle, but natural concepts of mind change complexity for function learning and show that, if one bounds this complexity for learning algorithms, then, by contrast with Barzdin and Podnieks result, there are interesting and sometimes complicated tradeoffs between these complexity bounds, bounds on the number of final correct programs, and learning power. CR Classification Number: I.2.6 (Learning – Induction). 1
On learning limiting programs
 International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science
, 1992
"... Machine learning of limit programs (i.e., programs allowed finitely many mind changes about their legitimate outputs) for computable functions is studied. Learning of iterated limit programs is also studied. To partially motivate these studies, it is shown that, in some cases, interesting global pr ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Machine learning of limit programs (i.e., programs allowed finitely many mind changes about their legitimate outputs) for computable functions is studied. Learning of iterated limit programs is also studied. To partially motivate these studies, it is shown that, in some cases, interesting global properties of computable functions can be proved from suitable (n + 1)iterated limit programs for them which can not be proved from any niterated limit programs for them. It is shown that learning power is increased when (n + 1)iterated limit programs rather than niterated limit programs are to be learned. Many tradeoff results are obtained regarding learning power, number (possibly zero) of limits taken, program size constraints and information, and number of errors tolerated in final programs learned.