# Complexity issues for vacillatory function identification

Conference paper

First Online:

## Abstract

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.

## Keywords

Inductive Inference Function Learning Correct Program Program Output Final Program
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.

## References

- [Ang80]D. Angluin. Finding patterns common to a set of strings.
*Journal of Computer and System Sciences*, 21:46–62, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - [BB75]L. Blum and M. Blum. Toward a mathematical theory of inductive inference.
*Information and Control*, 28:125–155, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - [BF74]J. A. Barzdin and R. Freivalds. Prediction and limiting synthesis of recursively enumerable classes of functions.
*Latvijas Valsts Univ. Zimatm. Raksti*, 210:101–111, 1974.Google Scholar - [Blu67]M. Blum. A machine independent theory of the complexity of recursive functions.
*Journal of the ACM*, 14:322–336, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - [BP73]J. A. Barzdin and K. Podnieks. The theory of inductive inference. In
*Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science*, 1973.Google Scholar - [Cas74]J. Case. Periodicity in generations of automata.
*Mathematical Systems Theory*, 8:15–32, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - [Cas88]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 - [Che81]K. Chen.
*Tradeoffs in Machine Inductive Inference*. PhD thesis, SUNY at Buffalo, 1981.Google Scholar - [Che82]K. Chen. Tradeoffs in inductive inference of nearly minimal sized programs.
*Information and Control*, 52:68–86, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - [CJS89]J. Case, S. Jain, and A. Sharma. Convergence to nearly minimal size grammars by vacillating learning machines. In R. Rivest, D. Haussler, and M.K. Warmuth, editors,
*Proceedings of the Second Annual Workshop on Computational Learning Theory*,*Santa Cruz, California*, pages 189–199. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., August 1989.Google Scholar - [CS83]J. Case and C. Smith. Comparison of identification criteria for machine inductive inference.
*Theoretical Computer Science*, 25:193–220, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - [DS86]R. Daley and C. Smith. On the complexity of inductive inference.
*Information and Control*, 69:12–40, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - [Fre75]R. Freivalds. Minimal Gödel numbers and their identification in the limit.
*Lecture Notes in Computer Science*, 32:219–225, 1975.Google Scholar - [Gol67]E. M. Gold. Language identification in the limit.
*Information and Control*, 10:447–474, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - [Gol78]E. M. Gold. Complexity of automaton identification from given data.
*Information and Control*, 37:302–320, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - [JS90]S. Jain and A. Sharma. Program size restrictions in inductive learning. Technical Report 90-06, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, 1990.Google Scholar
- [Kin74]E.B. Kinber. On the synthesis in the limit of almost minimal Gödel numbers.
*Theory Of Algorithms and Programs*,*LSU*,*Riga, U.S.S.R.*, 1:221–223, 1974.Google Scholar - [Kin77]E.B. Kinber. On limit identification of minimal Gödel numbers for functions from enumerable classes.
*Theory of Algorithms and Programs 3;Riga 1977*, pages 35–56, 1977.Google Scholar - [MY78]M. Machtey and P. Young.
*An Introduction to the General Theory of Algorithms*. North Holland, New York, 1978.Google Scholar - [OW82]D. Osherson and S. Weinstein. Criteria of language learning.
*Information and Control*, 52:123–138, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - [Rog58]H. Rogers. Gödel numberings of partial recursive functions.
*Journal of Symbolic Logic*, 23:331–341, 1958.Google Scholar - [Rog67]H. Rogers.
*Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability*. McGraw Hill, New York, 1967. Reprinted. MIT Press. 1987.Google Scholar - [Wie86]R. Wiehagen. On the complexity of program synthesis from examples.
*Electronische Informationverarbeitung und Kybernetik*, 22:305–323, 1986.Google Scholar - [Zeu83]T. Zeugmann. On the synthesis of fastest programs in inductive inference.
*Electronische Informationverarbeitung und Kybernetik*, 19:625–642, 1983.Google Scholar

## Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991