Skip to main content

Closedness properties in team learning of recursive functions

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1208))

Abstract

This paper investigates closedness properties in relation with team learning of total recursive functions. One of the first problems solved for any new identification types is the following: “Does the identifiability of classes U 1 and U 2 imply the identifiability of U 1U 2?” In this paper we are interested in a more general question: “Does the identifiability of every union of n−1 classes out of U 1,...,U n imply the identifiability of U 1∪...∪U n?” If the answer is positive, we call such identification type n-closed. We show that n-closedness can be equivalently formulated in terms of team learning. After that we find for which n team identification in the limit and team finite identification types are n-closed. In the case of team finite identification only teams in which at least half of the strategies must be successful are considered. It turns out that all these identification types, though not closed in the usual sense, are n-closed for some n>2.

This research was supported by Latvian Science Council Grant No. 93.599.

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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. A. Ambainis. Probabilistic and team PFIN-type learning: general properties. Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Computational Learning Theory, pp. 157–168, ACM, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  2. K. Apsītis. Topological considerations in composing teams of learning machines. In K. Jantke, S. Lange, editors, Algorithmic Learning for Knowledge Based Systems. LNAI, vol. 961, pp. 146–154. Springer-Verlag, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  3. K. Apsītis, R. Freivalds, M. Kriķis, R. Simanovskis, and J. Smotrovs. Unions of identifiable classes of total recursive functions. In K. Jantke, editor, Analogical and Inductive Inference. LNAI, vol. 642, pp. 99–107. Springer-Verlag, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  4. K. Apsītis, R. Freivalds, R. Simanovskis, and J. Smotrovs. Unions of identifiable families of languages. In L. Miclet, C. de la Higuera, editors, Grammatical Inference: Learning Syntax from Sentences. LNAI, vol. 1147, pp. 48–58. Springer-Verlag, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. Bārzdiņs. Two theorems on the limiting synthesis of functions. In J. Bārzdiņ>s, editor, Theory of Algorithms and Programs, vol. 1, pp. 82–88. Latvian State University, Rīga, 1974. (In Russian.)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  7. R. Daley, L. Pitt, M. Velauthapillai, and T. Will. Relations between probabilistic and team one-shot learners. In M. Warmuth and L. Valiant, editors, Proceedings of the 1991 Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pp. 228–239, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  8. R. Freivalds. Functions computable in the limit by probabilistic machines. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 28, pp. 77–87, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  9. R. Freivalds and R. Wiehagen. Inductive inference with additional information. Elektronische Informationsverabeitung und Kybernetik, vol. 15 (4), pp. 179–184, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  11. S. Jain and A. Sharma. Finite learning by a team. In M. Fulk and J. Case, editors, Proceedings of the Third Annual Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pp. 163–177, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  12. D. Osherson, M. Stob, and S. Weinstein. Aggregating inductive expertise. Information and Control, vol. 70, pp. 69–95, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  13. L. Pitt and C. Smith. Probability and plurality for aggregations of learning machines. Information and Computation, vol. 77, pp. 77–92, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  14. H. Rogers, Jr. Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  15. C. Smith. The power of pluralism for automatic program synthesis. Journal of the ACM, vol. 29, pp. 1144–1165, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J. Smotrovs. Closedness properties in EX-identification of recursive functions. Submitted to the ECML-97 conference, Prague.

    Google Scholar 

  17. R. Smullyan. Theory of Formal Systems. Annals of Mathematical Studies, vol. 47, Princeton, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  18. M. Velauthapillai. Inductive inference with a bounded number of mind changes. In R. Rivest, D. Haussler, and M. Warmuth, editors, Proceedings of the 1989 Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pp. 200–213, Morgan Kaufmann, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Shai Ben-David

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Smotrovs, J. (1997). Closedness properties in team learning of recursive functions. In: Ben-David, S. (eds) Computational Learning Theory. EuroCOLT 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1208. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-62685-9_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-62685-9_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-62685-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68431-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics