Language acquisition and machine learning

In this paper, we review recent progress in the field of machine learning and examine its implications for computational models of language acquisition. As a framework for understanding this research, we propose four component tasks involved in learning from experience - aggregation, clustering, characterization, and storage. We then consider four common problems studied by machine learning researchers - learning from examples, heuristics learning, conceptual clustering, and learning macro-operators - describing each in terms of our framework. After this, we turn to the problem of grammar acquisition, relating this problem to other learning tasks and reviewing four AI systems that have addressed the problem. Finally, we note some limitations of the earlier work and propose an alternative approach to modeling the mechanisms underlying language acquisition

A Survey on Compiler Autotuning using Machine Learning

Since the mid-1990s, researchers have been trying to use machine-learning based approaches to solve a number of different compiler optimization problems. These techniques primarily enhance the quality of the obtained results and, more importantly, make it feasible to tackle two main compiler optimization problems: optimization selection (choosing which optimizations to apply) and phase-ordering (choosing the order of applying optimizations). The compiler optimization space continues to grow due to the advancement of applications, increasing number of compiler optimizations, and new target architectures. Generic optimization passes in compilers cannot fully leverage newly introduced optimizations and, therefore, cannot keep up with the pace of increasing options. This survey summarizes and classifies the recent advances in using machine learning for the compiler optimization field, particularly on the two major problems of (1) selecting the best optimizations and (2) the phase-ordering of optimizations. The survey highlights the approaches taken so far, the obtained results, the fine-grain classification among different approaches and finally, the influential papers of the field.Comment: version 5.0 (updated on September 2018)- Preprint Version For our Accepted Journal @ ACM CSUR 2018 (42 pages) - This survey will be updated quarterly here (Send me your new published papers to be added in the subsequent version) History: Received November 2016; Revised August 2017; Revised February 2018; Accepted March 2018

The Meaning of Memory Safety

We give a rigorous characterization of what it means for a programming language to be memory safe, capturing the intuition that memory safety supports local reasoning about state. We formalize this principle in two ways. First, we show how a small memory-safe language validates a noninterference property: a program can neither affect nor be affected by unreachable parts of the state. Second, we extend separation logic, a proof system for heap-manipulating programs, with a memory-safe variant of its frame rule. The new rule is stronger because it applies even when parts of the program are buggy or malicious, but also weaker because it demands a stricter form of separation between parts of the program state. We also consider a number of pragmatically motivated variations on memory safety and the reasoning principles they support. As an application of our characterization, we evaluate the security of a previously proposed dynamic monitor for memory safety of heap-allocated data.Comment: POST'18 final versio

Approaches to conceptual clustering

Methods for Conceptual Clustering may be explicated in two lights. Conceptual Clustering methods may be viewed as extensions to techniques of numerical taxonomy, a collection of methods developed by social and natural scientists for creating classification schemes over object sets. Alternatively, conceptual clustering may be viewed as a form of learning by observation or concept formation, as opposed to methods of learning from examples or concept identification. In this paper we survey and compare a number of conceptual clustering methods along dimensions suggested by each of these views. The point we most wish to clarify is that conceptual clustering processes can be explicated as being composed of three distinct but inter-dependent subprocesses: the process of deriving a hierarchical classification scheme; the process of aggregating objects into individual classes; and the process of assigning conceptual descriptions to object classes. Each subprocess may be characterized along a number of dimensions related to search, thus facilitating a better understanding of the conceptual clustering process as a whole

Comparing Human and Machine Errors in Conversational Speech Transcription

Recent work in automatic recognition of conversational telephone speech (CTS) has achieved accuracy levels comparable to human transcribers, although there is some debate how to precisely quantify human performance on this task, using the NIST 2000 CTS evaluation set. This raises the question what systematic differences, if any, may be found differentiating human from machine transcription errors. In this paper we approach this question by comparing the output of our most accurate CTS recognition system to that of a standard speech transcription vendor pipeline. We find that the most frequent substitution, deletion and insertion error types of both outputs show a high degree of overlap. The only notable exception is that the automatic recognizer tends to confuse filled pauses ("uh") and backchannel acknowledgments ("uhhuh"). Humans tend not to make this error, presumably due to the distinctive and opposing pragmatic functions attached to these words. Furthermore, we quantify the correlation between human and machine errors at the speaker level, and investigate the effect of speaker overlap between training and test data. Finally, we report on an informal "Turing test" asking humans to discriminate between automatic and human transcription error cases