Measuring Learning Complexity with Criteria Epitomizers

In prior papers, beginning with the seminal work by Freivalds et al. 1995, the notion of intrinsic complexity is used to analyze the learning complexity of sets of functions in a Gold-style learning setting. Herein are pointed out some weaknesses of this notion. Offered is an alternative based on epitomizing sets of functions -- sets, which are learnable under a given learning criterion, but not under other criteria which are not at least as powerful. To capture the idea of epitomizing sets, new reducibility notions are given based on robust learning (closure of learning under certain classes of operators). Various degrees of epitomizing sets are characterized as the sets complete with respect to corresponding reducibility notions! These characterizations also provide an easy method for showing sets to be epitomizers, and they are, then, employed to prove several sets to be epitomizing. Furthermore, a scheme is provided to generate easily very strong epitomizers for a multitude of learning criteria. These strong epitomizers are so-called self-learning sets, previously applied by Case & Koetzing, 2010. These strong epitomizers can be generated and employed in a myriad of settings to witness the strict separation in learning power between the criteria so epitomized and other not as powerful criteria

Learning categorial grammars

In 1967 E. M. Gold published a paper in which the language classes from the Chomsky-hierarchy were analyzed in terms of learnability, in the technical sense of identification in the limit. His results were mostly negative, and perhaps because of this his work had little impact on linguistics. In the early eighties there was renewed interest in the paradigm, mainly because of work by Angluin and Wright. Around the same time, Arikawa and his co-workers refined the paradigm by applying it to so-called Elementary Formal Systems. By making use of this approach Takeshi Shinohara was able to come up with an impressive result; any class of context-sensitive grammars with a bound on its number of rules is learnable. Some linguistically motivated work on learnability also appeared from this point on, most notably Wexler & Culicover 1980 and Kanazawa 1994. The latter investigates the learnability of various classes of categorial grammar, inspired by work by Buszkowski and Penn, and raises some interesting questions. We follow up on this work by exploring complexity issues relevant to learning these classes, answering an open question from Kanazawa 1994, and applying the same kind of approach to obtain (non)learnable classes of Combinatory Categorial Grammars, Tree Adjoining Grammars, Minimalist grammars, Generalized Quantifiers, and some variants of Lambek Grammars. We also discuss work on learning tree languages and its application to learning Dependency Grammars. Our main conclusions are: - formal learning theory is relevant to linguistics, - identification in the limit is feasible for non-trivial classes, - the `Shinohara approach' -i.e., placing a numerical bound on the complexity of a grammar- can lead to a learnable class, but this completely depends on the specific nature of the formalism and the notion of complexity. We give examples of natural classes of commonly used linguistic formalisms that resist this kind of approach, - learning is hard work. Our results indicate that learning even `simple' classes of languages requires a lot of computational effort, - dealing with structure (derivation-, dependency-) languages instead of string languages offers a useful and promising approach to learnabilty in a linguistic contex