1996
DOI: 10.1007/bfb0033342
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Characteristic sets for polynomial grammatical inference

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
62
0
2

Year Published

1997
1997
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
62
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…A similar concept has been studied in the context of automata [3]. Although any n-state deterministic finite automaton for some finite language L can be converted into a corresponding minimal cover-automaton, using only O(n log n) time [17], the construction of a minimal covergrammar seems to be intractable, specially in view of the following facts: (1) there is no polynomial-time algorithm for obtaining the smallest context-free grammar that generates exactly one given word (unless P = NP) [4]; (2) context-free grammar equivalence and even equivalence between a context-free grammar and a regular expression are undecidable [15]; (3) for any alphabet of a size of at least 2, the class of context-free grammars is not polynomially characterizable [12]; (4) the grammar can be exponentially smaller than any word in the language (an example is given in a book [14]). To our best knowledge there are no published algorithms for a cover-grammar problem defined as above.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A similar concept has been studied in the context of automata [3]. Although any n-state deterministic finite automaton for some finite language L can be converted into a corresponding minimal cover-automaton, using only O(n log n) time [17], the construction of a minimal covergrammar seems to be intractable, specially in view of the following facts: (1) there is no polynomial-time algorithm for obtaining the smallest context-free grammar that generates exactly one given word (unless P = NP) [4]; (2) context-free grammar equivalence and even equivalence between a context-free grammar and a regular expression are undecidable [15]; (3) for any alphabet of a size of at least 2, the class of context-free grammars is not polynomially characterizable [12]; (4) the grammar can be exponentially smaller than any word in the language (an example is given in a book [14]). To our best knowledge there are no published algorithms for a cover-grammar problem defined as above.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The learning problem is then considered in the setting of identification in the limit from text with polynomial time and data introduced by de la Higuera [5]. For the sake of better readability we recall the definition here in the form used by Clark and Eyraud [4].…”
Section: Towards More Realistic Learning Scenariosmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this problem, the learner finds out a correct hypothesis via a special set of examples. There are some different models of teachability [2], [4], [9]. In Goldman and Mathias's setting [2], the teacher makes a set of examples called teaching set which is helpful for the learner.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…"Identification in the limit from polynomial time and data" is defined by de la Higuera [4]. This setting adds one more consistency condition to Goldman and Mathias's teachability, i.e.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation