2007
DOI: 10.1109/tevc.2006.880329
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Learning Finite-State Transducers: Evolution Versus Heuristic State Merging

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this research, we followed the work of [4] and used two tables to represent a FST. The first table is transition table (see Figure V), which gives the next state of a FST based on the input symbol and the current state.…”
Section: Evolving Finite State Transducersmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In this research, we followed the work of [4] and used two tables to represent a FST. The first table is transition table (see Figure V), which gives the next state of a FST based on the input symbol and the current state.…”
Section: Evolving Finite State Transducersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This system only uses mutation operator, which works the same way as that in [4]. First, a decision is made with equal probability to either mutate the transition table or the output table.…”
Section: B the Evolutionary Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Ngom et al [7] used genetic simulation for Moore machine identification, Tongchim and Chongstitvatana [8] investigated parallel implementation of the GA to solve the problem of FSM synthesis. Lucas [9] paid more attention to finite state transducers and he and Reynolds [10] compared this method to 'Heuristic State Merging'. Niparnan and Chongstitvatana [11] improved GA by evolving only the state transition function.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are two major ways to define a fitness function: based on comparing the FSM's behavior to a standard recorded in test examples [3], [6], [7] or based on modeling in some environment [8], [9]. Both of these ways may lead to high computational costs of a single fitness function evaluation, which directly leads to an increased cost of building an optimal FSM.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%