In computational learning theory, induction of regular languages refers to the task of learning a formal description (e.g. grammar) of a regular language from a given set of example strings. Although E. Mark Gold has shown that not every regular language can be learned this way (see language identification in the limit), approaches have been investigated for a variety of subclasses. They are sketched in this article. For learning of more general grammars, see Grammar induction.
Definitions A regular language is defined as a (finite or infinite) set of strings that can be described by one of the mathematical formalisms called "finite automaton", "regular grammar", or "regular expression", all of which have the same expressive power. Since the latter formalism leads to shortest notations, it shall be introduced and used here. Given a set Σ of symbols (a.k.a. alphabet), a regular expression can be any of
∅ (denoting the empty set of strings), ε (denoting the singleton set containing just the empty string), a (where a is any character in Σ; denoting the singleton set just containing the single-character string a), r + s (where r and s are, in turn, simpler regular expressions; denoting their set's union) r ⋅ s (denoting the set of all possible concatenations of strings from r's and s's set), r + (denoting the set of n-fold repetitions of strings from r's set, for any n ≥ 1), or r * (similarly denoting the set of n-fold repetitions, but also including the empty string, seen as 0-fold repetition). For example, using Σ = {0,1}, the regular expression (0+1+ε)⋅(0+1) denotes the set of all binary numbers with one or two digits (leading zero allowed), while 1⋅(0+1)*⋅0 denotes the (infinite) set of all even binary numbers (no leading zeroes). Given a set of strings (also called "positive examples"), the task of regular language induction is to come up with a regular expression that denotes a set containing all of them. As an example, given {1, 10, 100}, a "natural" description could be the regular expression 1⋅0*, corresponding to the informal characterization "a 1 followed by arbitrarily many (maybe even none) 0's". However, (0+1)* and 1+(1⋅0)+(1⋅0⋅0) is another regular expression, denoting the largest (assuming Σ = {0,1}) and the smallest set containing the given strings, and called the trivial overgeneralization and undergeneralization, respectively. Some approaches work in an extended setting where also a set of "negative example" strings is given; then, a regular expression is to be found that generates all of the positive, but none of the negative examples.
Lattice of automata
Dupont et al. have shown that the set of all structurally complete finite automata generating a given input set of example strings forms a lattice, with the trivial undergeneralized and the trivial overgeneralized automaton as bottom and top element, respectively. Each member of this lattice can be obtained by factoring the undergeneralized automaton by an appropriate equivalence relation. For the above example string set {1, 10, 100}, the picture shows at its bottom the undergeneralized automaton Aa,b,c,d in grey, consisting of states a, b, c, and d. On the state set {a,b,c,d}, a total of 15 equivalence relations exist, forming a lattice. Mapping each equivalence E to the corresponding quotient automaton language L(Aa,b,c,d / E) obtains the partially ordered set shown in the picture. Each node's language is denoted by a regular expression. The language may be recognized by quotient automata w.r.t. different equivalence relations, all of which are shown below the node. An arrow between two nodes indicates that the lower node's language is a proper subset of the higher node's. If both positive and negative example strings are given, Dupont et al. build the lattice from the positive examples, and then investigate the separation border between automata that generate some negative example and such that do not. Most interesting are those automata immediately below the border. In the picture, separation borders are shown for the negative example strings 11 (green), 1001 (blue), 101 (cyan), and 0 (red). Coste and Nicolas present an own search method within the lattice, which they relate to Mitchell's version space paradigm. To find the separation border, they use a graph coloring algorithm on the state inequality relation induced by the negative examples. Later, they investigate several ordering relations on the set of all possible state fusions. Kudo and Shimbo use the representation by automaton factorizations to give a unique framework for the following approaches (sketched below):
k-reversible languages and the "tail clustering" follow-up approach, Successor automata and the predecessor-successor method, and pumping-based approaches (framework-integration challenged by Luzeaux, however). Each of these approaches is shown to correspond to a particular kind of equivalence relations used for factorization.
Approaches
k-reversible languages Angluin considers so-called "k-reversible" regular automata, that is, deterministic automata in which each state can be reached from at most one state by following a transition chain of length k. Formally, if Σ, Q, and δ denote the input alphabet, the state set, and the transition function of an automaton A, respectively, then A is called k-reversible if: ∀a0, ..., ak ∈ Σ ∀s1, s2 ∈ Q: δ*(s1, a0...ak) = δ*(s2, a0...ak) ⇒ s1 = s2, where δ* means the homomorphic extension of δ to arbitrary words. Angluin gives a cubic algorithm for learning of the smallest k-reversible language from a given set of input words; for k = 0, the algorithm has even almost linear complexity. The required state uniqueness after k + 1 given symbols forces unifying automaton states, thus leading to a proper generalization different from the trivial undergeneralized automaton. This algorithm has been used to learn simple parts of English syntax; later, an incremental version has been provided. Another approach based on k-reversible automata is the tail clustering method.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
