Teaching classes with high teaching dimension using few examples

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 3559 LNAI, Issue , 2005, Pages 668-683

  Balbach, Frank J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LÜBECK   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; BOOLEAN ALGEBRA; NUMBER THEORY;

ARBITRARY CONSISTENT; BOOLEAN CONCEPT; TEACHING ALGORITHMS; TEACHING DIMENSION;

TEACHING;

EID: 26944467561     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/11503415_45     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. D. Angluin. Queries and concept learning. Machine Learning, 2(4):319-342, 1988.
2. D. Angluin. Queries revisited. In ALT 2001, Proceedings, volume 2225 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 12-31. Springer, 2001.
3. D. Angluin and M. Krikis. Teachers, learners and black boxes. In Proceedings COLT 1997, pages 285-297. ACM Press, New York, NY, 1997.
4. D. Angluin and M. Krikis. Learning from different teachers. Machine Learning, 51(2):137-163, 2003.
5. M. Anthony, G. Brightwell, and J. Shawe-Taylor. On specifying boolean functions by labelled examples. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 61(1):1-25, 1995.
6. T. Eiter, T. Ibaraki, and K. Makino. Decision lists and related Boolean functions. Theoretical Computer Science, 270(1-2):493-524, 2002.
7. R. Freivalds, E. B. Kinber, and R. Wiehagen. On the power of inductive inference from good examples. Theoretical Computer Science, 110(1):131-144, 1993.
8. S. Goldman. Learning Binary Relations, Total Orders, and Read-Once Formulas. PhD thesis, MIT Dept. of Electr. Engineering and Computer Science, Sept. 1990.
9. S. A. Goldman and M. J. Kearns. On the complexity of teaching. J. of Comput. Syst. Sci., 50(1):20-31, 1995.
10. S. A. Goldman and H. D. Mathias. Teaching a smarter learner. J. of Comput. Syst. Sci., 52(2):255-267, 1996.
11. S. A. Goldman, R. L. Rivest, and R. E. Schapire. Learning binary relations and total orders. SIAM J. Comput., 22(5):1006-1034, Oct. 1993.
12. T. Hancock, T. Jiang, M. Li, and J. Tromp. Lower bound on learning decision lists and trees. Inform. Comput, 126(2):114-122, 1996.
13. T. Hegedüs. Generalized teaching dimensions and the query complexity of learning. In Proceedings COLT 1995, pages 108-117. ACM Press, New York, NY, 1995.
14. J. Jackson and A. Tomkins. A computational model of teaching. In Proceedings COLT 1992, pages 319-326. ACM Press, New York, NY, 1992.
15. S. Jain, S. Lange, and J. Nessel. Learning of r.e. languages from good examples. In ALT '97, Proceedings, volume 1316 of LNAI, pages 32-47. Springer, 1997.
16. C. Kuhlmann. On teaching and learning intersection-closed concept classes. In Proceedings EuroCOLT '99, volume 1572 of LNAI, pages 168-182. Springer, 1999.
17. H. D. Mathias. A model of interactive teaching. J. of Comput. Syst. Sci., 54(3): 487-501, 1997.
18. L. Pitt and L. G. Valiant. Computational limitations on learning from examples. J. ACM, 35(4):965-984, 1988.
19. R. L. Rivest. Learning decision lists. Machine Learning, 2:229-246, 1987.
20. A. Shinohara and S. Miyano. Teachability in computational learning. New Generation Computing, 8(4):337-348, 1991.
21. H. U. Simon. Learning decision lists and trees with equivalence-queries. In EuroCOLT '95, Proceedings, number 904 in LNAI, pages 322-336. Springer, 1995.