skip to main content
article
Free Access

Diversity-based inference of finite automata

Published:01 May 1994Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We present new procedures for inferring the structure of a finite-state automaton (FSA) from its input/output behavior, using access to the automaton to perform experiments.

Our procedures use a new representation for finite automata, based on the notion of equivalence between tests. We call the number of such equivalence classes the diversity of the automaton; the diversity may be as small as the logarithm of the number of states of the automaton. For the special class of permutation automata, we describe an inference procedure that runs in time polynomial in the diversity and log(1/δ), where δ is a given upper bound on the probability that our procedure returns an incorrect result. (Since our procedure uses randomization to perform experiments, there is a certain controllable chance that it will return an erroneous result.) We also discuss techniques for handling more general automata.

We present evidence for the practical efficiency of our approach. For example, our procedure is able to infer the structure of an automaton based on Rubik's Cube (which has approximately 1019 states) in about 2 minutes on a DEC MicroVax. This automaton is many orders of magnitude larger than possible with previous techniques, which would require time proportional at least to the number of global states. (Note that in this example, only a small fraction (10-14) of the global states were even visited.)

Finally, we present a new procedure for inferring automata of a special type in which the global state is composed of a vector of binary local state variables, all of which are observable (or visible) to the experimenter. Our inference procedure runs provably in time polynomial in the size of this vector (which happens to be the diversity of the automaton), even though the global state space may be exponentially larger. The procedure plans and executes experiments on the unknown automaton; we show that the number of input symbols given to the automaton during this process is (to within a constant factor) the best possible.

References

  1. ~ANGLUIN, D. 1978. On the complexity of mlmmum inference of regular sets. Inf. Cont. 39, ~337-350.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. ~ANGLUIN, D. 1982. Inference of reversible languages. J. ACM 29, 3 (July) 741-765. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. ~ANGLUIN, D. 1987a. Learning regular sets from queries and counterexamples. Inf. Computatzon ~75. (Nov), 87-106. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. ~ANGLUIN, m. 1987b. A note on diversity. Unpublished manuscript.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. ~BAINBR1DGE, E. S. 1977. The fundamental duality of system theory. In Systems: .4pproaches, ~Theones, Apphcattons, W. E. Hartnett, Ed. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 45-61Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. ~BERMAN, A. AND PLEMMONS, R. J. 1979. Nonnegatwe 3lattices m the Mathematical Sciences. ~Academic Press, Orlando, Fla.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. ~CORMEN, T. H., LEiSERSON, C. E., AND RIVEST, R. L. 1990. hztroductton to/t{gortthms. MIT ~Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. ~DEAN, T., ANGLUIN, D., BASYE, K., ENGELSON, S., KAELBLING, L., KOKKEVIS, E., AND MARON, O. ~1992. Inferring finite automata with stochastic output functions and an application to map ~learning. In Proceedings of the lOth Natzoua/ Confereuce on ,4rtificial bztelhgence (July). MIT ~Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 208-214.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. ~DRESCHER, G. L. 1986. Genetic AI--translating Piaget into Lisp. Tech. Rep. 890. MIT Artificial ~Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, Mass., Feb. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. ~DRESCHER, G. L. 1987. A mechanism for early Piagetian learning. In Proceedings of AAAI-87.' ~Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Seattle, Wash., July). Morgan-Kaufmann, San ~Mateo, Calif., pp. 290-294.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. ~FIEDLER, M. 1972. Bounds for eigenvalues of doubly stochastic matrices. Lin.4lg Appl. 5, 3 ~(July), 299-310.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. ~F1LL, J. A. 1991. Eigenvalue bounds on convergence to stationarity for nonreversible Markov ~ chains, with an apphcation to the exclusion process. Ann Applied Prob. l, 1, 62-87.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. ~FRANKLIN, J. N. 1968. Matrix Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. ~GOLD, E. M. 1967. Language identification in the limit, h~f. Cont. 10, 447-474.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. ~GOLD, E. M. 1972. System identification via state characterization. Autornattca, 8, 621 636.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. ~GOLD, E. M. 1978. Complexity of automaton identification from given data. Inf. Cont. 37, ~302-320.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. ~HARTMANIS, J., AND STEARNS, R. E. 1966. Algebrazc Structure TheoO, of Sequential Machines. ~Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. ~KEARNS, M., AND VALIANT, L. G. 1994. Cryptographm limitations on learning Boolean formulae ~and finite automata. J. ACM 41, 1 (Jan), 67-95. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. ~KOHAVL Z. 1978. Swztchzng and Fintte Automata Theoo,. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. ~LOV/SZ, L. 1979. Combbmtorial Problems and Exercises. North-Holland, Amsterdam, The ~Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. ~PITT, L. 1989. Inductive inference, DFAs, and computational complexity. In Plvceedings of the ~1989 blternational Workshop on Analogical and bzductiue blference. Lecture Notes in Computer ~Science. Springer-Verlag, New York. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. ~PITT, t., AND WARMUTH, M. K. 1993. The minimum consistent DFA problem cannot be ~approximated within any polynomial. J. ACM 40, 1 (Jan.), 95-142. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. ~PITT, t., AND WARMUTH, M. K. 1990. Prediction-preserving reducibility. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 41, ~3 (Dec.), 430-467. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. ~RIVEST R. L., AND SCHAPIRE, R. E. 1989. Inference of finite automata using homing sequences. ~In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Symposium on Theoly of Computing, Inf. Comput. ACM, ~New York. Also blf. Comput. 103 (Apr.), 299-347. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. ~ DE SAINT-EXUPERY, A. 1943. The Little Prfi~ce. Harcourt, Brace, & World, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. ~ SCHAPIRE, R. E. 1992. The Design and Analysis of Efficient Learning Algorithms. MIT Press, ~Cambridge, Mass. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. ~TARJAN, R. E. 1975. Efficiency of a good but not linear set union algorithm. J. ACM 22, 2 (Apr), ~215-225. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. ~TRAKHTENBROT, B. A., AND BARZDIN', YA. M. 1973. Finite Automata: Behacior and Synthesis. ~North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Diversity-based inference of finite automata

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in

              Full Access

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader
              About Cookies On This Site

              We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

              Learn more

              Got it!