Hierarchies of probabilistic and team FIN-learning (Q5941370): Difference between revisions

A FIN-learning machine \(M\) receives successive values of the function \(f\) it is learning and at some moment outputs a conjecture which should be a correct index of \(f.\) FIN learning has two extensions: (1) If \(M\) flips fair coins and learns a function with certain probability \(p,\) we have FIN\(\langle p\rangle\)-learning. (2) When \(n\) machines simultaneously try to learn the same function \(f\) and at least \(k\) of these machines output correct indices of \(f,\) we have learning by a \([k,n]\) FIN team. Sometimes a team or a probabilistic learner can simulate another one, if their probabilities \(p_{1},p_{2}\) (or team success ratios \(k_{1}/n_{1},k_{2}/n_{2})\) are close enough. On the other hand, there are cut-points \(r\) which make simulation of FIN\(\langle p_{2}\rangle \)by FIN\(\langle p_{1}\rangle\) impossible whenever \(p_{2}<r<p_{1}.\) Cut-points above \(\frac{10}{21}\) are known. We show that the problem for given \(k_{i},n_{i}\) to determine whether \([k_{1},n_{1}]\) FIN\(\subseteq[k_{2},n_{2}]\) FIN is algorithmically solvable. The set of all FIN cut-points is shown to be well ordered and recursive. Asymmetric teams are introduced and used as both a tool to obtain these results, and are of interest in themselves. The framework of asymmetric teams allows us to characterize intersections \([k_{1},n_{1}]\) FIN \(\cap[k_{2},n_{2}]\) FIN, unions \([k_{1},n_{1}]\) FIN \(\cup[k_{2},n_{2}]\) FIN, and memberwise unions \([k_{1},n_{1}]\) FIN\( +[k_{2},n_{2}]\) FIN, i.e. collections of all unions \(U_{1}\cup U_{2}\) where \(U_{i}\in[k_{i},n_{i}]\) FIN. Hence, we can compare the learning power of traditional FIN-teams \([k,n]\) FIN as well as all kinds of their set-theoretic combinations.