Editors' Introduction: Why Formal Learning Theory Matters for Cognitive Science

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-12
Author(s):  
Sean Fulop ◽  
Nick Chater
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Science ◽  
Learning Theory ◽  
Formal Learning ◽  
Formal Learning Theory

Formal Learning Theory

1984 ◽  
pp. 275-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel N. Osherson ◽  
Scott Weinstein
Keyword(s):  
Learning Theory ◽  
Formal Learning ◽  
Formal Learning Theory

A Formal Learning Theory for Three-Way Clustering

2020 ◽  
pp. 128-140
Author(s):  
Andrea Campagner ◽  
Davide Ciucci
Keyword(s):  
Learning Theory ◽  
Formal Learning ◽  
Formal Learning Theory

Formal Learning Theory

2012 ◽  
pp. 1317-1318
Author(s):  
Daniel Osherson ◽  
Scott Weinstein
Keyword(s):  
Learning Theory ◽  
Formal Learning ◽  
Formal Learning Theory

scholarly journals Formal Learning Theory in Context

2011 ◽  
pp. 707-717
Author(s):  
Daniel Osherson ◽  
Scott Weinstein
Keyword(s):  
Learning Theory ◽  
Formal Learning ◽  
Formal Learning Theory

scholarly journals Dopamine responses comply with basic assumptions of formal learning theory

Nature ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 412 (6842) ◽  
pp. 43-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pascale Waelti ◽  
Anthony Dickinson ◽  
Wolfram Schultz
Keyword(s):  
Learning Theory ◽  
Formal Learning ◽  
Basic Assumptions ◽  
Formal Learning Theory

A LEARNING-THEORETIC CHARACTERISATION OF MARTIN-LÖF RANDOMNESS AND SCHNORR RANDOMNESS

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
FRANCESCA ZAFFORA BLANDO
Keyword(s):  
Learning Theory ◽  
Inductive Learning ◽  
Algorithmic Randomness ◽  
Formal Learning ◽  
Theoretic Approach ◽  
Learning Function ◽  
Schnorr Randomness ◽  
Learning Tasks ◽  
Success Criteria ◽  
Formal Learning Theory

Abstract Numerous learning tasks can be described as the process of extrapolating patterns from observed data. One of the driving intuitions behind the theory of algorithmic randomness is that randomness amounts to the absence of any effectively detectable patterns: it is thus natural to regard randomness as antithetical to inductive learning. Osherson and Weinstein [11] draw upon the identification of randomness with unlearnability to introduce a learning-theoretic framework (in the spirit of formal learning theory) for modelling algorithmic randomness. They define two success criteria—specifying under what conditions a pattern may be said to have been detected by a computable learning function—and prove that the collections of data sequences on which these criteria cannot be satisfied correspond to the set of weak 1-randoms and the set of weak 2-randoms, respectively. This learning-theoretic approach affords an intuitive perspective on algorithmic randomness, and it invites the question of whether restricting attention to learning-theoretic success criteria comes at an expressivity cost. In other words, is the framework expressive enough to capture most core algorithmic randomness notions and, in particular, Martin-Löf randomness—arguably, the most prominent algorithmic randomness notion in the literature? In this article, we answer the latter question in the affirmative by providing a learning-theoretic characterisation of Martin-Löf randomness. We then show that Schnorr randomness, another central algorithmic randomness notion, also admits a learning-theoretic characterisation in this setting.

Formal Learning Theory

2011 ◽  
pp. 725-763
Author(s):  
Daniel Osherson ◽  
Dick de Jongh ◽  
Eric Martin ◽  
Scott Weinstein
Keyword(s):  
Learning Theory ◽  
Formal Learning ◽  
Formal Learning Theory

Formal Learning Theory*

1997 ◽  
pp. 737-775 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Osherson ◽  
Dick de Jongh ◽  
Eric Martin ◽  
Scott Weinstein
Keyword(s):  
Learning Theory ◽  
Formal Learning ◽  
Formal Learning Theory
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document