Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Representing Formal Languages: A Comparison Between Finite Automata and Recurrent Neural Networks

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1902.10297 v1 pith:XG6RSHTY submitted 2019-02-27 cs.LG cs.FL

Representing Formal Languages: A Comparison Between Finite Automata and Recurrent Neural Networks

classification cs.LG cs.FL
keywords statesfiniteformallanguagemdfaabstractionautomatadecoding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the internal representations that a recurrent neural network (RNN) uses while learning to recognize a regular formal language. Specifically, we train a RNN on positive and negative examples from a regular language, and ask if there is a simple decoding function that maps states of this RNN to states of the minimal deterministic finite automaton (MDFA) for the language. Our experiments show that such a decoding function indeed exists, and that it maps states of the RNN not to MDFA states, but to states of an {\em abstraction} obtained by clustering small sets of MDFA states into "superstates". A qualitative analysis reveals that the abstraction often has a simple interpretation. Overall, the results suggest a strong structural relationship between internal representations used by RNNs and finite automata, and explain the well-known ability of RNNs to recognize formal grammatical structure.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. When Does Reward Teach State? A Hidden-Automaton Instrument and the Group-Language Boundary

    cs.LG 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0

    An RL agent can earn high reward while its representation of a hidden DFA's state stays at chance; a white-box hidden-DFA instrument measures this decoupling, and permutation/group structure flags such perception gaps...

  2. When Does Reward Teach State? A Hidden-Automaton Instrument and the Group-Language Boundary

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    High reward in sparse RL does not imply latent-state recovery; a hidden-DFA instrument separates perception from planning gaps and flags group-language structure as a pre-training warning.