The recursive teaching dimension (RTD) of a concept class $C \subseteq \{0, 1\}^n$, introduced by Zilles et al. [ZLHZ11], is a complexity parameter measured by the worst-case number of labeled examples needed to learn any target concept of $C$ in the recursive teaching model. In this paper, we study the quantitative relation between RTD and the well-known learning complexity measure VC dimension (VCD), and improve the best known upper and (worst-case) lower bounds on the recursive teaching dimension with respect to the VC dimension. Given a concept class $C \subseteq \{0, 1\}^n$ with $VCD(C) = d$, we first show that $RTD(C)$ is at most $d 2^{d+1}$. This is the first upper bound for $RTD(C)$ that depends only on $VCD(C)$, independent of the size of the concept class $|C|$ and its~domain size $n$.

The recursive teaching dimension (RTD) of a concept class $C \subseteq \{0, 1\}^n$, introduced by Zilles et al. [ZLHZ11], is a complexity parameter measured by the worst-case number of labeled examples needed to learn any target concept of $C$ in the recursive teaching model. In this paper, we study the quantitative relation between RTD and the well-known learning complexity measure VC dimension (VCD), and improve the best known upper and (worst-case) lower bounds on the recursive teaching dimension with respect to the VC dimension. Given a concept class $C \subseteq \{0, 1\}^n$ with $VCD(C) = d$, we first show that $RTD(C)$ is at most $d 2^{d+1}$. This is the first upper bound for $RTD(C)$ that depends only on $VCD(C)$, independent of the size of the concept class $|C|$ and its~domain size $n$.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

The paper is very insightful - the authors quite nicely explain the approach they took for proving their results. The questions addressed, while interesting only for a fairly small subcommunity of the machine learning community, are really important in that subcommunity, and the authors have achieved a substantial breakthrough on an open problem posed in COLT 2015. I quite liked the idea to formulate the problem of finding a concept class with RTD 3/2 VCD as a SAT problem. In my eyes, the results should definitely be published, and they are important enough to deserve publication in a leading venue like NIPS. The paper is generally well written and easy to read, but there are a few minor (easy to fix issues (mostly just typos etc).

In this paper, we study the quantitative relation between RTD and the well-known learning complexity measure VC dimension (VCD), and improve the best known upper and (worst-case) lower bounds on the recursive teaching dimension with respect to the VC dimension.

In this short note, we show that the problem of computing the recursive teaching dimension (RTD) for a concept class (given explicitly as input) requires $n^{\Omega(\log n)}$-time, assuming the exponential time hypothesis (ETH). This matches the running time $n^{O(\log n)}$ of the brute-force algorithm for the problem.

The recursive teaching dimension (RTD) of a concept class $C \subseteq \{0, 1\} n$, introduced by Zilles et al. [ZLHZ11], is a complexity parameter measured by the worst-case number of labeled examples needed to learn any target concept of $C$ in the recursive teaching model. In this paper, we study the quantitative relation between RTD and the well-known learning complexity measure VC dimension (VCD), and improve the best known upper and (worst-case) lower bounds on the recursive teaching dimension with respect to the VC dimension. Given a concept class $C \subseteq \{0, 1\} n$ with $VCD(C) d$, we first show that $RTD(C)$ is at most $d 2 {d 1}$. This is the first upper bound for $RTD(C)$ that depends only on $VCD(C)$, independent of the size of the concept class $ C $ and its domain size $n$. Before our work, the best known upper bound for $RTD(C)$ is $O(d 2 d \log \log C)$, obtained by Moran et al. [MSWY15].

In this work we study the quantitative relation between the recursive teaching dimension (RTD) and the VC dimension (VCD) of concept classes of finite sizes. The RTD of a concept class $\mathcal C \subseteq \{0, 1\}^n$, introduced by Zilles et al. (2011), is a combinatorial complexity measure characterized by the worst-case number of examples necessary to identify a concept in $\mathcal C$ according to the recursive teaching model. For any finite concept class $\mathcal C \subseteq \{0,1\}^n$ with $\mathrm{VCD}(\mathcal C)=d$, Simon & Zilles (2015) posed an open problem $\mathrm{RTD}(\mathcal C) = O(d)$, i.e., is RTD linearly upper bounded by VCD? Previously, the best known result is an exponential upper bound $\mathrm{RTD}(\mathcal C) = O(d \cdot 2^d)$, due to Chen et al. (2016). In this paper, we show a quadratic upper bound: $\mathrm{RTD}(\mathcal C) = O(d^2)$, much closer to an answer to the open problem. We also discuss the challenges in fully solving the problem.

The recursive teaching dimension (RTD) of a concept class $C \subseteq \{0, 1\}^n$, introduced by Zilles et al. [ZLHZ11], is a complexity parameter measured by the worst-case number of labeled examples needed to learn any target concept of $C$ in the recursive teaching model. In this paper, we study the quantitative relation between RTD and the well-known learning complexity measure VC dimension (VCD), and improve the best known upper and (worst-case) lower bounds on the recursive teaching dimension with respect to the VC dimension. Given a concept class $C \subseteq \{0, 1\}^n$ with $VCD(C) = d$, we first show that $RTD(C)$ is at most $d 2^{d+1}$. This is the first upper bound for $RTD(C)$ that depends only on $VCD(C)$, independent of the size of the concept class $|C|$ and its~domain size $n$. Before our work, the best known upper bound for $RTD(C)$ is $O(d 2^d \log \log |C|)$, obtained by Moran et al. [MSWY15]. We remove the $\log \log |C|$ factor. We also improve the lower bound on the worst-case ratio of $RTD(C)$ to $VCD(C)$. We present a family of classes $\{ C_k \}_{k \ge 1}$ with $VCD(C_k) = 3k$ and $RTD(C_k)=5k$, which implies that the ratio of $RTD(C)$ to $VCD(C)$ in the worst case can be as large as $5/3$. Before our work, the largest ratio known was $3/2$ as obtained by Kuhlmann [Kuh99]. Since then, no finite concept class $C$ has been known to satisfy $RTD(C) > (3/2) VCD(C)$.