Error-Free and Best-Fit Extensions of Partially Defined Boolean Functions

Abstract In this paper, we address a fundamental problem related to the induction of Boolean logic: Given a set of data, represented as a set of binary “truen-vectors” (or “positive examples”) and a set of “falsen-vectors” (or “negative examples”), we establish a Boolean function (or an extension)f, so thatfis true (resp., false) in every given true (resp., false) vector. We shall further require that such an extension belongs to a certain specified class of functions, e.g., class of positive functions, class of Horn functions, and so on. The class of functions represents our a priori knowledge or hypothesis about the extensionf, which may be obtained from experience or from the analysis of mechanisms that may or may not cause the phenomena under consideration. The real-world data may contain errors, e.g., measurement and classification errors might come in when obtaining data, or there may be some other influential factors not represented as variables in the vectors. In such situations, we have to give up the goal of establishing an extension that is perfectly consistent with the given data, and we are satisfied with an extensionfhaving the minimum number of misclassifications. Both problems, i.e., the problem of finding an extension within a specified class of Boolean functions and the problem of finding a minimum error extension in that class, will be extensively studied in this paper. For certain classes we shall provide polynomial algorithms, and for other cases we prove their NP-hardness.

[1]  Hans Ulrich Simon,et al.  On learning ring-sum-expansions , 1990, COLT '90.

[2]  Lisa Hellerstein,et al.  Complexity theoretic hardness results for query learning , 1998, computational complexity.

[3]  Toshihide Ibaraki,et al.  Complexity of Identification and Dualization of Positive Boolean Functions , 1995, Inf. Comput..

[4]  Edoardo Amaldi,et al.  The Complexity and Approximability of Finding Maximum Feasible Subsystems of Linear Relations , 1995, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[5]  Martin Anthony,et al.  Computational Learning Theory , 1992 .

[6]  Leslie G. Valiant,et al.  A theory of the learnable , 1984, STOC '84.

[7]  Leslie G. Valiant,et al.  Computational limitations on learning from examples , 1988, JACM.

[8]  D. Angluin Queries and Concept Learning , 1988 .

[9]  Charles J. Colbourn,et al.  The Combinatorics of Network Reliability , 1987 .

[10]  H. Kuhn The Hungarian method for the assignment problem , 1955 .

[11]  P. Hammer,et al.  Aggregation of inequalities in integer programming. , 1975 .

[12]  Saburo Muroga,et al.  Threshold logic and its applications , 1971 .

[13]  Vladimir Gurvich,et al.  Decomposability of Partially Defined Boolean Functions , 1995, Discret. Appl. Math..

[14]  Leslie G. Valiant,et al.  A theory of the learnable , 1984, CACM.

[15]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Structure Identification in Relational Data , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Y. Crama,et al.  Cause-effect relationships and partially defined Boolean functions , 1988 .

[17]  J. C. C. McKinsey,et al.  The decision problem for some classes of sentences without quantifiers , 1943, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[18]  K. Ramamurthy Coherent Structures and Simple Games , 1990 .

[19]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  On Horn Envelopes and Hypergraph Transversals , 1993, ISAAC.

[20]  H. W. Kuhn,et al.  Variants of the hungarian method for assignment problems , 1956 .

[21]  Endre Boros,et al.  Predicting Cause-Effect Relationships from Incomplete Discrete Observations , 1994, SIAM J. Discret. Math..