skip to main content
article
Free Access

Computational limitations on learning from examples

Published:01 October 1988Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The computational complexity of learning Boolean concepts from examples is investigated. It is shown for various classes of concept representations that these cannot be learned feasibly in a distribution-free sense unless R = NP. These classes include (a) disjunctions of two monomials, (b) Boolean threshold functions, and (c) Boolean formulas in which each variable occurs at most once. Relationships between learning of heuristics and finding approximate solutions to NP-hard optimization problems are given.

References

  1. 1 ANGLUIN, D. On the complexity of minimum inference of regular sets. Inf. Control 39 (1978), 337-350.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2 ANGLUIN, D. Finding patterns common to a set of strings. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 21 (1980), 46-62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 3 ANGLUIN, D.Inductive inference of formal languages from positive data. Inf. Control 45 (1980), 117-135.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 4 ANGLUIN, n. Inference of reversible languages. J. ACM 29, 3 (July 1982), 741-765. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 5 ANGLUIN, D. Remarks on the difficulty of finding a minimal disjunctive normal form for Boolean functions. Unpublished manuscript.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 6 ANGLUIN, n. Learning regular sets from queries and counter-examples. Yale University Tech. Rep. YALEU/DCS/464, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 7 ANGLUIN, n., AND SMITH, C. inductive inference: Theory and methods. AC;vl Comput. Surv. 15, 3 (Sept. 1983), 237-269. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 8 BLUM, L., AND BLUM, M. Toward a mathematical theory of inductive inference. Inf. Control 28 (1975), 125-155.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. 9 BLUMER, A., EHRENFEUCHT, m., HAUSSLER, D., AND WARMUTH, M. Classifying learnable geometric concepts with the Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Symposium on the _Theory of Computing (Berkeley, Calif., May 28-30). ACM, New York~ !986, pp. 273-282. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. 10 BLUMER, A., EHRENFEUCHT, A., HAUSSLER, D., AND WARMUTH, M. Occam's Razor. Inf. Process. Lett. 24 (1987), 377-380. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 11 CASE, J., AND SMITH, C. Comparison of identification criteria for machine inductive inference. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 25 (1983), 193-220.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 12 CHVATAL, V. A greedy heuristic for the set covering problem. Math. Oper. Res. 4, 3 (1979), 233-235.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 13 DALEY, R. On the error correcting power of pluralism in BC-type inductive inference. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 24 (1983), 95-104.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. 14 DIETTERICH, T. C., AND MICHALSKI, R.S. A comparative review of selected methods for learning from examples. In Machine Learning. An Artificial Intelligence Approach. Tioga, Palo Alto, Calif., 1983.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. 15 FREIVALD, R.V. Functions computable in the limit by probabilistic machines. In Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (3rd Symposium at Jadwisin near Warsaw, 1974). Springer- Verlag, New York, 1975. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 16 FREIVALD, R.V. Finite identification of general recursive functions by probabilistic strategies. In Proceedings of the Conference on Algebraic, Arithmetic, and Categorial Methods in Computation Theory. Akadamie-Verlag, New York, 1979, pp. 138-145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. 17 GAREY, M., AND JOHNSON, D. The complexity of near-optimal graph coloring. J. ACM 23, 1 (Jan. 1976), 43-49. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. 18 GAREY, M. AND JOHNSON, D. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP- Completeness. Freeman, San Francisco, 1979. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. 19 GILL, J. Computational complexity of probabilistic Turing machines. SIAM J. Comput. 6 (1977), 675-695.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. 20 GOLD, E.M. Complexity of automaton identification from given data. Inf. Control 37 (1978), 302-320.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. 21 GOLDREICH, O., GOLDWASSER, S., AND MICALI, S. How to construct random functions. J. ACM 33, 3 (July 1986), 792-807. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. 22 HA USSLER, D. Quantifying the inductive bias in concept learning. In Proceedings of AAAI-86 (Philadelphia, Pa.). Morgan Kaufman, Los Altos, Calif., 1986, pp. 485-489.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. 23 HORNING, J.J. A study of grammatical inference. Ph.D. Dissertation. Computer Science Dept., Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif., 1969. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. 24 JOHNSON, D. S. Worst case behaviour of graph coloring algorithms. In Proceedings of the 5th South-Eastern Conference on Combinatorics, Graph Theory, and Computing. Utilitas Mathematica, Winnipeg, Canada, 1974, pp. 513-528.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. 25 LEVIN, L. Universal sorting problems. Prob. Pered. Inf. 9, 3 (1973), pp. I 15-116.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. 26 MICHALSKI, R. S., CARBONELL, J. G., AND MITCHELL, T. M. Machine Learning." An Artificial Intelligence Approach. Tioga, Palo Alto, Calif., 1983. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. 27 PITT, L. A characterization of probabilistic inference. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, D.C., 1984, pp. 485-494.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. 28 PODNIEKS, K.M. Probabilistic synthesis of enumerated classes of functions. Soy. Math. Dokl. 16 (1975), I042-1045.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. 29 ROYER, j.S. On machine inductive inference of approximations. Inf. Control, to appear. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. 30 RUDICH, S. Inferring the structure of a Markov chain from its output. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, D.C., 1985, pp. 321-325.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. 31 SMITH, C. H., AND VELAUTHAPILLAI, M. On the inference of approximate programs. Tech. Rep. 1427, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Md.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. 32 VALIANT, L.G. A theory ofthe learnable. Commun. ACM27, 11 (1984), 1134-1142. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. 33 VALIANT, L. G. Learning disjunctions of conjunctions. In Proceedings of the 9th IJCAI (Los Angeles, Calif., Aug. 1985), vol. 1. Morgan Kaufman, Los Altos, Calif., 1985, pp. 560-566.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. 34 WIEHAGEN, R., FREIVALD, R., AND KINBER, E. B. On the power of probabilistic strategies in inductive inference. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 28 (1984), I I 1-133.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. 35 WIGDERSON, A. A new approximate graph coloring algorithm. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Symposium on the Theory of Computing. ACM, New York, 1982, pp. 325-329. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Computational limitations on learning from examples

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image Journal of the ACM
          Journal of the ACM  Volume 35, Issue 4
          Oct. 1988
          242 pages
          ISSN:0004-5411
          EISSN:1557-735X
          DOI:10.1145/48014
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 1988 ACM

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 1 October 1988
          Published in jacm Volume 35, Issue 4

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • article

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader