Skip to main content

Lower bounds on learning decision lists and trees

Extended abstract

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
STACS 95 (STACS 1995)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 900))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

k-decision lists and decision trees play important roles in learning theory as well as in practical learning systems, k-decision lists generalize classes such as monomials, k-DNF, and k-CNF and like these subclasses is polynomially PAC-learnable [19]. This leaves open the question of whether k-decision lists can be learned as efficiently as k-DNF. We answer this question negatively in a certain sense, thus disproving a claim in a popular textbook [2]. Decision trees, on the other hand, are not even known to be polynomially PAC-learnable, despite their widespread practical application. We will show that decision trees are not likely to be efficiently PAC-learnable. We summarize our specific results.

The following problems cannot be approximated in polynomial time within a factor of \(2^{\log ^\delta n}\) for any δ<1, unless NP⊂DTIME[2polylog n]: a generalized set cover, k-decision lists, k-decision lists by monotone decision lists, and decision trees. Decision lists cannot be approximated in polynomial time within a factor of n δ, for some constant δ>0, unless NP=P. Also, k-decision lists with l 0–1 alternations cannot be approximated within a factor logl n unless NP⊂DTIME[n O(log log n)] (providing an interesting comparison to the upper bound recently obtained in [1]).

The research was supported by NSERC Research Grants OGP0046613 and OGP-0046506, an NSERC International Fellowship, and ITRC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aditi Dhagat and Lisa Hellerstein. PAC learning with irrelevant attributes. To appear in Proc. 35rd IEEE Symp. Found. Comp. Sci., 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Anthony and N. Biggs. Computational Learning Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. Board and L. Pitt, On the necessity of Occam Algorithms. 1990 STOC, pp. 54–63.

    Google Scholar 

  4. A. Arora, C. Lund, R. Motwani, M. Sudan, and M. Szegedy. Proof verification and hardness of approximation problems. Proc. 33rd IEEE Symp. Found. Comp. Sci., 1992, 14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  5. M. Bellare, S. Goldwasser, C. Lund, and A. Russel. Efficient probabilistically checkable proofs and applications to approximation. Proc. 25th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, 1993, 294–304.

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. Blumer and A. Ehrenfeucht and D. Haussler and M. Warmuth. Learnability and the Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach., 35 (1989), 929–965.

    Google Scholar 

  7. L. Breiman, J. Friedman, R. Olshen and C. Stone. Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth International Group, Belmont, CA (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  8. A. Ehrenfeucht and D. Haussler. Learning decision trees from random examples. COLT'88.

    Google Scholar 

  9. M. Garey and D. Johnson. Computers and Intractability. Freeman, New York, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  10. D. Haussler. Quantifying inductive bias: AI learning algorithms and Valiant's learning framework. Artificial Intelligence 36:2 (1988), 177–222.

    Google Scholar 

  11. L. Hyafil and R. Rivest. Constructing optimal decision trees is NP-complete. IPL, 5:1 (1976), 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. Kearns, M. Li, L. Pitt, L. Valiant. On the learnability of Boolean functions. Proc. 19th STOC, 1987, New York, 285–295.

    Google Scholar 

  13. C. Lund and M. Yannakakis. On the hardness of approximating minimization problems. Proc. 25th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, 1993, 286–293.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. Mingers. An empirical comparison of selection measures for decision-tree induction. Machine Learning. 3 (1989), 319–342.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J.R. Quinlan. Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning. 1 (1986), 81–106.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J.R. Quinlan and R. Rivest. Inferring decision trees using the minimum description length principle. Inform. Computation, 80 (1989), 227–248.

    Google Scholar 

  17. C.H. Papadimitriou and M. Yannakakis. Optimization, approximation, and complexity classes. Extended abstract in Proc. 20th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing. 1988, 229–234; full version in Journal of Computer and System Sciences 43, 1991, 425–440.

    Google Scholar 

  18. L. Pitt and L. Valiant. Computational limitations on learning from examples. Journal of the ACM, 35:4 (1988), 965–984.

    Google Scholar 

  19. R. Rivest. Learning decision lists. Machine Learning, 2 (1987), 229–246.

    Google Scholar 

  20. L. Valiant. A theory of the learnable. Communications of the ACM. 27 (1984), 1134–1142.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Ernst W. Mayr Claude Puech

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1995 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Hancock, T., Jiang, T., Li, M., Tromp, J. (1995). Lower bounds on learning decision lists and trees. In: Mayr, E.W., Puech, C. (eds) STACS 95. STACS 1995. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 900. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-59042-0_102

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-59042-0_102

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-59042-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49175-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics