Advertisement

The Learnability of Business Rules

  • Olivier Wang
  • Changhai Ke
  • Leo LibertiEmail author
  • Christian de Sainte Marie
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10122)

Abstract

Among programming languages, a popular one in corporate environments is Business Rules. These are conditional statements which can be seen as a sort of “programming for non-programmers”, since they remove loops and function calls, which are typically the most difficult programming constructs to master by laypeople. A Business Rules program consists of a sequence of “IF condition THEN actions” statements. Conditions are verified over a set of variables, and actions assign new values to the variables. Medium-sized to large corporations often enforce, document and define their business processes by means of Business Rules programs. Such programs are executed in a special purpose virtual machine which verifies conditions and executes actions in an implicit loop. A problem of extreme interest in business environments is enforcing high-level strategic decisions by configuring the parameters of Business Rules programs so that they behave in a certain prescribed way on average. In this paper we show that Business Rules are Turing-complete. As a consequence, we argue that there can exist no algorithm for configuring the average behavior of all possible Business Rules programs.

Keywords

Business Process Turing Machine Concept Class Inductive Logic Programming Business Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The first author (OW) is supported by an IBM France/ANRT CIFRE Ph.D. thesis award.

References

  1. 1.
    Berliner, L.M.: Statistics, probability and chaos. Stat. Sci. 7, 69–90 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blockeel, H., De Raedt, L.: Top-down induction of first-order logical decision trees. Artif. Intell. 101(1), 285–297 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen, A., Goldwasser, S., Vaikuntanathan, V.: Aggregate pseudorandom functions and connections to learning. In: Dodis, Y., Nielsen, J.B. (eds.) TCC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9015, pp. 61–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-46497-7_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Sainte Marie, C., Hallmark, G., Paschke, A.: RIF Production Rule Dialect, 2nd edn. W3C Recommendation (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldreich, O., Goldwasser, S., Micali, S.: How to construct random functions. J. ACM 4(33), 792–807 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hopcroft, J.E., Ullman, J.D.: Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    IBM. Operational Decision Manager 8.8 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kepser, S.: A simple proof of the turing-completeness of XSLT and XQuery. In: Usdin, T. (ed.) Extreme Markup Languages 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kleene, S.C.: Introduction to Metamathematics. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam (1952)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liberti, L., Marinelli, F.: Mathematical programming: turing completeness and applications to software analysis. J. Comb. Optim. 28(1), 82–104 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Raedt, L., Džeroski, S.: First-order jk-clausal theories are PAC-learnable. Artif. Intell. 104(1), 375–392 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shannon, C.: A Universal Turing machine with two internal states. In: Shannon, C., McCarthy, J. (eds.) Automata Studies. Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 34, pp. 157–165. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1956)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Turing, A.: On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 42(1), 230–265 (1937)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Valiant, L.G.: A theory of the learnable. Commun. ACM 11(27), 1134–1142 (1984)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang, O., Kai, C., Liberti, L., De Sainte Marie, C.: Business rule sets as programs: turing-completeness and structural operational semantics. In: Treizièmes Rencontres des Jeunes Chercheurs en Intelligence Artificielle (RJCIA 2015) (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang, O., Liberti, L., D’Ambrosio, C., Sainte Marie, C., Ke, C.: Controlling the average behavior of business rules programs. In: Alferes, J.J.J., Bertossi, L., Governatori, G., Fodor, P., Roman, D. (eds.) RuleML 2016. LNCS, vol. 9718, pp. 83–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-42019-6_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olivier Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Changhai Ke
    • 1
  • Leo Liberti
    • 2
    Email author
  • Christian de Sainte Marie
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM FranceGentillyFrance
  2. 2.CNRS LIXEcole PolytechniquePalaiseauFrance

Personalised recommendations