Polynomial time algorithms for some self-duality problems

  • Carlos Domingo
Regular Presentations
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1203)


Consider the problem of deciding whether a Boolean formula f is self-dual, i.e. f is logically equivalent to its dual formula fd, defined by fd(x)=¯fx). This problem is a well-studied problem in several areas like theory of coteries, database theory, hypergraph theory or computational learning theory. In this paper we exhibit polynomial time algorithms for testing self-duality for several natural classes of formulas where the problem was not known to be solvable. Some of the results are obtained by means of a new characterization of self-dual formulas in terms of its Fourier spectrum.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. Angluin, L. Hellerstein, and M. Karpinski. Learning read-once formulas with queries. J. ACM, 40:185–210, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.C. Bioch and T. Ibaraki. Complexity of identification and dualization of positive Boolean functions. Information and Computation, 123:50–63, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Domingo. Exact learning of subclasses of cdnf formulas with membership queries. In Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Computing and Combinatorics, COCOON, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1090:179–188, Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Eiter and G. Gottlob. Identifying the minimal transversals of a hypergraph and related problems. Technical Report CD-TR 91/16, Christial Doppler Labor Für Expertensysteme, Technische Universität Wien, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Fredman and L. Khachiyan. On the complexity of dualization of monotone disjunctive normal form. Technical Report LCSR-TR-225, Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University, May 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Garcia-Molina and D. Barbara. How to assign votes in a distributed system. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 32:841–860, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Ibaraki and T. Kameda. A theory of coteries: Mutual exclusion in distributed systems. IEEE Trans. on Parallel and Distributed Systems, pages 779–794, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Kahn, G. Kalai, and N. Linial. The influence of variables on Boolean functions. In Proc. 28th Annu. IEEE Sympos. Found. Comput. Sci., pages 68–80. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. Kushilevitz and Y. Mansour. Learning decision trees using the fourier spectrum. SIAM J. Comput., 22(6):1331–1348, 1993. Earlier version appeared in STOC 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    N. Linial, Y. Mansour, and N. Nisan. Constant depth circuits, Fourier transform and learnability. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 40(3):607–620, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Makino and T. Ibaraki. A fast and simple algorithm for identifying 2-monotonic positive Boolean functions. Technical Report COMP94-46, IEICE, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Makino and T. Ibaraki. The maximum latency and identification of positive Boolean functions. In Proceedings of ISAAC'94, Algorithms and Computation, volume 834 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 324–332, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. Mannila and K.J. Raïhä. Design by example: An application of Armstrong relations. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 22:126–141, 1987.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Naor and M. Naor. Small-bias, probability spaces: Efficient constructions and applications. SIAM Journal on Computing, 22:838–856, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Domingo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department LSIUniversitat Politecnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations