Use of partial functional dependencies to make practical approximate translations among forms of propositional expert systems

  • Robert M. Colomb
  • Phoebe Yi-Ping Chen
Knowledge-Based Systems
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1342)


Decision tables and decision trees have long been used to describe and implement computer programs which classify cases. It also is known that there is a close relationship between them. This however, is mediated by algorithms which tend to be exponential. Decision tables and decision trees can be viewed as propositional system; so can most expert systems. Knowledge-based systems therefore give rise to very large decision tables or trees. Further, it is often convenient to transform an object from one representation to another, so that the exponential algorithms become impracticable. In this paper, we first formalise decision tables, decision trees, cases and rules and the well known relationships among them. We then introduce the concept of equivalence with respect to a set of cases, which enables us to make transformations with algorithms which are linear in the number of cases. Then we introduce the concept of equivalence with respect to a set of constraints (rules), which enables us to perform transformations with algorithms in a sounder, less ad hoc way. The paper evaluates these algorithms by applying them to a large example. These new algorithms permit computationally effective and practically useful transformations for large problems.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agrawal, R. and Srikant, R.(1995), Mining Generalized Association Rules, VLDB'95, pp.407–419.Google Scholar
  2. Colomb, R.M. (1992), Computational stability of expert systems, Expert Systems With Applications 5(2/3), pp. 411–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Colomb, R.M. (1993), Decision Tables, Decision Trees and Cases: Propositional Knowledge-Based Systems Technical Report 266, Department of Computer Science, The University of Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
  4. Colomb, R.M. and Chung, C.Y. (1995), “Strategies for Building Propositional Expert Systems” International Journal of Intelligent Systems Vol. 10, No.3, pp 295ff.Google Scholar
  5. Colomb, R.M. and Sienkiewicz, J. (1995), “Analysis of Redundancy in Expert Systems Case Data” Eighth Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, World Scientific, pp. 395–402.Google Scholar
  6. Horn K. A., Compton P., Lazarus L. and Quinlan J. R. (1985), An expert computer system for the interpretation of thyroid assays in a clinical laboratory, Australian Computer Journal, 17(1) (1985) pp. 7–11.Google Scholar
  7. Pawlak, Z. (1991), Rough Sets: Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Data Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Quinlan, J.R. (1986), Introduction of decision trees, Machine Learning, 1(1) pp. 81–106.Google Scholar
  9. Quinlan, J.R. (1982), Semi-autonomous acquisition of pattern based knowledge, in Hayes, Michie J.E.,D.and Pao,Y-H eds Machine Intelligence 10, (Ellis Horwood, London, 1982) pp. 159–172.Google Scholar
  10. Shwayder,K. (1974), Extending the information theory approach to converting limitedentry decision tables to computer programs, Communications of the ACM 17(9) pp.532–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shwayder, K. (1971), Conversion of limited-entry decision tables to computer programs-a proposed modification to Pollack's algorithm,Communications of the ACM 14(2) pp.69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert M. Colomb
    • 1
  • Phoebe Yi-Ping Chen
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information TechnologyThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations