mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Superconstant Inapproximability of Decision Tree Learning

arXiv 2407.01402 ↗First posted 1 Jul 2024cs.CC cs.DS cs.LGcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We consider the task of properly PAC learning decision trees with queries. Recent work of Koch, Strassle, and Tan showed that the strictest version of this task, where the hypothesis tree T is required to be optimally small, is NP-hard. Their work leaves open the question of whether the task remains intractable if T is only required to be close to optimal, say within a factor of 2, rather than exactly optimal. We answer this affirmatively and show that the task indeed remains NP-hard even if T is allowed to be within any constant factor of optimal. More generally, our result allows for a smooth tradeoff between the hardness assumption and the inapproximability factor. As Koch et al.'s techniques do not appear to be amenable to such a strengthening, we first recover their result with a new and simpler proof, which we couple with a new XOR lemma for decision trees. While there is a large body of work on XOR lemmas for decision trees, our setting necessitates parameters that are extremely sharp, and are not known to be attainable by existing XOR lemmas. Our work also carries new implications for the related problem of Decision Tree Minimization.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jul 2024.

Builds on

5 of 47 references.

References · 5

  1. 2021Interpretable Machine Learning: Fundamental Principles and 10 Grand Challengescited by 364
  2. 2017Hyperparameter Optimization: A Spectral Approachcited by 24
  3. 2018Beyond the Low-Degree Algorithm: Mixtures of Subcubes and Their Applicationscited by 15
  4. 2022Superpolynomial Lower Bounds for Decision Tree Learning and Testingcited by 9
  5. 2023Properly Learning Decision Trees with Queries Is NP-Hardcited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2.

2 papers.