The study demonstrates the complexity of g3 computation in domain knowledge contexts, suggesting new algorithms for efficient measurement.
The incorporation of domain knowledge (DK) in AI has been studied for years and turns out to be critical in practice. Functions are also a basic notion for dealing with data science projects and are somehow related to DK. Consider the following scenario. Let D ( y , z 1 , …, z n ) be a dataset, Alice a data scientist, Bob a domain expert and y = f ( z 1 , …, z n ) a function known to Bob from his background knowledge. Alice is interested in the following simple yet crucial questions: How to define the satisfaction of f in D ?How to measure that satisfaction efficiently?How does this satisfaction relate to the supervised learning task of learning f from D ? It turns out that these problems are related to the study of counterexamples through the use of functional dependencies (FDs) and, in particular, FD measures used to quantify their satisfaction in a dataset such as the g 3 indicator where the equality is replaced by more flexible predicates. In this paper, we first examine the complexity of computing g 3 . It is known that g 3 can be computed in polynomial time when using equality, while it becomes NP -hard when using general predicates. Our goal is to refine this dichotomy by studying the impact of the following common properties: reflexivity, transitivity, symmetry, and antisymmetry. We show that symmetry and transitivity together are sufficient to guarantee that the g 3 can be computed in polynomial time. However, removing one of them makes the problem NP -hard. Second, we study the computation of g 3 in the polynomial and NP -hard cases identified previously. We propose different exact and approximate solutions for the computation of g 3 in both cases. We compare these solutions in a detailed experimental study of time performance and approximation accuracy. All the algorithms are also made available via fastg3 , an open-source Python library with an underlying C++ implementation. Finally, we link counterexamples and g 3 to supervised learning with a web application called adesit . adesit is intended to be part of an iterative data refinement process right after data selection and just before the machine learning process itself. It provides a way to evaluate the ability of a dataset to perform well for a given supervised learning problem through statistical and visual exploration. In a last section, we validate our approach by applying it to the industrial problem of air gap monitoring in compact hydro-generators.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Faure--Giovagnoli et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: