Optimizing Sparse Boolean Rule Networks using Mixed Integer Linear Programming
Authors: Thomas Pammer, Johannes Fürnkranz, Markus Sinnl
Organizations: Institute for Application-Oriented Knowledge Processing (FAW), Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria · LIT AI Lab, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria · Institute of Business Analytics & Technology Transformation/JKU Business School, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria
We study the problem of learning accurate and cognitively simple binary classifiers that are directly interpretable as Boolean rules. We propose mixed integer linear programming (MILP) formulations for training sparse disjunctive normal form (DNF) networks, viewed as small networks with a conjunctive hidden layer and a disjunctive output layer. Contrary to previous work that uses MILP for inductive rule learning, we start with a fixed network structure, for which we then find optimal weights. A regularized objective explicitly trades off misclassification costs against sparsity, yielding globally optimized rule sets. Our main technical contribution is an enhanced formulation that substantially reduces the number of integer decision variables and eliminates redundant constraints, while preserving exact Boolean semantics for all feasible solutions. Furthermore, we develop a combined approach based on initialization and dropout to break symmetries in the weights between rules, mitigating redundancy, and encouraging more diverse and stable rule representations. Experiments on synthetic benchmarks and UCI datasets show that the advanced formulation improves computational efficiency and achieves competitive or superior accuracy compared to established interpretable baselines, including SAT-based DNF learning and well-known rule- and tree-based learners. Overall, our approach provides a principled optimization framework for learning compact Boolean rule sets with explicit control over accuracy and sparsity trade-offs.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustration of a DNF formula (a), its conversion to a weight matrix W (b), and the resulting network structure (c), consisting of an input layer X into which the k -th training example Xk is fed, a hidden layer H which is connected to the inputs with edges corresponding to the weight matrix, and a predictive node y^k . Solid lines show active, and dashed lines show inactive weights. Bold lines highlight the computation path for the first conjunctive node.
Figure 2: DNF network structure for basic and advanced constraint formulation.
Dataset
120 s
360 s
basic
advanced
aggregated
basic
advanced
aggregated
d01
96.00
96.49
98.05
99.90
100.00
100.00
d02
84.66
97.85
98.05
97.55
99.12
99.22
d03
96.49
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
d04
84.76
89.94
94.44
99.02
99.71
99.71
d05
88.18
91.21
94.44
94.54
98.64
98.83
Table 1: Comparing accuracies of basic and advanced MILP approaches on artificial datasets. The best accuracy per instance is marked in bold , while the best accuracy for the shorter time limit is in italic .
Dataset
Time limit
Approaches
Milp
Sat
Lord
Ripper
Cart
breast
300
95.99
94.56
94.71
94.28
93.42
car-evaluation
1200
99.36
98.67
98.20
96.70
98.03
kr-vs-kp
7200
99.66
99.50
99.50
99.37
99.44
monk-1
30
100.00
100.00
100.00
93.70
100.00
monk-2
180
100.00
98.67
87.20
73.54
97.84
Table 2: Comparing accuracies of the advanced MILP approach with aggregated constraints to existing algorithms on UCI datasets. The best accuracy per instance is marked in bold .
Ripper Initialization
Time Limit
300
600
900
1800
3600
7200
No
76.07
76.07
76.07
76.63
78.63
80.28
Yes
84.75
84.77
84.87
84.87
84.96
85.17
Table 3: Accuracies on adult dataset with and without Ripper -Initialization.
Figure 3: Accuracy on adult dataset by time limit and dropout rate.