Selecting the right interestingness measure for association patterns

Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

Volumn , Issue , 2002, Pages 32-41

  Tan, Pang Ning ^a   Kumar, Vipin ^a   Srivastava, Jaideep ^a  

^a University of Minnesota   (United States)

Author keywords

Associations; Contingency tables; Interestingness measure

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; CORRELATION METHODS; EXPERT SYSTEMS; LEARNING SYSTEMS; STATISTICS; TABLE LOOKUP;

ASSOCIATION PATTERNS; CONTINGENCY TABLES; DATA SET;

DATA MINING;

EID: 0242625291     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/775047.775053     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. C. Aggarwal and P. Yu. A new framework for itemset generation. In Proc. of the 17th Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 18-24, Seattle, WA, June 1998.
2. R. Agrawal, T. Imielinski, and A. Swami. Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. In Proc. of 1993 ACM-SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, pages 207-216, Washington, D.C., May 1993.
3. A. Agresti. Categorical Data Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, 1990.
4. A. George and W. Liu. Computer Solution of Large Sparse Positive Definite Systems. Prentice-Hall series in computational mathematics, 1981.
5. D. Hand, H. Mannila, and P. Smyth. Principles of Data Mining. MIT Press, 2001.
6. R. Hilderman and H. Hamilton. Evaluation of interestingness measures for ranking discovered knowledge. In Proc. of the 5th Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (PAKDD'01), pages 247-259, Hong Kong, April 2001.
7. R. Hilderman, H. Hamilton, and B. Barber. Ranking the interestingness of summaries from data mining systems. In Proc. of the 12th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Symposium (FLAIRS'99), pages 100-106, Orlando, FL, May 1999.
8. M. Kamber and R. Shinghal. Evaluating the interestingness of characteristic rules. In Proc. of the Second Int'l Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 263-266, Portland, Oregon, 1996.
9. M. Klemettinen, H. Mannila, P. Ronkainen, T. Toivonen, and A. Verkamo. Finding interesting rules from large sets of discovered association rules. In Proc. of the 3rd Int'l Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM'94)., pages 401-407, Gaithersburg, Maryland, November 1994.
10. I. Kononenko. On biases in estimating multi-valued attributes. In Proc. of the Fourteenth Int'l Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'95), pages 1034-1040, Montreal, Canada, 1995.
11. B. Liu, W. Hsu, and Y. Ma. Pruning and summarizing the discovered associations. In Proc. of the Fifth Int'l Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 125-134, San Diego, CA, August 1999.
12. F. Mosteller. Association and estimation in contingency tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 63:1-28, 1968.
13. G. Piatetsky-Shapiro. Discovery, analysis and presentation of strong rules. In G. Piatetsky-Shapiro and W. Frawley, editors, Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pages 2299-248. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991.
14. A. Silberschatz and A. Tuzhilin. What makes patterns interesting in knowledge discovery systems. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Eng., 8(6):970-974, 1996.
15. C. Silverstein, S. Brin, and R. Motwani. Beyond market baskets: Generalizing association rules to dependence rules. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2(1):39-68, 1998.
16. P. Tan, V. Kumar, and J. Srivastava. Selecting the right interestingness measure for association patterns. Technical Report 2002-112, Army High Performance Computing Research Center, 2002.