Mining Pareto-optimal rules with respect to support and confirmation or support and anti-support

Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 587-600

  Brzezinska, Izabela ^a   Greco, Salvatore ^b   Slowinski, Roman ^a,c  

^a POZNAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Poland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CATANIA   (Italy)

^c SYSTEMS RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Poland)

Author keywords

Association rules; Bayesian confirmation measures; Decision rules; Knowledge discovery; Monotonicity in rule support, confidence and confirmation; Pareto optimal rules

Indexed keywords

ASSOCIATION RULES; BAYESIAN NETWORKS; DECISION THEORY; PATTERN RECOGNITION;

BAYESIAN CONFIRMATION MEASURES; DECISION RULES; MONOTONICITY IN RULE SUPPORT; PARETO-OPTIMAL RULES;

DATA MINING;

EID: 34249824562     PISSN: 09521976     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.engappai.2006.11.015     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Agrawal, R., Imielinski, T., Swami, A., 1993. Mining associations between sets of items in massive databases. In: Proceedings of the 1993 ACM-SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 207-216.
2. Bayardo, R.J., Agrawal, R., 1999. Mining the most interesting rules. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM-SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 145-154.
3. Brin, S., Motwani, R., Ullman, J., Tsur, S., 1997. Dynamic itemset counting and implication rules for market basket data. In: Proceedings of the 1997 ACM-SIGMOD International Conference on the Management of Data, pp. 255-264.
4. Brzezinska I., and Slowinski R. Monotonicity of a Bayesian confirmation measure in rule support and confidence. In: Burczyński T., Cholewa W., and Moczulski W. (Eds). Recent Developments in Artificial Intelligence Methods (2005), AI-METH Series, Gliwice 39-42
5. Brzezinska I., Greco S., and Slowinski R. Investigation of Monotone Link Between Confirmation Measures and Rule Support and Confidence. Research Report RA-025/05 (2005), Institute of Computing Science, Poznan University of Technology, Poznan
6. Carnap R. Logical Foundations of Probability. second ed (1962), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
7. Christensen D. Measuring confirmation. Journal of Philosophy XCVI (1999) 437-461
8. Clark, P., Boswell, P., 1991. Rule induction with CN2: some recent improvements. In: Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 151-163.
9. Eells E., and Fitelson B. Symmetries and asymmetries in evidential support. Philosophical Studies 107 2 (2002) 129-142
10. Fitelson, B., 2001. Studies in Bayesian confirmation theory. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
11. Fukuda, T., Morimoto, Y., Morishita, S., Tokuyama, T., 1996. Data mining using two-dimensional optimized association rules: scheme, algorithms, and visualization. In: Proceedings of the 1996 ACM-SIGMOD International Conference on the Management of Data, pp. 13-23.
12. Good I.J. The best explicatum for weight of evidence. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 19 (1984) 294-299
13. Greco S., Pawlak Z., and Slowinski R. Can Bayesian confirmation measures be useful for rough set decision rules?. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 17 (2004) 345-361
14. Heckerman D. An axiomatic framework for belief updates. In: Kanal L., and Lemmer J. (Eds). Unconfidence in Artificial Intelligence 2 (1988), Elsevier Science Publishers, New York 11-22
15. Hempel C.G. Studies in the logic of confirmation (I). Mind 54 (1945) 1-26
16. International Business Machines, 1996. IBM Intelligent Miner User's Guide, Version 1, Release 1.
17. Jeffreys, H., 1935. Some tests of significance treated by theory of probability. In: Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. 31, pp. 203-222.
18. Joyce J. The Foundations of Causal Decision Theory (1999), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
19. Kamber, M., Shingal, R., 1996. Evaluating the interestingness of characteristic rules. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-96), Portland, OR, pp. 263-266.
20. Nicod, J., 1923. Le probleme de la logique de l'induction. Alcan, Paris.
21. Pearl J. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference (1988), Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco
22. Piatetsky-Shapiro G. Discovery, analysis, and presentation of strong rules. Knowledge Discovery in Databases (Chapter 12) (1991), AAAI/MIT Press
23. Slowinski R., and Greco S. Measuring attractiveness of rules from the viewpoint of knowledge representation, prediction and efficiency of intervention. In: Szczepaniak P., Kacprzyk J., and Niewiadomski A. (Eds). Advances in Web Intelligence. LNAI vol. 3528 (2005), Springer, Berlin 1-12
24. Webb G.I. OPUS: an efficient admissible algorithm for unordered search. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 3 (1995) 431-465