Visualization of Similarities and Dissimilarities in Rules Using Multidimensional Scaling

  • Shusaku Tsumoto
  • Shoji Hirano
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3488)

Abstract

One of the most important problems with rule induction methods is that it is very difficult for domain experts to check millions of rules generated from large datasets. The discovery from these rules requires deep interpretation from domain knowledge. Although several solutions have been proposed in the studies on data mining and knowledge discovery, these studies are not focused on similarities between rules obtained. When one rule r 1 has reasonable features and the other rule r 2 with high similarity to r 1 includes unexpected factors, the relations between these rules will become a trigger to the discovery of knowledge. In this paper, we propose a visualization approach to show the similar and dissimilar relations between rules based on multidimensional scaling, which assign a two-dimensional cartesian coordinate to each data point from the information about similiaries between this data and others data. We evaluated this method on two medical data sets, whose experimental results show that knowledge useful for domain experts could be found.

Keywords

Multidimensional Scaling Bacterial Meningitis Similarity Matrix Semantic Similarity Domain Expert 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Tsumoto, S., Ziarko, W.: The application of rough sets-based data mining technique to differential diagnosis of meningoenchepahlitis. In: Michalewicz, M., Raś, Z.W. (eds.) ISMIS 1996. LNCS, vol. 1079, pp. 438–447. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams, R., Victor, M.: Principles of Neurology, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Everitt, B.: Cluster Analysis, 3rd edn. John Wiley & Son, London (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yao, Y., Zhong, N.: An analysis of quantitative measures associated with rules. In: Zhong, N., Zhou, L. (eds.) PAKDD 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1574, pp. 479–488. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eckart, C., Young, G.: Approximation of one matrix by another of lower rank. Psychometrika 1, 211–218 (1936)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cox, T., Cox, M.: Multidimensional Scaling, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tsumoto, S.: Automated induction of medical expert system rules from clinical databases based on rough set theory. Information Sciences 112, 67–84 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shusaku Tsumoto
    • 1
  • Shoji Hirano
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical InformaticsShimane University, School of MedicineEnya-cho Izumo City, ShimaneJapan

Personalised recommendations