CAEP: Classification by Aggregating Emerging Patterns
Emerging patterns (EPs) are itemsets whose supports change significantly from one dataset to another; they were recently proposed to capture multi-attribute contrasts between data classes, or trends over time. In this paper we propose a new classifier, CAEP, using the following main ideas based on EPs: (i) Each EP can sharply differentiate the class membership of a (possibly small) fraction of instances containing the EP, due to the big difference between its supports in the opposing classes; we define the differentiating power of the EP in terms of the supports and their ratio, on instances containing the EP. (ii) For each instance t, by aggregating the differentiating power of a fixed, automatically selected set of EPs, a score is obtained for each class. The scores for all classes are normalized and the largest score determines t’s class. CAEP is suitable for many applications, even those with large volumes of high (e.g. 45) dimensional data; it does not depend on dimension reduction on data; and it is usually equally accurate on all classes even if their populations are unbalanced. Experiments show that CAEP has consistent good predictive accuracy, and it almost always outperforms C4.5 and CBA. By using efficient, border-based algorithms (developed elsewhere) to discover EPs, CAEP scales up on data volume and dimensionality. Observing that accuracy on the whole dataset is too coarse description of classifiers, we also used a more accurate measure, sensitivity and precision, to better characterize the performance of classifiers. CAEP is also very good under this measure.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.R. J. Bayardo. Efficiently mining long patterns from databases. SIGMOD 1998.Google Scholar
- 2.L. Breiman, J. Friedman, R. Olshen, and C. Stone. Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth International Group, 1984.Google Scholar
- 3.Guozhu Dong and Jinyan Li. Efficient mining of emerging patterns: Discovering trends and differences. To appear in ACM KDD’99, August 1999.Google Scholar
- 4.William B. Frakes and Ricardo Baeza-Yates. Information Retrieval: Data Structures and Algorithms. Prentice Hall, 1992.Google Scholar
- 6.R. Kohavi, et al. MLC++: a machine learning library in C++. In Tools with artificial intelligence, pages 740–743, 1994.Google Scholar
- 7.R Kohavi, M Sahami. Error-based and Entropy-based Discretization of Continuous Features. In KDD’96, 1996.Google Scholar
- 8.J. Li, G. Dong, and K. Ramamohanarao. JEP-Classifier: Classification by Aggregating Jumping Emerging Patterns. Tech report, Univ of Melbourne, 1999.Google Scholar
- 9.B. Liu, W. Hsu, and Y. Ma. Integrating classification and association rule mining. In Proc. of 4th KDD, 1998.Google Scholar
- 10.P.M. Murphy and D.W. Aha. UCI repository of machine learning database. In [http://www.cs.uci.edu/mlearn/mlrepository.html].Google Scholar
- 11.J R Quinlan. Induction of decision trees. In Machine Learning, Vol 1, 1986.Google Scholar
- 12.J.R. Quinlan. C4.5: program for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann, 1992.Google Scholar
- 13.R.E. Schapire. The strength of weak learnability. Machine Learning, 5(2), 1990.Google Scholar
- 14.Z. Zheng, Constructing X-of-N attributes for decision tree learning. To appear in Machine Learning.Google Scholar