Cooperative Discovery of Interesting Action Rules

  • Agnieszka Dardzińska
  • Zbigniew W. Raś
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4027)


Action rules introduced in [12] and extended further to e-action rules [21 have been investigated in [22], [13], [20]. They assume that attributes in a database are divided into two groups: stable and flexible. In general, an action rule can be constructed from two rules extracted earlier from the same database. Furthermore, we assume that these two rules describe two different decision classes and our goal is to re-classify objects from one of these classes into the other one. Flexible attributes are essential in achieving that goal since they provide a tool for making hints to a user what changes within some values of flexible attributes are needed for a given set of objects to re-classify them into a new decision class. There are two aspects of interestingness of rules that have been studied in data mining literature, objective and subjective measures [8], [1], [14], [15], [23]. In this paper we focus on a cost of an action rule which was introduced in [22] as an objective measure. An action rule was called interesting if its cost is below and support higher than some user-defined threshold values. We assume that our attributes are hierarchical and we focus on solving the failing problem of interesting action rules discovery. Our process is cooperative and it has some similarities with cooperative answering of queries presented in [3], [5], [6].


Decision Table Decision Attribute Flexible Attribute Interest Action Action Rule 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Adomavicius, G., Tuzhilin, A.: Discovery of actionable patterns in databases: the action hierarchy approach. In: Proceedings of KDD 1997 Conference, Newport Beach, CA. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chmielewski, M.R., Grzymala-Busse, J.W., Peterson, N.W., Than, S.: The Rule Induction System LERS - a version for personal computers in Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, vol. 18(3-4), pp. 181–212. Institute of Computing Science, Technical University of Poznan, Poland (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chu, W., Yang, H., Chiang, K., Minock, M., Chow, G., Larson, C.: Cobase: A scalable and extensible cooperative information system. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 6(2/3), 223–259 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fensel, D.: Ontologies: A silver bullet for knowledge management and electronic commerce. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gaasterland, T.: Cooperative answering through controlled query relaxation. IEEE Expert 12(5), 48–59 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Godfrey, P.: Minimization in cooperative response to failing database queries. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 6(2), 95–149 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Pappalardo, N., Slowinski, R.: Measuring expected effects of interventions based on decision rules, Special Issue on Knowledge Discovery. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 17(1–2), 103–118 (2005)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu, B., Hsu, W., Chen, S.: Using general impressions to analyze discovered classification rules. In: Proceedings of KDD 1997 Conference, Newport Beach, CA. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough Ssets and decision tables. LNCS, pp. 186–196. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough Sets: Theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Raś, Z.W., Dardzińska, A.: Handling semantic inconsistencies in distributed knowledge systems using ontologies. In: Hacid, M.-S., Raś, Z.W., Zighed, D.A., Kodratoff, Y. (eds.) ISMIS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2366, pp. 66–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raś, Z.W., Wieczorkowska, A.: Action-rules: How to increase profit of a company. In: Zighed, D.A., Komorowski, J., Żytkow, J.M. (eds.) PKDD 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1910, pp. 587–592. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raś, Z.W., Tzacheva, A., Tsay, L.-S.: Action rules. In: Wang, J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Data Warehousing and Mining, pp. 1–5. Idea Group Inc., USA (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Silberschatz, A., Tuzhilin, A.: On subjective measures of interestingness in knowledge discovery. In: Proceedings of KDD 1995 Conference. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Silberschatz, A., Tuzhilin, A.: What makes patterns interesting in knowledge discovery systems. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 5(6) (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Raś, Z., Gupta, S.: Global action rules in distributed knowledge systems. Fundamenta Informaticae Journal 51(1-2), 175–184 (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Skowron, A., Grzymala-Busse, J.: From the Rough Set Theory to the Evidence Theory. ICS Research Reports, 8/91, Warsaw University of Technology (October 1991)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sowa, J.F.: Ontology, Metadata and Semiotics. In: Ganter, B., Mineau, G.W. (eds.) ICCS 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1867, pp. 55–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Suzuki, E., Kodratoff, Y.: Discovery of surprising exception rules based on intensity of implication. In: Wu, X., Kotagiri, R., Korb, K.B. (eds.) PAKDD 1998. LNCS, vol. 1394, Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tsay, L.-S., Raś, Z.W., Dardzińska, A.: Mining E-Action Rules. In: Mining Complex Data. In: Proceedings of 2005 IEEE ICDM Workshop in Houston, pp. 85–90. Published by Math. Dept., Saint Mary’s Univ., Texas, Nova Scotia, (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tsay, L.-S., Raś, Z.W.: Action rules discovery: System DEAR2, method and experiments. Special Issue on Knowledge Discovery, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 17(1-2), 119–128 (2005)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tzacheva, A., Raś, Z.W.: Action rules mining. Special Issue on Knowledge Discovery, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 20(7), 719–736 (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zbidi, N., Faiz, S., Limam, M.: On mining summaries by objective measures of interestingness. Machine Learning 62(3), 175–198 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Agnieszka Dardzińska
    • 1
  • Zbigniew W. Raś
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Mathematics Dept.Bialystok Technical Univ.BialystokPoland
  2. 2.Computer Science Dept.Univ. of North CarolinaCharlotteUSA
  3. 3.Intelligent Systems Dept.Polish-Japanese Institute of Information TechnologyWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations