Cooperative Discovery of Interesting Action Rules
Action rules introduced in  and extended further to e-action rules [21 have been investigated in , , . 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 , , , , . In this paper we focus on a cost of an action rule which was introduced in  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 , , .
KeywordsDecision Table Decision Attribute Flexible Attribute Interest Action Action Rule
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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.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
- 4.Fensel, D.: Ontologies: A silver bullet for knowledge management and electronic commerce. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
- 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.Pawlak, Z.: Rough Ssets and decision tables. LNCS, pp. 186–196. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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.Silberschatz, A., Tuzhilin, A.: What makes patterns interesting in knowledge discovery systems. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 5(6) (1996)Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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