Advertisement

Specifying Mining Algorithms with Iterative User-Defined Aggregates: A Case Study

  • Fosca Giannotti
  • Giuseppe Manco
  • Franco Turini
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2168)

Abstract

We present a way of exploiting domain knowledge in the design and implementation of data mining algorithms, with special attention to frequent patterns discovery, within a deductive framework. In our framework domain knowledge is represented by deductive rules, and data mining algorithms are constructed by means of iterative user-defined aggregates. Iterative user-defined aggregates have a fixed scheme that allows the modularization of data mining algorithms, thus providing a way to exploit domain knowledge in the right point. As a case study, the paper presents user-defined aggregates for specifying a version of the apriori algorithm. Some performance analyses and comparisons are discussed in order to show the effectiveness of the approach.

Keywords

Association Rule Mining Algorithm Frequent Itemsets Inductive Rule Data Mining Algorithm 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Agrawal, S. Sarawagi, and S. Thomas. Integrating Association Rule Mining with Relational Database Systems: Alternatives and Implications. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 4(3):89–125, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Alcamo, F. Domenichini, and F. Turini. An XML Based Environment in Support of the Overall KDD Process. In Procs. of the 4th International Conference on Flexible Query Answering Systems (FQAS2000), Advances in Soft Computing, pages 413–424, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Chaudhuri and K. Shim. Optimization of Queries with User-Defined Predicates. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 24(2):177–228, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Chimenti, R. Gamboa, and R. Krishnamurthy. Towards an Open Architecture for LDL. In Proc. 15th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB89), pages 195–204, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Giannotti and G. Manco. Querying Inductive Databases via Logic-Based User-Defined Aggregates. In Proc. 3rd European Conference on Principles and Practices of Knowledge Discovery in Databases, number 1704 in Lecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence, pages 125–135, September 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Giannotti and G. Manco. Declarative Knowledge Extraction with Iterative User-Defined Aggregates. In Procs. 4th International Conference on Flexible Query Answering Systems (FQAS2000), Advances in Soft Computing, pages 445–454, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Giannotti and G. Manco. Making Knowledge Extraction and Reasoning Closer. In Proc. 4th Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, number 1805 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, April 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Giannotti, G. Manco, M. Nanni, and D. Pedreschi. Nondeterministic, Nonmonotonic Logic Databases. IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering. To appear.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Han, Y. Fu, K. Koperski, W. Wang, and O. Zaiane. DMQL: A Data Mining Query Language for Relational Databases. In SIGMOD’96 Workshop on Research Issues on Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (DMKD’96), 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. Imielinski and A. Virmani. MSQL: A Query Language for Database Mining. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 3(4):373–408, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Manco. Foundations of a Logic-Based Framework for Intelligent Data Analysis. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Pisa, April 2001.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Mannila. Inductive databases and condensed representations for data mining. In International Logic Programming Symposium, pages 21–30, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Ng, L. V. S. Lakshmanan, J. Han, and A. Pang. Exploratory Mining and Pruning Optimizations of Constrained Associations Rules. In Proc. ACM Conf. on Management of Data (SIGMOD98), June 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Ceri R. Meo, G. Psaila. A New SQL-Like Operator for Mining Association Rules. In Proc. 22th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB96), pages 122–133, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Srikant. Fast Algorithms for Mining Association Rules and Sequential Patterns. PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. Zaniolo, N. Arni, and K. Ong. Negation and Aggregates in Recursive Rules: The LDL ++ Approach. In Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases (DOOD93), volume 760 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Zaniolo and H. Wang. Logic-Based User-Defined Aggregates for the Next Generation of Database Systems. In The Logic Programming Paradigm: Current Trends and Future Directions. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fosca Giannotti
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Manco
    • 1
  • Franco Turini
    • 2
  1. 1.CNUCE-CNRPisaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Computer SciencePisaItaly

Personalised recommendations