Advertisement

Identifying relevant databases for multidatabase mining

  • Huan Liu
  • Hongjun Lu
  • Jun Yao
Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1394)

Abstract

Various tools and systems for knowledge discovery and data mining are developed and available for applications. However, when we are immersed in heaps of databases, an immediate question facing practitioners is where we should start mining. In this paper, breaking away from the conventional data mining assumption that many databases be joined into one, we argue that the first step for multidatabase mining is to identify databases that are most likely relevant to an application; without doing so, the mining process can be lengthy, aimless and ineffective. A relevance measure is thus proposed to identify relevant databases for mining tasks with an objective to find patterns or regularities about certain attributes. An efficient implementation for identifying relevant databases is described. Experiments are conducted to validate the measure's performance and to show its promising applications.

Keywords

multiple databases data mining query relevance measure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Agrawal, T. Imielinski, and A. Swami. Database mining: A performance perspective. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 5(6):914–925, Dec 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Breiman, J. H. Friedman, R. A. Olshen, and C. J. Stone. Classification and Regression. Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Advanced & Books Software, 1984.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Clark and T. Niblett. The CN2 induction algorithm. Machine Learning, 3:261–283, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    U. M. Fayyad, G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, and P. Smyth. From data mining to knowledge discovery: An overview. In U. M. Fayyad, G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, P. Smyth, and R. Uthurusamy, editors, Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 1–34. AAAI Press / The MIT Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Han and Y. Fu. Attribute-oriented induction in data mining. In U. M. Fayyad, G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, P. Smyth, and R. Uthurusamy, editors, Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 399–421. AAAI Press / The MIT Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Hong and C. Mao. Incremental discovery of rules and structure by hierarchical and parellel clustering. In G. Piatetsky-Shapiro and W. J. Frawley, editors, Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pages 177–194. AAAI / The MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Kamber and R. Shinghal. Evaluating the interestingness of characteristic rules. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Data Mining (KDD-96), pages 263–266. AAAI Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Liu and W. Hsu. Post-analysis of learned rules. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence AAAI-96, pages 828–834. AAAI press/ The MIT press, August 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. A. Major and J. Mangano. Selecting among rules induced from a hurricane database. In G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, editor, Proceedings of AAAI-93 workshop on Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pages 28–44, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. J. Matheus, G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, and D. McNeill. Selecting and reporting what is interesting. In U. M. Fayyad, G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, P. Smyth, and R. Uthurusamy, editors, Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 495–514. AAAI Press / The MIT Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. S. Michalski, I. Mozetic, J. Hong, and N. Lavrac. The multi-purpose incremental learning system aq15 and its testing application to three medical domains. In Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1041–1045, 1986.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Piatetsky-Shapiro. Discovery, analysis, and presentation of strong rules. In G. Piatetsky-Shapiro and W. J. Frawley, editors, Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pages 229–248. AAAI / The MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, C. Matheus, P. Smyth, and R. Uthurusamy. KDD93: progress and challenges. In AI magazine, pages 77–87, Fall 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Piatetsky-Shapiro and C. J. Matheus. The interestingness of deviations. In AAAI-84 Workshop on Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pages 25–36, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. R. Quinlan. C4.5: Program for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Silberschatz and A. Tuzhilin.On subjective measures of interestingness in knowledge discovery. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 275–281, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Srikant and R. Agrawal. Mining quantitative association rules in large relational tables. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Zembowicz and J. M. Zytkow. From contigency tables to various forms of knowledge in databases. In U. M. Fayyad, G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, P. Smyth, and R. Uthurusamy, editors, Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 329–349. AAAI Press / The MIT Press, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Huan Liu
    • 1
  • Hongjun Lu
    • 1
  • Jun Yao
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems and Computer ScienceNational University of SingaporeKent RidgeSingapore

Personalised recommendations