Measuring Quality of Decision Rules Through Ranking of Conditional Attributes

Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 56)

Abstract

One of the reasons for the wide popularity of rule classification systems is their ability to enhance understanding of mined data, and structures present in it. The discovered patterns are stated explicitly, which allows for more transparent descriptions of learned knowledge. To reach this goal of good descriptive and generalisation properties, induced rules need to be of a certain quality, which is typically measured by the predictive accuracy of the rule classifier. The paper presents research dedicated to measuring qualities of the inferred rules by taking into account a ranking of considered conditional attributes. Calculated quality measures along with supports of rules lead to construction of new classifiers, with improved parameters. The process is illustrated by a case of binary authorship attribution based on recognition of writing styles.

Keywords

Decision rule Quality measure Conditional attribute Ranking of attributes Weights of attributes 

References

  1. 1.
    Amin, T., Chikalov, I., Moshkov, M., Zielosko, B.: Relationships between length and coverage of decision rules. Fundam. Informaticae 129, 1–13 (2014)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baron, G.: Influence of data discretization on efficiency of Bayesian classifier for authorship attribution. Procedia Comput. Sci. 35, 1112–1121 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bayardo, Jr., R., Agrawal, R.: Mining the most interesting rules. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. pp. 145–154 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferreira, A., Figueiredo, M.: Incremental filter and wrapper approaches for feature discretization. Neurocomputing 123, 60–74 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freitas, A.: On rule interestingness measures. Knowl.-Based Syst. 12(5–6), 309–315 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greco, S., Slowiński, R., Szczȩch, I.: Analysis of monotonicity properties of some rule interestingness measures. Control Cybern. 38(1), 9–25 (2009)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gruca, A., Sikora, M.: Rule based functional description of genes—estimation of the multicriteria rule interestingness measure by the UTA method. Biocybern. Biomed. Eng. 33, 222–234 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jensen, R., Shen, Q.: Computational Intelligence and Feature Selection. Wiley, Hoboken (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jockers, M., Witten, D.: A comparative study of machine learning methods for authorship attribution. Literary Linguistic Comput. 25(2), 215–223 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kononenko, I.: Estimating attributes: analysis and extensions of RELIEF. In: Bergadano, F., De Raedt, L. (eds.) Machine Learning: ECML-94. LNCS, vol. 784, pp. 171–182. Springer, Berlin (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mansoori, E.: Using statistical measures for feature ranking. Int. J. Pattern Recogn. Artif. Intell. 27(1), 1350003–14 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough sets and intelligent data analysis. Inform. Sci. 147, 1–12 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sikora, M., Wróbel, L.: Data-driven adaptive selection of rule quality measures for improving the rule induction algorithm. LNCS 6743, 279–287 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Slowiński, R., Greco, S., Matarazzo, B.: Dominance-based rough set approach to reasoning about ordinal data. In: Kryszkiewicz, M., Peters, J., Rybiński, H., Skowron, A. (eds.) Rough Sets and Intelligent Systems Paradigms. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4585, pp. 5–11. Springer, Berlin (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stańczyk, U.: Dominance-based rough set approach employed in search of authorial invariants. In: Kurzyński, M., Woźniak, M. (eds.) Computer Recognition Systems 3, AISC, vol. 57, pp. 315–323. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stańczyk, U.: On performance of DRSA-ANN classifier. In: Corchado, E., Kurzyński, M., Woźniak, M. (eds.) Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Systems. Part 2, LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6679, pp. 172–179. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stańczyk, U.: Weighting of attributes in an embedded rough approach. In: Gruca, A., Czachórski, T., Kozielski, S. (eds.) Man-Machine Interactions 3, AISC, vol. 242, pp. 475–483. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stańczyk, U.: Selection of decision rules based on attribute ranking. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 29(2), 899–915 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zielosko, B.: Optimization of decision rules relative to coverage—comparative study. In: Kryszkiewicz, M., Cornelis, C., Ciucci, D., Medina-Moreno, J., Motoda, H., Raś, Z. (eds.) Rough Sets and Intelligent Systems Paradigms, LNCS, vol. 8537, pp. 237–247. Springer, Berlin (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Silesian University of TechnologyGliwicePoland

Personalised recommendations