Action Rules Discovery /Lecture I/ by Zbigniew W. Ras UNC-Charlotte, USA.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Protein Secondary Structure Prediction Using BLAST and Relaxed Threshold Rule Induction from Coverings Leong Lee Missouri University of Science and Technology,
Advertisements

Mining Association Rules from Microarray Gene Expression Data.
Relationship Mining Association Rule Mining Week 5 Video 3.
Building Global Models from Local Patterns A.J. Knobbe.
© Vipin Kumar CSci 8980 Fall CSci 8980: Data Mining (Fall 2002) Vipin Kumar Army High Performance Computing Research Center Department of Computer.
Integrating Bayesian Networks and Simpson’s Paradox in Data Mining Alex Freitas University of Kent Ken McGarry University of Sunderland.
Lecture 21 Rule discovery strategies LERS & ERID.
Data Security against Knowledge Loss *) by Zbigniew W. Ras University of North Carolina, Charlotte, USA.
Action Rules Discovery without pre-existing classification rules B y Zbigniew W. Ras 1,2 and Agnieszka Dardzinska 1,3 1)University of North Carolina, Charlotte,
Chapter Extension 14 Database Marketing © 2008 Pearson Prentice Hall, Experiencing MIS, David Kroenke.
ACTION RULES & META ACTIONS presented by Zbigniew W. Ras University of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC College of Computing and Informatics University of.
Data Mining with Decision Trees Lutz Hamel Dept. of Computer Science and Statistics University of Rhode Island.
Action Rules Discovery Systems: DEAR1, DEAR2, ARED, ….. by Zbigniew W. Raś.
Association Action Rules b y Zbigniew W. Ras 1,5 Agnieszka Dardzinska 2 Li-Shiang Tsay 3 Hanna Wasyluk 4 1)University of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC,
Evaluation of MineSet 3.0 By Rajesh Rathinasabapathi S Peer Mohamed Raja Guided By Dr. Li Yang.
Data Mining By Archana Ketkar.
CMSC 414 Computer and Network Security Lecture 11 Jonathan Katz.
1 Discovering Unexpected Information from Your Competitor’s Web Sites Bing Liu, Yiming Ma, Philip S. Yu Héctor A. Villa Martínez.
Data Mining Adrian Tuhtan CS157A Section1.
Data Mining: A Closer Look Chapter Data Mining Strategies (p35) Moh!
Object-Orientated Design Unit 3: Objects and Classes Jin Sa.
Data Mining – Intro.
Ordinal Decision Trees Qinghua Hu Harbin Institute of Technology
Chapter 5 Data mining : A Closer Look.
HL MARKETING THEORY SALES FORCASTING IB BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT: A COURSE COMPANION, 2009: P
Enterprise systems infrastructure and architecture DT211 4
Data Mining : Introduction Chapter 1. 2 Index 1. What is Data Mining? 2. Data Mining Functionalities 1. Characterization and Discrimination 2. MIning.
Basic Data Mining Techniques
Apriori algorithm Seminar of Popular Algorithms in Data Mining and Machine Learning, TKK Presentation Lauri Lahti.
ACTION RULES Slides by A A Tzacheva.. 2 Knowledge Discovery The nontrivial process of identifying valid, novel, potentially useful, and ultimately understandable.
Copyright R. Weber Machine Learning, Data Mining ISYS370 Dr. R. Weber.
3 Objects (Views Synonyms Sequences) 4 PL/SQL blocks 5 Procedures Triggers 6 Enhanced SQL programming 7 SQL &.NET applications 8 OEM DB structure 9 DB.
Processing of large document collections Part 2 (Text categorization) Helena Ahonen-Myka Spring 2006.
Data Mining CS157B Fall 04 Professor Lee By Yanhua Xue.
Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining Evgueni Smirnov.
Data Mining Chapter 1 Introduction -- Basic Data Mining Tasks -- Related Concepts -- Data Mining Techniques.
1ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Mining Strong Associations and Exceptions in the STULONG Data Set Eduardo Corrêa Gonçalves and Alexandre Plastino.
Data Mining By Dave Maung.
1 CS 391L: Machine Learning: Experimental Evaluation Raymond J. Mooney University of Texas at Austin.
ITCS 6162 Project Action Rules Implementation
Mining interesting association rules Loo Kin Kong 22 Feb 2002.
Data Mining – Intro. Course Overview Spatial Databases Temporal and Spatio-Temporal Databases Multimedia Databases Data Mining.
Introduction of Data Mining and Association Rules cs157 Spring 2009 Instructor: Dr. Sin-Min Lee Student: Dongyi Jia.
6.1 © 2010 by Prentice Hall 6 Chapter Foundations of Business Intelligence: Databases and Information Management.
CRM - Data mining Perspective. Predicting Who will Buy Here are five primary issues that organizations need to address to satisfy demanding consumers:
Uncertainty Management in Rule-based Expert Systems
DATA MINING By Cecilia Parng CS 157B.
DATA MINING WITH CLUSTERING AND CLASSIFICATION Spring 2007, SJSU Benjamin Lam.
Presented by: Sandeep Chittal Minimum-Effort Driven Dynamic Faceted Search in Structured Databases Authors: Senjuti Basu Roy, Haidong Wang, Gautam Das,
An Introduction Student Name: Riaz Ahmad Program: MSIT( ) Subject: Data warehouse & Data Mining.
Elsayed Hemayed Data Mining Course
Data Mining By Farzana Forhad CS 157B. Agenda Decision Tree and ID3 Rough Set Theory Clustering.
Ontology Engineering and Feature Construction for Predicting Friendship Links in the Live Journal Social Network Author:Vikas Bahirwani 、 Doina Caragea.
Data Mining – Introduction (contd…) Compiled By: Umair Yaqub Lecturer Govt. Murray College Sialkot.
Mining Association Rules in Large Database This work is created by Dr. Anamika Bhargava, Ms. Pooja Kaul, Ms. Priti Bali and Ms. Rajnipriya Dhawan and licensed.
ACTIONABLE KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY: THE ANALYTIC HIERACHY PROCESS APPROACH
ACTION RULES /Lecture II/
Queensland University of Technology
Data Mining – Intro.
DATA MINING © Prentice Hall.
Data Mining Association Analysis: Basic Concepts and Algorithms
Adrian Tuhtan CS157A Section1
From Knowledge Discovery to Customer Attrition
Association Rule Mining
Action Association Rules Mining
Data Analysis.
Mining Unexpected Rules by Pushing User Dynamics
Course Lab Introduction to IBM Watson Analytics
MIS2502: Data Analytics Clustering and Segmentation
Kenneth C. Laudon & Jane P. Laudon
Presentation transcript:

Action Rules Discovery /Lecture I/ by Zbigniew W. Ras UNC-Charlotte, USA

: two conditions occur together, with some confidence Rule: two conditions occur together, with some confidence PresumptiveObjective E = [Cond 1 => Cond 2 ] Interestingness measure Data Mining Task: For a given dataset D, interestingness measure I D and threshold c, find association E such that I D (E) > c. Knowledge Engineer defines c

Interestingness Function Two types of [Silberschatz and Tuzhilin, 1995]: Two types of Interestingness Measure [Silberschatz and Tuzhilin, 1995]: subjective and objective. Subjective measure: user-driven, domain-dependent. Silberschatz and Tuzhilin, 1995] Include unexpectedness [Silberschatz and Tuzhilin, 1995], novelty, actionability [Piatesky-Shapiro & Matheus, 1994]. : data-driven and domain-independent. Objective measure: data-driven and domain-independent. They evaluate rules based on They evaluate rules based on statistics and structures of patterns, e.g., support, confidence, etc.

Objective Interestingness Basic Measures for    : Domain: card[  ] Support or Strength: card[  ] Confidence or Certainty Factor: card[  ]/card[  ] Coverage Factor: card[  ]/card[  ] Leverage: card[  ]/n – [card[  ]/n]*[card[  ]/n] Lift: n  card[  ]/[card[  ]*card[  ]]

Subjective Interestingness Rule is interesting if it is: Rule is interesting if it is:  unexpected, if it contradicts the user belief about the domain and therefore surprises the user  novel, if to some extent contributes to new knowledge  actionable, if the user can take an action to his/her advantage based on this rule Unexpectedness [Suzuki, 1997] /does not depend on domain knowledge/ If r = [A  B 1 ] has a high confidence and r 1 = [A*C  B 2 ] has a high confidence, then r 1 is unexpected. [Padmanabhan & Tuzhilin] A  B is unexpected with respect to the belief    on the dataset D if the following conditions hold: B    = False [ B and  logically contradict each other] A   holds on a large subset of D  A*   B holds which means A*   

Action rules: suggest a way to re-classify objects (for instance customers) to a desired state. Action rules: suggest a way to re-classify objects (for instance customers) to a desired state. Action rules can be constructed from classification rules. Action rules can be constructed from classification rules. To discover action rules it is required that the set of conditions (attributes) is partitioned into stable and flexible. To discover action rules it is required that the set of conditions (attributes) is partitioned into stable and flexible. For example, date of birth is a stable attribute, and interest rate on any customer account is a flexible attribute (dependable on bank). For example, date of birth is a stable attribute, and interest rate on any customer account is a flexible attribute (dependable on bank). Actionable rules The notion of action rules was proposed by [Ras & Wieczorkowska, PKDD’00]. Slowinski at al [JETAI, 2004] introduced similar notion called intervention.

Decision table Any information system of the form Any information system of the form S = (U, A Fl  A St  {d}), where S = (U, A Fl  A St  {d}), where  d  A Fl  A St is a distinguished attribute called decision.  A St - stable attributes, A Fl  {d} - flexible Action rule [Ras & Wieczorkowska]: [t(A St )  (b 1, v 1  w 1 )  (b 2, v 2  w 2 )  …  (b p, v p  w p )](x) [t(A St )  (b 1, v 1  w 1 )  (b 2, v 2  w 2 )  …  (b p, v p  w p )](x)  [(d, k 1  k 2 )](x), where  [(d, k 1  k 2 )](x), where (  i)[(1  i  p)  (b i  A Fl )] Action Rules E-Action rule [Ras & Tsay]: [t(A St )  (b 1,  w 1 )  (b 2, v 2  w 2 )  …  (b p,  w p )](x)  [(d, k 1  k 2 )](x), where  [(d, k 1  k 2 )](x), where (  i)[(1  i  p)  (b i  A Fl )]

Table: Set of rules R with supporting objects Figure of (d, H)-tree T1 Figure of (d, L)-tree T2 Objectsabcd x1, x2, x3, x4 0L x1, x3 0L x2, x4 2L 1L x5, x6 3L x7, x8 21H 12H Objectsabc x1, x2, x3, x4 0 x1, x3 0 x2, x4 2 1 x5, x6 3 Objectsbc x1, x3 0 x2, x4 2 1 x5, x6 3 Objectsb x2, x4 2 x5, x6 3 c = 1c = ? c = 0Objectsbc x1, x2, x3, x4 Objectsb x1, x3 a = 0Objectsb x2, x4 a = ?Objectsabc x7, x Objectsbc 1 a = 2Objectsbc x7, x8 12 a = ? Stable Attribute: {a, c} Flexible Attribute: b Decision Attribute: d T1 T2 T3 T4 (T3, T1) : (a = 2)  (b, 2  1)  ( d, L  H) (a = 2)  (b, 3  1)  ( d, L  H)Objectsb x7, x8 1 c = ? c = 2Objectsb x7, x8 1 c = ?Objectsb x1, x2, x3, x4 T5 T6 Action Rules Discovery (Tsay & Ras)

Application domain: Customer Attrition  On average, most US corporations lose half of their customers every five years (Rombel, 2001).  Longer a customer stays with the organization, the more profitable he or she becomes (Pauline, 2000; Hanseman, 2004).  The cost of attracting new customers is five to ten times more than retaining existing ones.  About 14% to 17% of the accounts are closed for reasons that can be controlled like price or service (Lunt, 1993). Action: Reducing the outflow of the customers by 5% can double a typical company’s profit (Rombel, 2001). Facts:

Action Rules Discovery Decision table S = (U, A Fl  A St  {d}). Assumption: {a 1,a 2,...,a p }  A St, {b 1,b 2,...,b q }  A Fl, a i,1  Dom(a i ), b i,1  Dom(b i ). Rule: r = [a 1,1  a 2,1 ...  a p,1 ]  [b 1,1  b 2,1 ...  b q,1 ]  d 1 stable part flexible part Question: Do we have to consider pairs of classification rules in order to construct action rules?

Action Rules Discovery Decision table S = (U, A Fl  A St  {d}). Assumption: {a 1,a 2,...,a p }  A St, {b 1,b 2,...,b q }  A Fl, a i,1  Dom(a i ), b i,1  Dom(b i ). Rule: r = [a 1,1  a 2,1 ...  a p,1 ]  [b 1,1  b 2,1 ...  b q,1 ]  d 1 stable part flexible part Action rule r [d2  d1] associated with r and re-classification task (d, d 2  d 1 ): [a 1,1  a 2,1 ...  a p,1 ]  [(b 1,  b 1,1 )  (b 2,  b 2,1 ) ...  (b q,  b q,1 )]  (d, d 2  d 1 )

Action Rules Discovery Action rule r [d2  d1] : [a 1,1  a 2,1 ...  a p,1 ]  [(b 1,  b 1,1 )  (b 2,  b 2,1 ) ...  (b q,  b q,1 )]  (d, d 2  d 1 ) Support Sup(r [d2  d1] ) = {x  U: (a 1 (x)=a 1,1 )  (a 2 (x)=a 2,1 ) ...  (a p (x)=a p,1 )  (d(x)=d 2 )}. /d 2 -objects which potentially can be reclassified by r [d2  d1] to d 1 / Sup(R [d2  d1] ) =  {Sup(r [d2  d1] ): r  R}, where R- classification rules extracted from S. /d 2 -objects which potentially can be reclassified by r [d2  d1] to d 1 /

Action Rules Discovery Action rule r [d2  d1] : [a 1,1  a 2,1 ...  a p,1 ]  [(b 1, b’ 1,1  b 1,1 )  (b 2, b’ 2,1  b 2,1 ) ...  (b q,  b q,1 )]  (d, d 2  d 1 ) Support Sup(r [d2  d1] ) = {x  U: (b 1 (x)=b’ 1,1 )  (b 2 (x)=b’ 2,1 )  (a 1 (x)=a 1,1 )  (a 2 (x)=a 2,1 ) ...  (a p (x)=a p,1 )  (d(x)=d 2 )}. /d 2 -objects which potentially can be reclassified by r [d2  d1] to d 1 /

Let U d2 = {x  U: d(x)=d 2 }. Then B d2  d1 = U d2 - Sup(R [d2  d1] ) is a set of d 2 -objects in S which are d 1 -resistant. Action Rules Discovery Let Sup(R [  d1] ) =  {Sup(R [d2  d1] ) : d 2  d 1 }. Then B  d1 = U - Sup(R [  d1] ) is a set of objects in S which are d 1 -resistant (can not be re-classified to class d 1 ).

Action Rules Discovery Action rules r [d2  d1], r‘ [d2  d3] are p-equivalent (  ), if r/b i = r'/b i always holds when r/b i, r'/b i are both defined, for every b i  A St  A Fl. Let x  Sup(r [d2  d1] ). We say that x positively supports r [d2  d1] if there is no action rule r‘ [d2  d3] extracted from S, d 3  d 1, which is p-equivalent to r [d2  d1] and x  Sup( r‘ [d2  d3] ).

Action Rules Discovery Let Sup + (R [d2  d1] ) = {x  Sup(r [d2  d1] ): x positively supports r [d2  d1] }. Confidence Conf(r [d2  d1] ) = {card[Sup + (r [d2  d1] )]/card[Sup(r [d2  d1] )]}  Conf(r). Conf(r [  d1] ) = {card[Sup + (r [  d1] )]/card[Sup(r [  d1] )]}  Conf(r).

Assumption: S = (X, A, V) is information system, Y  X. Attribute b  A is flexible in S and b 1, b 2  V b. By  S (Y, b 1, b 2 ) we mean a number from (0, +  ] which describes the average predicted cost of approved action associated with a possible re- classification of qualifying objects in Y from class b 1 to b 2. Object x  Y qualifies for re-classification from b 1 to b 2, if b(x) = b 1.  S (Y, b 1, b 2 ) = + , if there is no action approved which is required for a possible re-classification of qualifying objects in Y from class b 1 to b 2 Cost of Action Rule [Tzacheva & Ras]  S (Y, b 1, b 2 ). If Y is uniquely defined, we often write  S (b 1, b 2 ) instead of  S (Y, b 1, b 2 ).

Cost of Action Rule Action rule : Action rule r: [(b 1, v 1 → w 1 )  (b 2, v 2 → w 2 )  …  ( b p, v p → w p )](x)  (d, k 1 → k 2 )(x) : The cost of r in S: cost S (r) =  {  S (v i, w i ) : 1  i  p} Action rule r is feasible in S, if cost S (r) <  S (k 1, k 2 ). For any feasible action rule r, the cost of the conditional part of r is lower than the cost of its decision part.

Assumption: Cost of r is too high! r = [(b 1, v 1 → w 1 )  …  (b j, v j → w j )  …  ( b p, v p → w p )](x)  (d, k 1 → k 2 )(x) r 1 = [(b j1, v j1 → w j1 )  (b j2, v j2 → w j2 )  …  ( b jq, v jq → w jq )](x)  (b j, v j → w j )(x) Then, we can compose r with r 1 and the same replace term (b j, v j → w j ) by term from the left hand side of r 1 : [(b 1, v 1 → w 1 )  …  [(b j1, v j1 → w j1 )  (b j2, v j2 → w j2 )  …  ( b jq, v jq → w jq )]  …  ( b p, v p → w p )](x)  (d, k 1 → k 2 )(x) Cost of Action Rule

Class movability-index F S - decision attribute ranking – positive integer associated with a decision value /objects of higher decision attribute ranking are seen as objects more preferably movable between decision classes than objects of lower rank/. N j + = {i  N: F S (d j ) – F S (d i )  0}. Class movability-index assigned to N j, ind(N j ) =  {F S (d j )– F S (d i ): i  N j + }Xabd FSFSFSFSx1a1b1d31 x2a2b1d22 x3a1b2d22 x4a3b2d13

Class movability-index Let P j (i) = Sup + (r [dj  di] ) /P j (i) – all objects in U which can be reclassified from the decision class d j to the decision class d i P j (N) =  {P j (i): i  N, i  j}, for any N  {1,2,…,k} where {d 1,d 2,…,d k } are all decision classes. Class movability-index (m-index) assigned to d j -object x: ind S (x) = max{ind(N j ): N j  {1,2,…,k}  x  P j (N)}

Questions? Thank You