1. 1ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Mining Strong Associations and Exceptions in the STULONG Data Set Eduardo Corrêa Gonçalves and Alexandre Plastino * *work sponsored by CNPq research grant 300879/00-8 Universidade Federal Fluminense Department of Computer Science Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil {egoncalves,plastino}@ic.uff.br - http://www.ic.uff.br

2. 2ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge 1.Atherosclerosis Data Set 2.Multidimensional Association Rules 3.Exceptions 4.Data Preparation 5.Results 6.Summary Outline of the talk 1.Atherosclerosis Data Set 2.Multidimensional Association Rules 3.Exceptions 4.Data Preparation 5.Results 6.Summary

3. 3ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Atherosclerosis Data Set STULONG Data Set: risk factors of atherosclerosis in a population of 1417 middle aged men from Czech Republic. Four tables are included in this data set: Entry: data related to entry examinations performed on these men (the first step of the STULONG project). Control: data related to long-term observations. Letter: additional information about the health status of 403 men. Death: data related to the patients that became dead.

4. 4ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Basic Groups of Patients The patients were classified into three basic groups, according to the results of the entry examinations: A. Normal Group : men without the presence of any risk factor. B. Risk Group : men with the presence of one or more risk factors. C. Pathologic Group : men with either an identified cardiovascular disease or other serious disease.

5. 5ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge The main contribution of this work is to present strong association rules and exceptions mined from the Entry table. The mining process was driven into discovering relations among the following characteristics of the patients in the basic groups: Social factors. Physical activities during free time. Alcohol consumption. Smoking. Results of the biochemical examinations and the physical check-up. Contribution

6. 6ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge 1.Atherosclerosis Data Set 2.Multidimensional Association Rules 3.Exceptions 4.Data Preparation 5.Results 6.Summary Outline of the talk 1.Atherosclerosis Data Set 2.Multidimensional Association Rules 3.Exceptions 4.Data Preparation 5.Results 6.Summary

7. 7ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Multidimensional Association Rules Multidimensional Association Rules (J. Han and M. Kamber, 2001) represent combinations of attribute values that often occur together in a database. They can be mined from relational databases or data warehouses. Example: (DailyBeerCons = “>1l”)  (Smoking = “>20 cig/day”) meaning: “men who are heavy beer consumers tend to be also heavy smokers”. This rule involves two attributes (or dimensions): DailyBeerCons and Smoking.

8. 8ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Multidimensional Association Rules Formal Definition A 1 = a 1,..., A n = a n  B 1 = b 1,..., B m = b m A i (1  i  n) and B j (1  j  m) : distinct attributes (dimensions) from a database relation. a i and b j : values from the domains of A i and B j, respectively. generic representation: A  B A is the antecedent and B is the consequent of the rule. Several attributes can be involved in both the antecedent and the consequent.

9. 9ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Interest Measures: Support and Confidence Support index (Sup): the probability that a tuple matches all conditions in A  B. Confidence index (Conf): the probability that a tuple matches B, given that it matches A. Sup(A  B) = P(A,B) and Conf(A  B) = P(B|A). The support indicates the relevance and the confidence indicates the validity of an association rule. Support / Confidence Framework (Agrawal et al, 1993): finding all rules that match user-provided minimum support and minimum confidence.

10. 10ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Interest Measures: Support and Confidence Problems with the Support / Confidence Framework (Brin et al, 1997):  generation of a huge number of rules:  most of these rules are often obvious.  In many cases, these rules express relations that are not true.

11. 11ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge IdAssociation RuleSup A Sup B SupConf R1 (DailyBeerCons = “>1l”)  (Smoking = “>20 cig/day”) 0.11930.26020.04480.3758 R2 (DailyBeerCons = “>1l”)  (Married = “yes”) 0.11930.84870.09050.7584 Interest Measures: Support and Confidence The support and confidence values of R2 are higher than the R1 ones. Is R2, in fact, more interesting than R1?

12. 12ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Negative Dependence IdAssociation RuleSup A Sup B SupConf R2 (DailyBeerCons = “>1l”)  (Married = “yes”) 0.11930.84870.09050.7584 R2 should imply that men who are heavy beer consumers tend to be married. 84.87% of men are married. However, the probability for a man to be married, given that he is a heavy beer consumer is 75.84%. Heavy beer consumers are, in fact, less likely to be married. There is a negative dependence between being married and being a heavy beer consumer.

13. 13ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Positive Dependence IdAssociation RuleSup A Sup B SupConf R1 (DailyBeerCons = “>1l”)  (Smoking = “>20 cig/day”) 0.11930.26020.04480.3758 26.02% of men are heavy smokers. The probability for a man to be a heavy smoker, given that he is a heavy beer consumer is 37.58%. Heavy beer consumers are more likely to smoke a lot. There is a positive dependence between being a heavy beer consumer and being a heavy smoker.

14. 14ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Strong Association Rule IdAssociation RuleSup A Sup B SupConf R1 (DailyBeerCons = “>1l”)  (Smoking = “>20 cig/day”) 0.11930.26020.04480.3758 R2 (DailyBeerCons = “>1l”)  (Married = “yes”) 0.11930.84870.09050.7584 Conclusions: R1 is a strong association rule, while R2 is not true. In order to mine interesting information, we need to evaluate the type of dependence between the antecedent and the consequent of a rule.

15. 15ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Lift: how much more frequent is B when A occurs. Lift(A  B) = Conf(A  B)  Sup(B) RI - Rule Interest ( G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, 1991 ): computes the percentage of additional tuples matched by an association rule that are above the expected. RI(A  B) = Sup(A  B) - Sup(A) x Sup(B) We believe that the use of different interest measures (Sup, Conf, Lift and RI) provides alternative analysis of the same data, giving a better understanding about the associations. Lift and RI

16. 16ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge 1.Atherosclerosis Data Set 2.Multidimensional Association Rules 3.Exceptions 4.Data Preparation 5.Results 6.Summary Outline of the talk 1.Atherosclerosis Data Set 2.Multidimensional Association Rules 3.Exceptions 4.Data Preparation 5.Results 6.Summary

17. 17ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge In our approach, exceptions represent association rules that become much weaker in some specific subsets of the database. Mined exception: (DailyBeerCons = “>1l”) & (Age = “ 50”)  (Smoking = “>20 cig/day”) meaning: “among the men who are 50 years old or above, the support value of the association between being a heavy beer consumer and being a heavy smoker is surprisingly smaller than what is expected”. Exceptions Example: Does the rule (DailyBeerCons = “>1l”)  (Smoking = “>20 cig/day”) become weaker on any subset of the database?

18. 18ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Exceptions (DailyBeerCons = “>1l”) & (Age = “ 50”)  (Smoking = “>20 cig/day”)  This exception was obtained because the conventional rule (DailyBeerCons = “>1l”) & (Age = “50”)  (Smoking = “>20 cig/day”) did not achieve an expected support.  This expected support is evaluated from the support of the original rule (DailyBeerCons = “>1l”)  (Smoking = “>20 cig/day”) and the support of the condition (Age = “50”).

19. 19ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge  Let D be a database relation.  Let R: A  B be a multidimensional association rule.  Let Z = {Z 1 = z 1,..., Z k = Z k } be a set of conditions defined over D, where Z  A  B = . Z is named as probe set.  An exception related to the positive rule R is an implication of the form: A  Z  B Exceptions: Formal Definition

20. 20ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Exceptions are extracted from candidate exceptions. A candidate exception is an expression in the form: A  Z  B Exceptions are mined only if the candidates do not achieve an expected support. This expectation is evaluated based on the support of the original rule A  B and the support of the conditions that compose the probe set Z: ExpSup(A  Z  B) = Sup(A  B) x Sup(Z) Candidate Exceptions

21. 21ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge The Interest Measure (IM) Index We developed two interest measures to evaluate the degree of interestingness of an exception. The IM (Interest Measure) index evaluates the strength (relevance) of an exception. IM(E) = 1 - (Sup(A  Z  B)  ExpSup(A  Z  B)) An exception E is potentially interesting if the actual support value of Sup(A  Z  B) is much lower than its expected support value. This measure captures the type of dependence between Z and A  B. The closer the value is from 1, the more the negative dependence.

22. 22ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge R: (DailyBeerCons = “>1l”)  (Smoking = “>20 cig/day”) - Sup(R) = 4.48% Z = {(Age = “ 50”)} - Sup(Z) = 22.82% Example of the IM Index The expected support for A  Z  B can be computed as 4.48% x 22.82% = 1.02%. The actual support of A  Z  B is 0.48%. The exception E1: A  Z  B is potentially interesting because IM(E1) = 1 - (0.48  1.02) = 0.53. The actual support value of E1 is 53% lower than what is expected.

23. 23ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Degree of Unexpectedness A high value for the IM measure is not a guarantee that we found interesting information. R: (DailyBeerCons = “>1l”)  (Smoking = “>20 cig/day”) Sup(R) = 4.48% Z = {(Alcohol = “no”)} - Sup(Z) = 9.47%  The expected support for A  Z  B can be computed as 4.48% x 9.47% = 0.42%.  The actual support for this candidate rule is 0.00%.  IM(A  Z  B) = 1 - (0.00  0.48) = 1.00.  However, this exception represents na information that is obvious. The IM index could not detect the strong negative dependence between A and Z.

24. 24ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Degree of Unexpectedness The DU (Degree of Unexpectedness ) Index is used to determine the validity of an exception. This measure captures how much the negative dependence between a probe set Z and a rule A  B is higher than the negative dependence between Z and either A and B. DU(E) = IM(E) - max(1 - Sup(A  Z)  ExpSup(A  Z), 1 - Sup(B  Z)  ExpSup(B  Z)) The greater the value is from 0, the more interesting the exception will be. If DU(E)  0 the exception is uninteresting.

25. 25ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Example of the DU Index R: (DailyBeerCons = “>1l”)  (Smoking = “>20 cig/day”) Sup(R) =4.48% --- Sup(A) =11.93% --- Sup(B) =26.02% Z = {(Age = “ 50”)} Sup(Z)= 22.82% --- Sup(A  Z)= 2.00% --- Sup(B  Z)= 6.00% 1) compute the negative dependence between A and Z:  1 - (2.00%  (11.93% x 22.82%)) = 0.27 2) compute the negative dependence between B and Z: 1 - (6.00%  (26.02% x 22.82%)) = -0.01 The exception E1: A  Z  B is, in fact, interesting because: DU(E1) = 0.53 - max(0.27,-0.01) = 0.26

26. 26ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge 1.Atherosclerosis Data Set 2.Multidimensional Association Rules 3.Exceptions 4.Data Preparation 5.Results 6.Summary Outline of the talk 1.Atherosclerosis Data Set 2.Multidimensional Association Rules 3.Exceptions 4.Data Preparation 5.Results 6.Summary

27. 27ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge The following relations in the ARFF format (Witten and Frank, 2000) were generated from the original Entry table: ENTRY TOT : 1249 tuples (men from groups A, B and C). ENTRY A : 276 tuples (only men from group A). ENTRY B : 859 tuples (only men from group B). ENTRY C : 114 tuples (only men from group C). Data Preparation

28. 28ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge FieldPossible Values Cholesterol“desirable” (<200), “bordering” (200 – 239), “high” (  240). Triglycerides“desirable” (<150), “bordering” (150 – 200), “high” (201 - 499), “very high” (  500). BMI (body mass index) “underweight” ( bmi < 20), “normal” (20  bmi < 25), “overweight” (25  bmi < 30), “obese” (30  bmi < 40), “morbidly obese” (bmi  40). Blood Pressure“normal”, “normal / high”, “high” Skin Folds“8-20”, “21-30”, “31-40”, “>40” Age “38-39”, “40-44”, “45-49”, “  50” Data Preparation Data was enriched with new fields and the continuous attributes were discretized.

29. 29ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge 1.Atherosclerosis Data Set 2.Multidimensional Association Rules 3.Exceptions 4.Data Preparation 5.Results 6.Summary Outline of the talk 1.Atherosclerosis Data Set 2.Multidimensional Association Rules 3.Exceptions 4.Data Preparation 5.Results 6.Summary

30. 30ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Results We developed two programs in C++ (g++ compiler): MULTMINE: used to mine strong multidimensional association rules. EXCEPMINE: used to mine exceptions. We use the following thresholds on the experiments: Minimum support = 1% (MULTMINE). Minimum IM = 0.30 and minimum DU = 0.05 (EXCEPMINE).

31. 31ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Group A - Entry ALL Sup A Sup B SupConfLiftRI 0.22100.27620.08730.39491.4300.0262 (Group = “A”)  (Education = “university”)  Group A is the only one where men with university degree are in the majority (Conf = 0.3949). Sup A Sup B SupConfLiftRI 0.22100.08570.03200.14491.6920.0131 (Group = “A”)  (PhysActAfterJob = “great activity”)  There is a strong positive dependence between belonging to Group A and practicing physical actvities intensely in free time (lift = 1.692).

32. 32ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Alcohol Consumption x Smoking GroupSup A Sup B SupConfLiftRI A0.06880.16670.01450.21051.2630.0030 B0.13620.57510.09080.66671.1590.0125 C0.11400.47370.07890.69231.4610.0249 (DailyBeerCons = “>1l”)  (SmokingDuration = “>20 years”)  Drinking a lot and smoking for more than 20 years are positively dependent in groups A, B, and C (Lift and RI columns).  However, there are much fewer smokers in Group A (Sup B column). In groups B and C, the greatest part of the heavy beer consumers smoked cigarettes for more than 20 years (Conf column).  Men from group B tend to smoke and drink more (Sup A, Sup B and Sup columns).

33. 33ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Alcohol Consumption x Cholesterol GroupSup A Sup B SupConfLiftRI A0.08700.33700.05070.58331.7310.0214 B0.08610.18280.01860.21621.1830.0029 C0.1316 0.02630.20001.5200.0090 (Alcohol = “No”)  (Cholesterol = “desirable”)  Not drinking alcohol and having the cholesterol in the desirable range are positively dependent in groups A, B, and C (Lift and RI columns).  There are less alcohol consumers in Group C (Sup A column).  In group A, the greatest part of the men who do not drink alcohol have the cholesterol in the desirable range (Conf column).

34. 34ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Education x Smoking GroupSup A Sup B SupConfLiftRI A0.39490.51090.22100.55961.0950.0193 B0.25260.17930.06640.26271.4650.0211 C0.16670.20180.08770.52632.6080.0541 (Education = “university”)  (Smoking = “no”)  People with the highest education degree are less likely to be smokers (Lift and RI columns).  In groups A and C, the majority of men with university degree do not smoke (Conf column). The support of this rule is very high in group A.  In group B, most of them are smokers (Conf column). However, not smoking and having reached university degree still are very positively dependent (Lift and RI columns).

35. 35ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Skin Folds x Body Mass Index GroupSup A Sup B SupConfLiftRI A0.23190.53260.15580.67191.2610.0323 B0.21540.35860.14780.68651.9140.0706 C0.11400.26320.07890.69232.6310.0489 (Skin Folds = “ 20”)  (BMI = “normal”)  Most of the men who have the body mass index into the normal range were classified into the lowest range of the attribute Skin Folds (Conf column).  Both attributes are highly positive dependent (Lift and RI columns).  There are much fewer people who have normal BMI in Group C (Sup B column).

36. 36ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Exceptions (Education = “apprentice school ”) & (PhysActAfterJob = “great act.”)  (Smoking = “15-20 cig day”) IM = 0.4755, DU = 0.2069  Original rule: “people whose education degree is apprentice school tend to smoke a lot”.  Exception: Among the men who practice physical activities intensely in free time, the support value of the original rule is 47.55% smaller than what is expected.  The degree of unexpectedness is equal to 20.69%.

37. 37ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Exceptions (Education = “university ”) & (Group = “C”)  (BMI = “normal”) IM = 0.7018, DU = 0.3052  Original rule: “people with the highest education degree tend to have the body mass index into the normal range”.  Exception: Among the men who belong to Group C, the support value of the original rule is 70.18% smaller than what is expected.  The degree of unexpectedness is equal to 30.52%.

38. 38ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge 1.Atherosclerosis Data Set 2.Multidimensional Association Rules 3.Exceptions 4.Data Preparation 5.Results 6.Summary Outline of the talk 1.Atherosclerosis Data Set 2.Multidimensional Association Rules 3.Exceptions 4.Data Preparation 5.Results 6.Summary

39. 39ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Summary We presented some strong association rules and exceptions mined from the STULONG Data Set, concerning the entry examinations. Strong association rules evaluated the differences of the correlations concerning the characteristics of the patients from the three basic groups. Exceptions indicated negative patterns associated with previously known strong positive rules. These exceptions were mined from candidates that do not achieve an expected support value.

40. 40ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Apply the same approach to the relations: Letter, Control and Death. Besides mining rules with large deviation between the actual and the expected support, we intend to investigate the interestingness of rules with large deviation between the actual and the expected confidence value. Future Work

41. 41ECML / PKDD 2004 Discovery Challenge Universidade  Federal Fluminense Universidade Federal Fluminense http://www.uff.br Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Thank  you !!Thank  you !!Thank  you !!Thank  you !!