Advertisement

Ranking Decision Rules Using Rough Set Theory—A Comparative Analysis

  • M. K. Sabu
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 768)

Abstract

Rule induction is one of the fundamental tasks in knowledge discovery system. The aim of rule mining is to discover hidden and interesting patterns from data contained in large datasets. Rough Set Theory provides efficient mathematical models suitable for decision rule induction especially in the case of inconsistent datasets. To develop measures for extracting significant rules automatically from a large number of rules generated by a data mining system is a challenging problem in rule generation. In this paper, decision rules produced by a conventional rule mining system are ranked based on a rule evaluation measure called Degree of Rule Significance. Based on this measure a rule ranking algorithm is designed to rank the generated decision rules. The ranking given by the algorithm is evaluated with the help of two rough set based rule evaluation approaches. Experimental results show the effectiveness of Degree of Rule Significance to identify important rules.

Keywords

Rule induction Rough set theory Rule evaluation Reduct rules Discernibility matrix 

References

  1. 1.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough Sets: Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA (1992)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sabu, M.K., Raju, G.: A Rough Set Based Approach for Ranking Decision Rules, pp. 671–682. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sahar S.: Interestingness via what is not interesting. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM SIGKDD International Conferences on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 332–336 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li, J.: Rough set based rule evaluations and their applications, Ph.D. Thesis (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruha, I.: Quality of decision rules: definitions and classification scheme for multiple rules. In: Machine learning and Statistics, pp. 107–131 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tan, P.N., Kumar, V.: Interestingness measures for association patterns: a perspective. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Postprocessing in Machine Learning and Data Mining (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sahar, S.: Interestingness preprocessing. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 489–496 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sahar, S.: Exploring interestingness through clustering : a framework. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 677–680 (2002a)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sahar, S.: On Incorporating subjective interestingness into the mining process. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 681–684 (2002b)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hilderman, R.J., Hamilton, H.J., Oa, C.S.S.: Principles for Mining Summaries Using Objective Measures of Interestingness, pp. 72–81 (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Silberschatz, A., Member, S., Tuzhilin, A.: What makes patterns interesting in knowledge discovery systems. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 8(6), 970–974 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li, J., Cercone, N.: Discovering and ranking important rules. IEEE Int. Conf. Granular Comput. 2, 506–511 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, J., Cercone, N.: A method of discovering important rules using rules as attributes. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25, 180–206 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tan, S., Wang, Y., Cheng, X.: An efficient feature ranking measure for text categorization. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC’ 08, pp. 407–413 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ApplicationsCochin University of Science and TechnologyCochinIndia

Personalised recommendations