Advertisement

Post-processing Data Mining Models for Actionability

  • Qiang Yang

Data mining and machine learning algorithms are, in the most part, aimed at generating statistical models for decision making. These models are typically mathematical formulas or classification results on the test data. However, many of the output models do not themselves correspond to actions that can be executed. In this paper, we consider how to take the output of data mining algorithms as input, and produce collections of high-quality actions to perform in order to bring out the desired world states. This article gives an overview on two of our approaches in this actionable data mining framework, including an algorithm that extracts actions from decision trees and a system that generates high-utility association rules and an algorithm that can learn relational action models from frequent item sets for automatic planning. These two problems and solutions highlight our novel computational framework for actionable data mining.

Keywords

Association Rule Leaf Node Action Model Terminal State Customer Relationship Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Agrawal and R. Srikant. Fast algorithms for mining association rules. In Proceedings of 20th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases(VLDB'94), pages 487–499. Morgan Kaufmann, September 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maria Fox and Derek Long. PDDL2.1: An extension to pddl for expressing temporal planning domains. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 20:61–124, 2003.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Malik Ghallab, Adele Howe, Craig Knoblock, Drew McDermott, Ashwin Ram, Manuela Veloso, Dan Weld, and David Wilkins. PDDL—the planning domain definition language, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jin Huang and Charles X. Ling. Using auc and accuracy in evaluating learning algorithms. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng, 17(3):299–310, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Kaelbling, M. Littman, and A. Moore. Reinforcement learning: A survey. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 4:237–285, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Henry Kautz and Bart Selman. Pushing the envelope: Planning, propositional logic, and stochastic search. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1996), pages 1194–1201, Portland, Oregon USA, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ron Kohavi and Mehran Sahami. Error-based and entropy-based discretization of continuous features. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 114–119, Portland, Oregon USA, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Mladenic and M. Grobelnik. Feature selection for unbalanced class distribution and naive bayes. In Proceedings of ICML 1999., 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M.R.Garey and D.S. Johnson. Computers and Intractability: A guide to the Theory of NPCom-pleteness. 1979.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Pednault, N. Abe, and B. Zadrozny. Sequential cost-sensitive decision making with reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD'02), 2002.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.Ross Quinlan. C4.5 Programs for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Sun and C. Sessions. Learning plans without a priori knowledge. Adaptive Behavior, 8(3/4):225–253, 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Sutton and A. Barto. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Qiang Yang and Hong Cheng. Planning for marketing campaigns. In International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2003), pages 174–184, 2003.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Qiang Yang, Kangheng Wu, and Yunfei Jiang. Learning action models from plan examples using weighted max-sat. Artif. Intell., 171(2–3):107–143, 2007.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Qiang Yang, Jie Yin, Charles Ling, and Rong Pan. Extracting actionable knowledge from decision trees. IEEE Trans. on Knowl. and Data Eng., 19(1):43–56, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringHong Kong University of Science and TechnologyHong KongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations