Abstract
Most of the literature argues that surprisingness is an inherently subjective aspect of the discovered knowledge, which cannot be measured in objective terms. This paper departs from this view, and it has a twofold goal: (1) showing that it is indeed possible to define objective (rather than subjective) measures of discovered rule surprisingness; (2) proposing new ideas and methods for defining objective rule surprisingness measures.
Chapter PDF
References
[Cover & Thomas 91] T.M. Cover and J.A. Thomas. Elements of Information Theory. John Wiley & Sons, 1991.
[Danyluk & Provost 93] A.P. Danyluk & F.J. Provost. Small disjuncts in action: learning to diagnose errors in the local loop of the telephone network. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Machine Learning, 81–88, 1993.
[Fayyad et al. 96] U.M. Fayyad, G. Piatetsky-Shapiro and P. Smyth. From data mining to knowledge discovery: an overview. In: U.M. Fayyad, G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, P. Smyth and R. Uthurusamy. Advances in Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, 1–34, AAAI/MIT, 1996.
[Gebhardt 91] F. Gebhardt. Choosing among competing generalizations. Knowledge Acquisit., 3, 1991, 361–380.
[Glymour et al. 97]. C. Glymour, D. Madigan, D. Pregibon and P. Smyth. Statistical themes and lessons for data mining. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 1(1), 11–28. 1997.
[Holte et al. 89] R.C. Holte, L.E. Acker and B.W. Porter. Concept learning and the problem of small disjuncts. Proc. Int. Joint Conf. AI (IJCAI-89), 813–818.
[Kamber & Shinghal 96] M. Kamber & R. Shinghal. Evaluating the interestingness of characteristic rules. Proc. 2 nd Int. Conf. Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, 263–266. AAAI, 1996.
[Liu et al. 97] B. Liu, W. Hsu and S. Chen. Using general impressions to analyze discovered classification rules. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Knowl. Disc. & Data Mining, 31–36. AAAI, 1997.
[Major & Mangano 95]. J.A. Major and J.J. Mangano. Selecting among rules induced from a hurricane database. J. Intelligent Information Systems 4(1), Jan./1995, 39–52.
[Piatetsky-Shapiro 91] G. Piatetsky-Shapiro. Discovery, analysis and presentation of strong rules. In: G. Piatetsky-Shapiro and W.J. Frawley. Knowledge Discovery in Databases, 229–248. AAAI, 1991.
[Provost & Aronis 96] F.J. Provost and J.M. Aronis. Scaling up inductive learning with massive parallelism. Machine Learning 23(1), Apr./1996, 33–46.
[Simpson 51] E. H. Simpson. The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, series B, 13, 1951, 238–241.
[Ting 94] K.M. Ting. The problem of small disjuncts: its remedy in decision trees. Proc. 10th Canadian Conf. Artificial Intelligence, 91–97, 1994.
[Wagner 82] Simpson’s paradox in real life. The Amer. Statist., 36(1), Feb./1982, 46–48.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Freitas, A.A. (1998). On objective measures of rule surprisingness. In: Żytkow, J.M., Quafafou, M. (eds) Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. PKDD 1998. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1510. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg . https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0094799
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0094799
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-65068-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49687-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive