Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byAbigale Naish Modified about 1 year ago

1
Mining Multiple-level Association Rules in Large Databases Authors : JIAWEI HAN, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia. YONGJIAN FU, University of Missouri-Rolla, Missouri. Presenter : Zhenyu Lu (based on Mohammed’s previous slides, with some changes) IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 1999

2
Outline Introduction Algorithm Performance studies Cross-level association Filtering of uninteresting association rules Conclusions

3
Introduction: Why Multiple-Level Association Rules? TID items T1 {m1, b2} T2 {m2, b1} T3 {b2} Frequent itemset: {b2} A.A rules: none Is this database useless?

4
Introduction: Why Multiple-Level Association Rules? TID items T1 {milk, bread} T2 {milk, bread} T3 {bread} minisup = 50% miniconf = 50% Frequent itemset: {milk, bread}A.A rules: milk bread food milkbread m1m2b1b2 What if we have this abstraction tree?

5
Introduction: Why Multiple-Level Association Rules? Sometimes, at primitive data level, data does not show any significant pattern. But there are useful information hiding behind. The goal of Multiple-Level Association Analysis is to find the hidden information in or between levels of abstraction

6
Introduction: Requirements in Multiple-Level Association Analysis Two general requirements to do multiple-level association rule mining: 1) Provide data at multiple levels of abstraction. (a common practice now) 2) Find efficient methods for multiple-level rule mining. (our focus)

7
Outline Introduction Algorithm Performance studies Cross-level association Filtering of uninteresting association rules Conclusions

8
Algorithm : observation TID items T1 {m1, b2} T2 {m2, b1} T3 {b2} T4 {m2, b1} T5 {m2} minisup = 50% miniconf = 50% food milkbread m1m2b1b2 Level 1 Level 2 Frequent itemset: {milk, bread} A.A rule: milk bread TID items T1 {milk, bread} T2 {milk, bread} T3 {bread} T4 {milk, bread} T5 {milk} Frequent itemset: {m2} A.A rule: none One minisup for all levels? What about {m2, b1}?

9
Algorithm : observation miniconf = 50% food milkbread m1m2b1b2 Level 1: minisup = 50% Level 2: minisup = 40% Frequent itemset: {milk, bread} A.A rule: milk bread Frequent itemset: { m2, b1, b2} A.A rule: m2 b1 makes more sense now

10
Algorithm : observation Drawbacks to use only one minisup: If the minisup is too high, we are losing information from lower levels If the minisup is too low, we are gaining too many rules from higher levels, many of them are useless Approach: ascending minisup on each level food milkbread m1m2b1b2 minisup

11
Algorithm : An Example An entry of sales_transaction Table A sales_item Description Relation Transaction_idBar_code_set {17325,92108,55349,88157,…} Bar_codecategoryBrandContentSizeStorage_pdprice 17325MilkForemost2%1ga.14(days)$3.89

12
Algorithm: An Example GIDbar_codecategorycontentbrand Milk2%Foremost food milk DairylandForemost 2% chocolate bread whitewheat First 1: implies milk 2: implies Foremost brand Second 1: implies 2% content Encode the database with layer information

13
Encoded Transaction Table:T[1] TIDItems T1{111,121,211,221} T2{111,211,222,323} T3{112,122,221,411} T4{111,121} T5{111,122,211,221,413} T6{211,323,524} T7{323,411,524,713} Algorithm: An Example

14
T[2] Level-1 minsup = 4 L[1,1] L[1,2] TIDItems T1{111,121,211,221} T2{111,211,222} T3{112,122,221} T4{111,121} T5{111,122,211,221} T6{211} ItemsetSupport {1**}5 {2**}5 ItemsetSupport {1**,2**}4 Algorithm: An Example The frequent 1-itemset on level 1 Use Apriori on each level only keep items in L[1,1] from T[1]

15
Level-2 minsup = 3 L[2,1] ItemsetSupport {11*}5 {12*}4 {21*}4 {22*}4 L[2,2] ItemsetSupport {11*,12*}4 {11*,21*}3 {11*,22*}4 {12*,22*}3 {21*,22*}3 L[2,3] ItemsetSupport {11*,12*,22*}3 {11*,21*,22*}3 Algorithm: An Example

16
Frequent Item Sets at Level 3 Level-3 minsup = 3 L[3,1] Itemse t Support {111}4 {211}4 {221}3 L[3,2] ItemsetSupport {111,211}3 E.g. Level-1: 80% of customers that purchase milk also purchase bread. milk bread with Confidence= 80% Level-2: 75% of people who buy 2% milk also buy wheat bread. 2% milk wheat bread with Confidence= 75% Only generate T[1] & T[2], all frequent itemsets after level 2 is generated from T[2]

17
Algorithm ML_T2L1 Purpose: To find multiple-level frequent item sets for mining strong association rules in a transaction database Input T[1]: a hierarchy-information encoded transaction table of form minisup threshold for each level L in the form: (minsup[L]) Output: Multiple-level frequent item sets

18
Algorithm variations Algorithm ML_T1LA Use only the first encoded transaction table T[1]. Support for the candidate sets at all levels computed at the same time. pros: Only one table and maximum k-scans cons: May consist of infrequent items and requires large space. Algorithm ML_TML1 Generate multiple encoded transaction tables T[1],…,T[max_l+1] Pros: May save substantial amount of processing Cons: Can be inefficient if only a few items are filtered out at each level processed. Algorithm ML_T2LA Uses 2 encoded transaction tables as in ML_T2L1 algorithm. Support for the candidate sets at all levels computed at the same time. Pros: Potentially efficient if T[2] consists of much fewer items than T[1]. Cons: ?

19
Outline Introduction Algorithm Performance studies Cross-level association Filtering of uninteresting association rules Conclusions

20
Performance Study Assumptions: The maximal level in concept hierarchy is 3 Use two data sets DB1 (Average frequent item length = 4 and Average transaction size =10) and DB2 (Average frequent item length = 6 and Average transaction size =20) Conclusions: Relative performance of the four algorithms is highly relevant to the threshold setting (i.e., the power of a filter at each level). Parallel derivation of L(l,k) is useful and deriving a transaction table T(2) is usually beneficial. ML_T1LA is found to be the BEST or the second best algorithm.

21
Average frequent item length = 4 Average transaction size =10 Average frequent item length = 6 Average transaction size =20 Performance Study minisup[2] = 2% minisup[3] = 0.75% minisup[2] = 3% minisup[3] = 1%

22
Average frequent item length = 4 Average transaction size =10 Average frequent item length = 6 Average transaction size =20 minisup[1] = 60% minisup[3] = 0.75% minisup[1] = 55% minisup[3] = 1% Performance Study

23
minisup[1] = 60% minisup[2] = 2%minisup[1] = 55% minisup[2] = 3% Performance Study

24
Two interesting performance features: The performance of algorithm is highly relative to minisup, especially minisup[1] & minisup[2]. T[2] is beneficial

25
Outline Introduction Algorithm Performance studies Cross-level association Filtering of uninteresting association rules Conclusions

26
Cross-level association food milkbread m1m2b1b2 food milkbread m1m2b1b2 expand mine rules like milk => b1 mine rules like milk => bread and m2 => b1

27
Cross-level association Two adjustments: A single minisup is used at all levels When the frequent k-itemsets are generated, items at all levels are considered, itemsets which contain an item and its ancestor are excluded

28
Outline Introduction Algorithm Performance studies Cross-level association Filtering of uninteresting association rules Conclusions

29
Filtering of uninteresting association rules Removal of redundant rules: To remove redundant rules, when a rule R passes the minimum confidence test, it is checked against every strong rule R', of which R is a descendant. If the confidence of R, (R), falls in the range of the expected confidence with the variation of , it is removed. Example: milk bread(12% sup, 85% con) Chocolate milk bread(1% sup, 84% con) Not interesting if 8% of milk is chocolate milk Can reduce rules by 30% to 60%

30
Filtering of uninteresting association rules (continued) Removal of unnecessary rules: To filter out unnecessary association rules, for each strong rule R’ : A => B, we test every such rule R : A ‑ C => B, where C belongs to A. If the confidence of R, (R), is not significantly different from that of R', (R' ), R is removed. Example: 80% customer buy milk => bread 80% customer buy milk + butter => bread Reduces rules by 50% to 80%

31
Conclusions Extended the association rules from single-level to multiple- level. A top-down progressive deepening technique is developed for mining multiple-level association rules. Filtering of uninteresting association rules.

32
Exams Questions Q1: Give an example of multilevel association rules? A: Besides finding the 80% of customers that purchase milk may also purchase bread, it is interesting to allow users to drill-down and show that 75% of people buy wheat bread if they buy 2 percent milk.

33
Exams Questions Q2: What are the problems in using normal Apiori methods?? A: One may apply the Apriori algorithm to examine data items at multiple levels of abstraction under the same minimum support and minimum confidence thresholds. This direction is simple, but it may lead to some undesirable results. First, large support is more likely to exist at high levels of abstraction. If one wants to find strong associations at relatively low levels of abstraction, the minimum support threshold must be reduced substantially; this may lead to the generation of many uninteresting associations at high or intermediate levels. Second, since it is unlikely to find many strong association rules at a primitive concept level, mining strong associations should be performed at a rather high concept level, which is actually the case in many studies. However, mining association rules at high concept levels may often lead to the rules corresponding to prior knowledge and expectations, such as “milk => bread”, (which could be common sense), or lead to some uninteresting attribute combinations if the minimum support is allowed to be rather small, such as “toy => milk”, (which may just happen together by chance).

34
Exams Questions Q3: What are the 2 general steps to do multiple-level association rule mining? A: To explore multiple-level association rule mining, one needs to provide: 1) Data at multiple levels of abstraction, and 2) Efficient methods for multiple-level rule mining.

Similar presentations

© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google