Visualizing the behavior and some symmetry properties of Bayesian confirmation measures

Bayesian confirmation measures, a special class of interestingness measures, are functions usually adopted in ranking inductive rules generated by data mining methods such as association rule mining, decision trees, rough sets. Till now a plethora of measures have been defined in many different ways. Identifying and effectively distinguishing among them is a difficult task. In this paper we propose a unified visual approach aimed at comparing and classifying a large subset of Bayesian confirmation measures (those satisfying the initial and final probability dependence condition). We first reduce the set of variables in their analytical expression to only two, thus allowing to draw their contour lines on the plane. We observe that two dimensional contour lines plots represent a sort of fingerprints of the confirmation measures and, therefore, this geometric visualization can be used as an effective tool in order to investigate properties and behavior of the measures. We highlight the potential of this approach not only to study known measures but also in order to invent new measures satisfying given required characteristics. We finally define, following the geometry of the plots, a new set of symmetry properties of confirmation measures and describe geometrically four classical symmetries.

[1]  G. Yule On the Methods of Measuring Association between Two Attributes , 1912 .

[2]  E. Eells,et al.  Symmetries and Asymmetries in Evidential Support , 2002 .

[3]  Peter A. Flach The Geometry of ROC Space: Understanding Machine Learning Metrics through ROC Isometrics , 2003, ICML.

[4]  David Atkinson,et al.  Confirmation and justification. A commentary on Shogenji’s measure , 2009, Synthese.

[5]  Robert Susmaga,et al.  Visualization of Interestingness Measures , 2013 .

[6]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Parameterized rough set model using rough membership and Bayesian confirmation measures , 2008, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[7]  Patrick Meyer,et al.  On selecting interestingness measures for association rules: User oriented description and multiple criteria decision aid , 2008, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[8]  D. Osherson,et al.  Comparison of confirmation measures , 2007, Cognition.

[9]  Johannes Fürnkranz,et al.  An Analysis of Rule Learning Heuristics , 2003 .

[10]  G. Yule On the Association of Attributes in Statistics: With Illustrations from the Material of the Childhood Society, &c , 1900 .

[11]  Johannes Fürnkranz,et al.  ROC ‘n’ Rule Learning—Towards a Better Understanding of Covering Algorithms , 2005, Machine Learning.

[12]  Zdzisław Pawlak,et al.  Can Bayesian confirmation measures be useful for rough set decision rules? , 2004, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell..

[13]  Yiyu Yao,et al.  Feature Selection Based on Confirmation-Theoretic Rough Sets , 2014, RSCTC.

[14]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  An Algorithm for Induction of Decision Rules Consistent with the Dominance Principle , 2000, Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing.

[15]  Tomasz Imielinski,et al.  Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases , 1993, SIGMOD Conference.

[16]  Roberto Festa,et al.  Towards a Grammar of Bayesian Confirmation , 2009 .

[17]  Johannes Fürnkranz,et al.  From Local to Global Patterns: Evaluation Issues in Rule Learning Algorithms , 2004, Local Pattern Detection.

[18]  Roman Słowiński,et al.  Sequential covering rule induction algorithm for variable consistency rough set approaches , 2011, Inf. Sci..

[19]  H. Finch,et al.  Confirming Power of Observations Metricized for Decisions among Hypotheses , 1960, Philosophy of Science.

[20]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  Induction of Decision Trees , 1986, Machine Learning.

[21]  Christophe G. Giraud-Carrier,et al.  Behavior-based clustering and analysis of interestingness measures for association rule mining , 2014, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.

[22]  J. Kemeny,et al.  Degree of Factual Support , 1952, Philosophy of Science.

[23]  Jaideep Srivastava,et al.  Selecting the right objective measure for association analysis , 2004, Inf. Syst..

[24]  JOHANNES FÜRNKRANZ,et al.  Separate-and-Conquer Rule Learning , 1999, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[25]  Tobias Bjerregaard,et al.  A survey of research and practices of Network-on-chip , 2006, CSUR.

[26]  I. Todhunter,et al.  A history of the mathematical theory of probability from the time of Pascal to that of Laplace / by I. Todhunter. , 1865 .

[27]  Halina Mortimer,et al.  The logic of induction , 1988 .

[28]  Karl R. Popper The Logic of Scientific Discovery. , 1977 .

[29]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Bayesian Confirmation Measures within Rough Set Approach , 2004, Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing.

[30]  Tom Fawcett,et al.  An introduction to ROC analysis , 2006, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[31]  N. Rescher A Theory of Evidence , 1958, Philosophy of Science.

[32]  L. Stein,et al.  Probability and the Weighing of Evidence , 1950 .

[33]  Howard J. Hamilton,et al.  Interestingness measures for data mining: A survey , 2006, CSUR.

[34]  Das Amrita,et al.  Mining Association Rules between Sets of Items in Large Databases , 2013 .

[35]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Properties of rule interestingness measures and alternative approaches to normalization of measures , 2012, Inf. Sci..

[36]  M. Kendall,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery. , 1959 .

[37]  Vincenzo Crupi,et al.  On Bayesian Measures of Evidential Support: Theoretical and Empirical Issues* , 2007, Philosophy of Science.

[38]  Yiyu Yao,et al.  An Analysis of Quantitative Measures Associated with Rules , 1999, PAKDD.

[39]  Z. Pawlak Rough Sets: Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Data , 1991 .

[40]  Rudolf Carnap,et al.  Logical foundations of probability , 1951 .

[41]  Robert Susmaga,et al.  The Property of $\chi^2_{01}$ -Concordance for Bayesian Confirmation Measures , 2013, MDAI.

[42]  Branden Fitelson,et al.  STUDIES IN BAYESIAN CONFIRMATION THEORY , 2001 .

[43]  Gary James Jason,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1988 .

[44]  Johannes Fürnkranz,et al.  An Analysis of Rule Evaluation Metrics , 2003, ICML.

[45]  Peter A. Flach,et al.  Rule Evaluation Measures: A Unifying View , 1999, ILP.

[46]  J. Keynes A Treatise on Probability. , 1923 .

[47]  An algorithm for induction of decision rules , 2002 .

[48]  Tomoji Shogenji The degree of epistemic justification and the conjunction fallacy , 2009, Synthese.

[49]  David H. Glass,et al.  Confirmation measures of association rule interestingness , 2013, Knowl. Based Syst..

[50]  Ricardo Vilalta,et al.  A Quantification of Distance Bias Between Evaluation Metrics In Classification , 2000, ICML.

[51]  Paola Ferretti,et al.  Conveying Tourist Ratings into an Overall Destination Evaluation , 2015 .

[52]  G. Yule On the Methods of Measuring Association between Two Attributes , 1912 .

[53]  L. Rips Two Kinds of Reasoning , 2001 .

[54]  Branden Fitelson,et al.  Likelihoodism, Bayesianism, and relational confirmation , 2007, Synthese.

[55]  Vincenzo Crupi,et al.  State of the field: Measuring information and confirmation , 2014 .