A transaction-based neighbourhood-driven approach to quantifying interestingness of association rules

In this paper, we present a data-driven approach for ranking association rules (ARs) based on interestingness. The occurrence of unrelated or weakly related item-pairs in an AR is interesting. In the retail market-basket context, items may be related through various relationships arising due to mutual interaction, 'substitutability' and 'complementarity.' Item-relatedness is a composite of these relationships. We introduce three relatedness measures for capturing relatedness between item-pairs. These measures use the concept of junction embedding to appropriately weigh the relatedness contributions due to complementarity and substitutability between items. We propose an interestingness coefficient by combining the three relatedness measures. We compare this with two objective measures of interestingness and show the intuitiveness of the proposed interestingness coefficient.

[1]  Abraham Silberschatz,et al.  What Makes Patterns Interesting in Knowledge Discovery Systems , 1996, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[2]  B. Shekar,et al.  A Framework for Evaluating Knowledge-Based Interestingness of Association Rules , 2004, Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Mak..

[3]  Alex Alves Freitas,et al.  On rule interestingness measures , 1999, Knowl. Based Syst..

[4]  Gediminas Adomavicius,et al.  Discovery of Actionable Patterns in Databases: the Action Hierarchy Approach , 1997, KDD.

[5]  Ming-Syan Chen,et al.  On the mining of substitution rules for statistically dependent items , 2002, 2002 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, 2002. Proceedings..

[6]  Sigal Sahar,et al.  Interestingness via what is not interesting , 1999, KDD '99.

[7]  Jaideep Srivastava,et al.  Selecting the right interestingness measure for association patterns , 2002, KDD.

[8]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  Dynamic itemset counting and implication rules for market basket data , 1997, SIGMOD '97.

[9]  Rosa Meo.  Theory of dependence values , 2000, TODS.

[10]  Szymon Jaroszewicz,et al.  A General Measure of Rule Interestingness , 2001, PKDD.

[11]  Wynne Hsu,et al.  Finding Interesting Patterns Using User Expectations , 1999, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

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

[13]  Balaji Padmanabhan,et al.  Unexpectedness as a Measure of Interestingness in Knowledge Discovery , 1999, Decis. Support Syst..

[14]  Pang-Ning Tan,et al.  Interestingness Measures for Association Patterns : A Perspective , 2000, KDD 2000.

[15]  Wynne Hsu,et al.  Analyzing the Subjective Interestingness of Association Rules , 2000, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[16]  John F. Roddick,et al.  What's interesting about Cricket?: on thresholds and anticipation in discovered rules , 2001, SKDD.

[17]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  Beyond market baskets: generalizing association rules to correlations , 1997, SIGMOD '97.

[18]  Geert Wets,et al.  Building an Association Rules Framework to Improve Product Assortment Decisions , 2004, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.

[19]  Edward Omiecinski,et al.  Alternative Interest Measures for Mining Associations in Databases , 2003, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[20]  Jinyan Li,et al.  Interestingness of Discovered Association Rules in Terms of Neighborhood-Based Unexpectedness , 1998, PAKDD.