Comparing Reliability of Association Rules and OLAP Statistical Tests

Zhibo Chen, C. Ordonez, Kai Zhao
{"title":"Comparing Reliability of Association Rules and OLAP Statistical Tests","authors":"Zhibo Chen, C. Ordonez, Kai Zhao","doi":"10.1109/ICDMW.2008.76","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Association rules is a technique that can detect patterns within the items of a dataset. The constrained version applies several restrictions that reduces the number of rules and also helps improve performance. On the other hand, OLAP statistical tests is an integration of exploratory On-Line Analytical Processing techniques and statistical tests. It uses a different approach that make it more appropriate for continuous domains and is able to discover more informative patterns. In this article, we thoroughly compare the reliability of the results returned by both techniques by analyzing the metrics, such as confidence and p-value, by which these techniques are implemented in relation to the results that are generated. While these two techniques are different, we were able to bring both to level ground by extending association rules with pairing to discover more specific patterns and extending OLAP statistical tests with constraints to reduce the number of discovered patterns. We conducted our experiments on a real medical dataset and found that the extended OLAP statistical tests discovered more patterns, had comparable performance, and possessed higher reliability due to its strong statistical background.","PeriodicalId":175955,"journal":{"name":"2008 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2008 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDMW.2008.76","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Association rules is a technique that can detect patterns within the items of a dataset. The constrained version applies several restrictions that reduces the number of rules and also helps improve performance. On the other hand, OLAP statistical tests is an integration of exploratory On-Line Analytical Processing techniques and statistical tests. It uses a different approach that make it more appropriate for continuous domains and is able to discover more informative patterns. In this article, we thoroughly compare the reliability of the results returned by both techniques by analyzing the metrics, such as confidence and p-value, by which these techniques are implemented in relation to the results that are generated. While these two techniques are different, we were able to bring both to level ground by extending association rules with pairing to discover more specific patterns and extending OLAP statistical tests with constraints to reduce the number of discovered patterns. We conducted our experiments on a real medical dataset and found that the extended OLAP statistical tests discovered more patterns, had comparable performance, and possessed higher reliability due to its strong statistical background.
关联规则与OLAP统计检验的信度比较
关联规则是一种可以检测数据集项中的模式的技术。约束版本应用了几个限制,减少了规则的数量,还有助于提高性能。另一方面,OLAP统计测试是探索性在线分析处理技术和统计测试的集成。它使用了一种不同的方法,使其更适合于连续域,并且能够发现更多信息丰富的模式。在本文中,我们通过分析度量(如置信度和p值)来彻底比较这两种技术返回结果的可靠性,通过这些度量实现这些技术与生成的结果的关系。虽然这两种技术是不同的,但我们能够通过扩展带有配对的关联规则来发现更具体的模式,并扩展带有约束的OLAP统计测试来减少发现模式的数量,从而使两者达到同一水平。我们在一个真实的医学数据集上进行了实验,发现扩展的OLAP统计测试发现了更多的模式,具有可比较的性能,并且由于其强大的统计背景而具有更高的可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信