Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Building actions from classification rules

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Knowledge and Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rule induction has attracted a great deal of attention in Machine Learning and Data Mining. However, generating rules is not an end in itself because their applicability is not straightforward especially when their number is large. Ideally, the ultimate user would like to use these rules to decide which actions to undertake. In the literature, this notion is usually referred to as actionability. We propose a new framework to address actionability. Our goal is to lighten the burden of analyzing a large set of classification rules when the user is confronted to an “unsatisfactory situation” and needs help to decide about the appropriate actions to remedy to this situation. The method consists in comparing the situation to a set of classification rules. For this purpose, we propose   a new framework for learning action recommendations dealing with complex notions of feasibility and quality of actions. Our approach has been motivated by an environmental application aiming at building a tool to help specialists in charge of the management of a catchment to preserve stream-water quality. The results show the utility of this methodology with regard to enhancing the actionability of a set of classification rules in a real-world application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adomavicius G, Tuzhilin A (1997) Discovery of actionable patterns in databases: the action hierarchy approach. In: KDD, pp 111–114

  2. Ali KM, Pazzani MJ (1993) HYDRA: a noise-tolerant relational concept learning algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 13th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’93), Morgan Kaufmann, pp 1064–1071

  3. Allen JF (1981) An interval-based representation of temporal knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’81), pp 221–226

  4. Aurousseau P, Gascuel-Odoux C, Squividant H, TréposR Tortrat F, Cordier M-O (2009) A plot drainage network as a conceptual tool for the spatialisation of surface flow pathways for agricultural catchments. Comput Geosci 35(2): 276–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Clark P, Boswell R (1991) Rule induction with CN2: some recent improvements. In: Proceedings of the 5th European working session on learning (EWSL’91), Springer, pp 151–163

  6. Clark P, Niblett T (1989) The cn2 induction algorithm. Mach Learn 3: 261–283

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cordier M-O (2005) SACADEAU: a decision-aid system to improve stream-water quality. ERCIM News. Spec Issue Environ Model 61: 35–36

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cordier M-O, Garcia F, Gascuel-Odoux C, Masson V, Salleb A, Trépos R (2006) SACADEAU project: recommending actions from simulation results. In: BESAI’06 (ECAI’06 workshop on binding environmental sciences and artificial intelligence), Riva del Garda, Italy, August 2006. Poster communication

  9. Cordier M-O, Garcia F, Gascuel-Odoux C, Masson V Salmon-Monviola J Tortrat F, Trépos R (2005) A machine learning approach for evaluating the impact of land use and management practices on streamwater pollution by pesticides. In: Proceedings of international congress on modelling and simulation (MODSIM’05), pp 2651–2657. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, 12–15 December

  10. Elovici Y, Braha D (2003) A decision-theoretic approach to data mining. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A 33(1): 42–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Frank E, Witten IH (1998) Generating accurate rule sets without global optimization. In: Proceedings of 15th international conference on machine learning (ICML’98), Morgan Kaufmann, pp 144–151

  12. Fürnkranz J (1999) Separate-and-conquer rule learning. Artif Intell Rev 13(1): 3–54

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Gascuel-Odoux C, Aurousseau P, Cordier M-O, Durand P, Garcia F, Masson V, Salmon-Monviola J, Tortrat F, Trépos R (2009) A decision-oriented model to evaluate the effect of land use and agricultural management on herbicide contamination in stream water. Environ Model Softw 24(12): 1433–1446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Grzymala-Busse JW (1992) LERS—a system for learning from examples based on rough sets. In: Slowinski R (ed) Intelligent decision support. Handbook of applications and advances of the rough set theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 3–18

  15. Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten IH (2009) The weka data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explor 11: 10–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. He Z, Xu X, Deng S (2005) Data mining for actionable knowledge: a survey. ArXiv Computer Science e-prints

  17. He Z, Xu X, Deng S, Ma R (2005) Mining action rules from scratch. Expert Syst Appl 29(3): 691–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Herrera F, Carmona C, González P, del Jesus M (2011) An overview on subgroup discovery: foundations and applications. Knowl Inf Syst 29(3):495–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10115-010-0356-2

  19. Ichino M, Yaganduchi H (1994) Generalized minkowski metrics for mixed feature-type data analysis. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 24(4): 698–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Im S, Ras Z, Wasyluk H (2010) Action rule discovery from incomplete data. Knowl Inf Syst 25: 21–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jiang Y, Wang K, Tuzhilin A, Fu AW-C (2005) Mining patterns that respond to actions. In: ICDM, pp 669–672

  22. Lavrač N, Cestnik B, Gamberger D, Flach P (2004) Decision support through subgroup discovery: three case studies and the lessons learned. Mach Learn 57(1–2): 115–143

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Ling CX, Chen T, Yang Q, Cheng J (2002) Mining optimal actions for profitable CRM. In: International conference on data mining (ICDM’02), pp 767–770

  24. Liu B, Hsu W, Ma Y (2001) Identifying non-actionable association rules. In: Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD’01), ACM Press, pp 329–334

  25. Liu S, Duffy AHB, Whitfield RI (2010) Boyle IM integration of decision support systems to improve decision support performance. Knowl Inf Syst 22: 261–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ma J, Hayes P (2006) Primitive intervals versus point-based intervals: rivals or allies?. Comput J 49(1): 32–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Malerba D, Esposito F, Gioviale V, Tamma V (2001) Comparing dissimilarity measures in symbolic data analysis. In: Joint conferences on new techniques and technologies for statistcs and exchange of technology and know-how (ETK-NTTS’01), pp 473–481

  28. Michalski R-S (1973) Aqval/1—computer implementation of a variable-valued logic system vl_1 and examples of its application to pattern recognition. In: Proceedings of the 1st international joint conference on pattern recognition (IJCPR’73), pp 3–17

  29. Michalski RS, Mozetic I, Hong J (1986) The multi-purpose incremental learning system aq15 and it testing application to three medical domains. In: Proceedings of AAAI-86, pp 1041–1045

  30. Mitchell TM (1982) Generalization as search. Artif Intell 18(2): 203–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Newman DJ, Asuncion A (2007) UCI machine learning repository

  32. Pawlak Z (1992) Rough sets: theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell

    Google Scholar 

  33. Piatetsky-Shapiro G, Matheus C (1994) The interestingness of deviations. In: AAAI workshop on knowledge discovery in databases. AAAI Press, pp 25–36

  34. Quinlan JR (1987) Generating production rules from decision trees. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’87), Kaufmann, pp 304–307

  35. Ras ZW, Dardzinska A (2006) Action rules discovery, a new simplified strategy. In: Esposito F, Ras ZW, Malerba D, Semeraro G (eds) Proceedings of the international symposiumon methodologies for intelligent systems, (ISMIS’06), vol 4203. Springer, pp 445–453

  36. Ras ZW, Tsay L-S (2003) Discovering extended action-rules, system dear. In: Intelligent information systems (IIS’03), Spinger, pp 293–300

  37. Ras ZW, Tzacheva AA (2003) Discovering semantic inconsistencies to improve action rules mining. In: Intelligent information systems (IIS’03), Spinger, pp 301–310

  38. Ras ZW, Tzacheva AA, Tsay L-S, Gurdal O (2005) Mining for interesting action rules. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on intelligent agent technology (IAT’05), IEEE, pp 187–193

  39. Ras ZW, Wieczorkowska A (2000) Action-rules: how to increase profit of a company. In: European conference on principles and practice of knowledge discovery in databases (PKDD’00), pp 587–592

  40. Salleb-Aouissi A, Trépos R, Cordier M-O, Masson V (2008) From classification rules to action recommendation. Technical report ccls-08-01, Center for computational learning systems, New York, Mars

  41. Salmon-Monviola J, Gascuel-Odoux C, Garcia F, Tortrat F, Cordier M-O, Masson V, Trépos R (2011) Simulating the effect of technical and environmental constraints on the spatio-temporal distribution of herbicide applications and stream losses. Agric Ecosyst Environ 140:382–394

  42. Sebag M (1996) Delaying the choice of bias: a disjunctive version space approach. In: International conference on machine learning (ICML’96), pp 444–452

  43. Silberschatz A, Tuzhilin A (1996) What makes patterns interesting in knowledge discovery systems. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 8: 970–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Trépos R, Masson V, Cordier M-O, Gascuel-Odoux C, Salmon-Monviola J (2012) Mining simulation data by rule induction to determine critical source areas of stream water pollution by herbicides. Comput Electron Agric 2656. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2012.01.006

  45. Trépos R, Cordier M-O, Gascuel-Odoux C, Masson V (2008) Symbolic learning of relationships between agricultural activities and water quality from simulations for decision support. In: Geophysical research abstracts, volume 10, Vienna, Austria, 13–18 April 2008. European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2008. Poster communication

  46. Trépos R, Salleb A, Cordier M-O, Masson V, Gascuel-Odoux C (2005) A distance based approach for action recommendation. In: Proceedings of European conference on machine learning (ECML’05), Springer, pp 425–434

  47. Tsay L-S, Ras ZW (2005) Action rules discovery: system DEAR2, method and experiments. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 17(1–2): 119–128

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Tzacheva AA, Ras ZW (2005) Action rules mining. In: Ras ZW (ed) Special issue on knowledge discovery. International journal of intelligent systems, vol 20, no 7. pp 719–736

  49. Yang Q, Cheng H (2002) Mining case bases for action recommendation. In: ICDM, pp 522–529

  50. Yang Q, Yin J, Ling CX, Chen T (2003) Postprocessing decision trees to extract actionable knowledge. In: International conference on data mining (ICDM’03), pp 685–688

  51. Zhao K, Liu B, Tirpak TM, Xiao W (2005) Opportunity map: a visualization framework for fast identification of actionable knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management (CIKM’05), ACM, pp 60–67

  52. Zliobaite I, Pechenizkiy M (2010) Learning with actionable attributes: attention—boundary cases! Data mining workshops, international conference on data mining, 0:1021–1028

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INRA, Unité BIA, BP 27, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan Cedex, France

    Ronan Trépos

  2. Center for Computational Learning Systems (CCLS), Columbia University, 475 Riverside Drive, New York, NY, 10115, USA

    Ansaf Salleb-Aouissi

  3. Université de Rennes 1/IRISA, Campus Universitaire de Beaulieu, 35042, Rennes Cedex, France

    Marie-Odile Cordier & Véronique Masson

  4. INRA, UMR 1069, Sol Agro et hydrosystème Spatialisation, Agrocampus, 35000, Rennes, France

    Chantal Gascuel-Odoux

Authors
  1. Ronan Trépos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ansaf Salleb-Aouissi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marie-Odile Cordier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Véronique Masson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chantal Gascuel-Odoux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronan Trépos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Trépos, R., Salleb-Aouissi, A., Cordier, MO. et al. Building actions from classification rules. Knowl Inf Syst 34, 267–298 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-011-0466-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-011-0466-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation