text: The use of Association Rule Mining techniques in diverse contexts and domains has resulted in the creation of numerous interestingness measures. This, in turn, has motivated researchers to come up with various classification schemes for these measures. One popular approach to classify the objective measures is to assess the set of mathematical properties they satisfy in order to help practitioners select the right measure for a given problem. In this research, we discuss the insufficiency of the existing properties in literature to capture certain behaviors of interestingness measures. This motivates us to present a novel approach to analyze and classify measures. We refer to this as a rate of change analysis (RCA). In this analysis a measure is described by how it varies if there is a unit change in the frequency count @math , for different pre-existing states of the frequency counts. More formally, we look at the first partial derivative of the measure with respect to the various frequency count variables. We then use this analysis to define two new properties, Unit-Null Asymptotic Invariance (UNAI) and Unit-Null Zero Rate (UNZR). UNAI looks at the asymptotic effect of adding frequency patterns, while UNZR looks at the initial effect of adding frequency patterns when they do not pre-exist in the dataset. We present a comprehensive analysis of 50 interestingness measures and classify them in accordance with the two properties. We also present empirical studies, involving both synthetic and real-world datasets, which are used to cluster various measures according to the rule ranking patterns of the measures. The study concludes with the observation that classification of measures using the empirical clusters share significant similarities to the classification of measures done through the properties presented in this research.
  @cite_7: Many techniques for association rule mining and feature selection require a suitable metric to capture the dependencies among variables in a data set. For example, metrics such as support, confidence, lift, correlation, and collective strength are often used to determine the interestingness of association patterns. However, many such measures provide conflicting information about the interestingness of a pattern, and the best metric to use for a given application domain is rarely known. In this paper, we present an overview of various measures proposed in the statistics, machine learning and data mining literature. We describe several key properties one should examine in order to select the right measure for a given application domain. A comparative study of these properties is made using twenty one of the existing measures. We show that each measure has different properties which make them useful for some application domains, but not for others. We also present two scenarios in which most of the existing measures agree with each other, namely, support-based pruning and table standardization. Finally, we present an algorithm to select a small set of tables such that an expert can select a desirable measure by looking at just this small set of tables.
  @cite_8: A number of studies, theoretical, empirical, or both, have been conducted to provide insight into the properties and behavior of interestingness measures for association rule mining. While each has value in its own right, most are either limited in scope or, more importantly, ignore the purpose for which interestingness measures are intended, namely the ultimate ranking of discovered association rules. This paper, therefore, focuses on an analysis of the rule-ranking behavior of 61 well-known interestingness measures tested on the rules generated from 110 different datasets. By clustering based on ranking behavior, we highlight, and formally prove, previously unreported equivalences among interestingness measures. We also show that there appear to be distinct clusters of interestingness measures, but that there remain differences among clusters, confirming that domain knowledge is essential to the selection of an appropriate interestingness measure for a particular task and business objective.
  @cite_9: Objective measures such as support, confidence, interest factor, correlation, and entropy are often used to evaluate the interestingness of association patterns. However, in many situations, these measures may provide conflicting information about the interestingness of a pattern. Data mining practitioners also tend to apply an objective measure without realizing that there may be better alternatives available for their application. In this paper, we describe several key properties one should examine in order to select the right measure for a given application. A comparative study of these properties is made using twenty-one measures that were originally developed in diverse fields such as statistics, social science, machine learning, and data mining. We show that depending on its properties, each measure is useful for some application, but not for others. We also demonstrate two scenarios in which many existing measures become consistent with each other, namely, when support-based pruning and a technique known as table standardization are applied. Finally, we present an algorithm for selecting a small set of patterns such that domain experts can find a measure that best fits their requirements by ranking this small set of patterns.
  @cite_1: 
  @cite_2: Associative classification is a rule-based approach to classify data relying on association rule mining by discovering associations between a set of features and a class label. Support and confidence are the de-facto "interestingness measures" used for discovering relevant association rules. The support-confidence framework has also been used in most, if not all, associative classifiers. Although support and confidence are appropriate measures for building a strong model in many cases, they are still not the ideal measures and other measures could be better suited. There are many other rule interestingness measures already used in machine learning, data mining and statistics. This work focuses on using 53 different objective measures for associative classification rules. A wide range of UCI datasets are used to study the impact of different "inter-estingness measures" on different phases of associative classifiers based on the number of rules generated and the accuracy obtained. The results show that there are interesting-ness measures that can significantly reduce the number of rules for almost all datasets while the accuracy of the model is hardly jeopardized or even improved. However, no single measure can be introduced as an obvious winner.
  @cite_13: Finding interesting association rules is an important and active research field in data mining. The algorithms of the Apriori family are based on two rule extraction measures, support and confidence. Although these two measures have the virtue of being algorithmically fast, they generate a prohibitive number of rules most of which are redundant and irrelevant. It is therefore necessary to use further measures which filter uninteresting rules. Many synthesis studies were then realized on the interestingness measures according to several points of view. Different reported studies have been carried out to identify "good" properties of rule extraction measures and these properties have been assessed on 61 measures. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First to extend the number of the measures and properties to be studied, in addition to the formalization of the properties proposed in the literature. Second, in the light of this formal study, to categorize the studied measures. This paper leads then to identify categories of measures in order to help the users to efficiently select an appropriate measure by choosing one or more measure(s) during the knowledge extraction process. The properties evaluation on the 61 measures has enabled us to identify 7 classes of measures, classes that we obtained using two different clustering techniques.
summary: A large number of objective IMs have emerged as a result of the application of ARM across different domains. It is also documented that not all measures are capable of capturing the strength of associations and in some cases provide conflicting information of the strength of patterns @cite_7 . Given the abundance of measures and difficulty in choosing the appropriate IM, researchers have suggested various classification schemes (of the IMs) to help identify the appropriate measure for a given application @cite_1 , @cite_7 , @cite_9 , @cite_13 , @cite_8 , @cite_2 . There are two different types of classification that exist in literature: classification based on the properties of IMs (e.g. @cite_1 , @cite_7 , @cite_9 , @cite_13 ) and classification based on empirical results of IMs on different datasets (e.g. @cite_8 ).