Skip to main content

Decision trees, knowledge rules and some related data mining algorithms

  • Contributed Papers
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
SOFSEM'96: Theory and Practice of Informatics (SOFSEM 1996)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1175))

  • 137 Accesses

Abstract

We show that the decision tree representation and the knowledge rules representation for data mining are semantically equivalent. Quinlan's production rule generators use attribute removal functions that are more powerful than ID3. The HCC-algorithm uses both attribute removal and concept tree ascension in its generalization function. The HCC-algorithm usually has more generalization power than the other ones. On computational efficiency, ID3 and the HCC-algorithm are efficient while Quinlan's production rule generators are less efficient. We also point out some disadvantages of the HCC-algorithm.

We propose a hybrid algorithm that combines all the above generalization functions and at the same time avoids over-generalization carefully. It is stable, complete, and non-local and is about as efficient as Quinlan's rule generators.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. R. Agrawal, T. Imielinski, and A. Swami. Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. In Proc. 1993 ACM-SIGMOD, pages 207–216, May 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  2. T. G. Dietterich and R. S. Michalski. A comparative review of selected methods for learning from examples. In Michalski et al., editor, Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Vol. 1, pages 41–82. Morgan Kaufmann, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. Han, Y. Cai, and N. Gercone. Knowledge discovery in databases: An attributeoriented approach. In Proc. 18th VLDB, pages 547–559, August 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  4. R. S. Michalski. A theory and methodology of inductive learning. In Michalski et al., editor, Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Vol. 1, pages 83–134. Morgan Kaufmann, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  5. T. M. Mitchell. Generalization as search. Artificial Intelligence, 18:203–226, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  6. G. Piatetsky-Shapiro. Discovery, analysis, and presentation of strong rules. In [7] pages 229–238. 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  7. G. Piatetsky-Shapiro and W. J. Frawley. Knowledge Discovery in Databases. AAAI/MIT Press, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. R. Quinlan. Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning, 1:81–106, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J. R. Quinlan. Generating production rules from decision trees. In Proc. 10th Int. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence, pages 304–307, Milan, Italy, August 1987.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Keith G. Jeffery Jaroslav Král Miroslav Bartošek

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Han, J.L. (1996). Decision trees, knowledge rules and some related data mining algorithms. In: Jeffery, K.G., Král, J., Bartošek, M. (eds) SOFSEM'96: Theory and Practice of Informatics. SOFSEM 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1175. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0037419

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0037419

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61994-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49588-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics