Data Mining Association Analysis Basic Concepts and Algorithms
Data Mining Association Analysis: Basic Concepts and Algorithms Lecture Notes for Chapter 6 Introduction to Data Mining by Tan, Steinbach, Kumar © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 1
Association Rule Mining l Given a set of transactions, find rules that will predict the occurrence of an item based on the occurrences of other items in the transaction Market-Basket transactions Example of Association Rules {Diaper} {Beer}, {Milk, Bread} {Eggs, Coke}, {Beer, Bread} {Milk}, Implication means co-occurrence, not causality! © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 2
Definition: Frequent Itemset l Itemset – A collection of one or more items u Example: {Milk, Bread, Diaper} – k-itemset u l An itemset that contains k items Support count ( ) – Frequency of occurrence of an itemset – E. g. ({Milk, Bread, Diaper}) = 2 l Support – Fraction of transactions that contain an itemset – E. g. s({Milk, Bread, Diaper}) = 2/5 l Frequent Itemset – An itemset whose support is greater than or equal to a minsup threshold © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 3
Definition: Association Rule l Association Rule – An implication expression of the form X Y, where X and Y are itemsets – Example: {Milk, Diaper} {Beer} l Rule Evaluation Metrics – Support (s) u Fraction of transactions that contain both X and Y Example: – Confidence (c) u Measures how often items in Y appear in transactions that contain X © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 4
Association Rule Mining Task l Given a set of transactions T, the goal of association rule mining is to find all rules having – support ≥ minsup threshold – confidence ≥ minconf threshold l Brute-force approach: – List all possible association rules – Compute the support and confidence for each rule – Prune rules that fail the minsup and minconf thresholds Computationally prohibitive! © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 5
Mining Association Rules Example of Rules: {Milk, Diaper} {Beer} (s=0. 4, c=0. 67) {Milk, Beer} {Diaper} (s=0. 4, c=1. 0) {Diaper, Beer} {Milk} (s=0. 4, c=0. 67) {Beer} {Milk, Diaper} (s=0. 4, c=0. 67) {Diaper} {Milk, Beer} (s=0. 4, c=0. 5) {Milk} {Diaper, Beer} (s=0. 4, c=0. 5) Observations: • All the above rules are binary partitions of the same itemset: {Milk, Diaper, Beer} • Rules originating from the same itemset have identical support but can have different confidence • Thus, we may decouple the support and confidence requirements © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 6
Mining Association Rules l Two-step approach: 1. Frequent Itemset Generation – Generate all itemsets whose support minsup 2. Rule Generation – l Generate high confidence rules from each frequent itemset, where each rule is a binary partitioning of a frequent itemset Frequent itemset generation is still computationally expensive © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 7
Frequent Itemset Generation Given d items, there are 2 d possible candidate itemsets © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 8
Frequent Itemset Generation l Brute-force approach: – Each itemset in the lattice is a candidate frequent itemset – Count the support of each candidate by scanning the database – Match each transaction against every candidate – Complexity ~ O(NMw) => Expensive since M = 2 d !!! © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 9
Computational Complexity l Given d unique items: – Total number of itemsets = 2 d – Total number of possible association rules: If d=6, R = 602 rules © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 10
Frequent Itemset Generation Strategies l Reduce the number of candidates (M) – Complete search: M=2 d – Use pruning techniques to reduce M l Reduce the number of transactions (N) – Reduce size of N as the size of itemset increases – Used by DHP and vertical-based mining algorithms l Reduce the number of comparisons (NM) – Use efficient data structures to store the candidates or transactions – No need to match every candidate against every transaction © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 11
Reducing Number of Candidates l Apriori principle: – If an itemset is frequent, then all of its subsets must also be frequent l Apriori principle holds due to the following property of the support measure: – Support of an itemset never exceeds the support of its subsets – This is known as the anti-monotone property of support © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 12
Illustrating Apriori Principle Found to be Infrequent Pruned supersets © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 13
Illustrating Apriori Principle Items (1 -itemsets) Pairs (2 -itemsets) (No need to generate candidates involving Coke or Eggs) Minimum Support = 3 Triplets (3 -itemsets) If every subset is considered, 6 C + 6 C = 41 1 2 3 With support-based pruning, 6 + 1 = 13 © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 14
Apriori Algorithm l Method: – Let k=1 – Generate frequent itemsets of length 1 – Repeat until no new frequent itemsets are identified u Generate length (k+1) candidate itemsets from length k frequent itemsets u Prune candidate itemsets containing subsets of length k that are infrequent u Count the support of each candidate by scanning the DB u Eliminate candidates that are infrequent, leaving only those that are frequent © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 15
Reducing Number of Comparisons l Candidate counting: – Scan the database of transactions to determine the support of each candidate itemset – To reduce the number of comparisons, store the candidates in a hash structure Instead of matching each transaction against every candidate, match it against candidates contained in the hashed buckets u © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 16
Generate Hash Tree Suppose you have 15 candidate itemsets of length 3: {1 4 5}, {1 2 4}, {4 5 7}, {1 2 5}, {4 5 8}, {1 5 9}, {1 3 6}, {2 3 4}, {5 6 7}, {3 4 5}, {3 5 6}, {3 5 7}, {6 8 9}, {3 6 7}, {3 6 8} You need: • Hash function • Max leaf size: max number of itemsets stored in a leaf node (if number of candidate itemsets exceeds max leaf size, split the node) Hash function 3, 6, 9 1, 4, 7 234 567 345 136 145 2, 5, 8 124 457 © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar 125 458 Introduction to Data Mining 159 356 357 689 4/18/2004 367 368 17
Association Rule Discovery: Hash tree Hash Function 1, 4, 7 Candidate Hash Tree 3, 6, 9 2, 5, 8 234 567 145 136 345 Hash on 1, 4 or 7 © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar 124 125 457 458 159 Introduction to Data Mining 356 367 368 357 689 4/18/2004 18
Association Rule Discovery: Hash tree Hash Function 1, 4, 7 Candidate Hash Tree 3, 6, 9 2, 5, 8 234 567 145 136 345 Hash on 2, 5 or 8 © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar 124 125 457 458 159 Introduction to Data Mining 356 367 368 357 689 4/18/2004 19
Association Rule Discovery: Hash tree Hash Function 1, 4, 7 Candidate Hash Tree 3, 6, 9 2, 5, 8 234 567 145 136 345 Hash on 3, 6 or 9 © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar 124 125 457 458 159 Introduction to Data Mining 356 367 368 357 689 4/18/2004 20
Subset Operation Given a transaction t, what are the possible subsets of size 3? © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 21
Subset Operation Using Hash Tree Hash Function 1 2 3 5 6 transaction 1+ 2356 2+ 356 1, 4, 7 3+ 56 3, 6, 9 2, 5, 8 234 567 145 136 345 124 457 125 458 © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar 159 356 357 689 Introduction to Data Mining 367 368 4/18/2004 22
Subset Operation Using Hash Tree Hash Function 1 2 3 5 6 transaction 1+ 2356 2+ 356 1, 4, 7 3+ 56 3, 6, 9 2, 5, 8 13+ 56 234 567 15+ 6 145 136 345 124 457 © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar 125 458 159 Introduction to Data Mining 356 357 689 367 368 4/18/2004 23
Subset Operation Using Hash Tree Hash Function 1 2 3 5 6 transaction 1+ 2356 2+ 356 1, 4, 7 3+ 56 3, 6, 9 2, 5, 8 13+ 56 234 567 15+ 6 145 136 345 124 457 © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar 125 458 159 356 357 689 367 368 Match transaction against 11 out of 15 candidates Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 24
Factors Affecting Complexity l Choice of minimum support threshold – – l Dimensionality (number of items) of the data set – – l more space is needed to store support count of each item if number of frequent items also increases, both computation and I/O costs may also increase Size of database – l lowering support threshold results in more frequent itemsets this may increase number of candidates and max length of frequent itemsets since Apriori makes multiple passes, run time of algorithm may increase with number of transactions Average transaction width – transaction width increases with denser data sets – This may increase max length of frequent itemsets and traversals of hash tree (number of subsets in a transaction increases with its width) © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 25
Compact Representation of Frequent Itemsets l Some itemsets are redundant because they have identical support as their supersets l Number of frequent itemsets l Need a compact representation © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 26
Maximal Frequent Itemset An itemset is maximal frequent if none of its immediate supersets is frequent Maximal Itemsets Infrequent Itemsets © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Border Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 27
Closed Itemset l An itemset is closed if none of its immediate supersets has the same support as the itemset © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 28
Maximal vs Closed Itemsets Transaction Ids Not supported by any transactions © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 29
Maximal vs Closed Frequent Itemsets Closed but not maximal Minimum support = 2 Closed and maximal # Closed = 9 # Maximal = 4 © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 30
Maximal frequent itemsets do not contain the support information of their subsets l Can use the closed frequent itemsets to determine the support counts for the non-closed frequent itemsets l – The support of a non-closed frequent itemset equals to the largest support among its supersets © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 31
Maximal vs Closed Itemsets © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 32
Rule Generation l Given a frequent itemset L, find all non-empty subsets f L such that f L – f satisfies the minimum confidence requirement – If {A, B, C, D} is a frequent itemset, candidate rules: ABC D, A BCD, AB CD, BD AC, l ABD C, B ACD, AC BD, CD AB, ACD B, C ABD, AD BC, BCD A, D ABC BC AD, If |L| = k, then there are 2 k – 2 candidate association rules (ignoring L and L) © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 33
Rule Generation l How to efficiently generate rules from frequent itemsets? – In general, confidence does not have an antimonotone property c(ABC D) can be larger or smaller than c(AB D) – But confidence of rules generated from the same itemset has an anti-monotone property – e. g. , L = {A, B, C, D}: c(ABC D) c(AB CD) c(A BCD) Confidence is anti-monotone w. r. t. number of items on the RHS of the rule u © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 34
Rule Generation for Apriori Algorithm Lattice of rules Low Confidence Rule Pruned Rules © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 35
Rule Generation for Apriori Algorithm l Candidate rule is generated by merging two rules that share the same prefix in the rule consequent l join(CD=>AB, BD=>AC) would produce the candidate rule D => ABC l Prune rule D=>ABC if its subset AD=>BC does not have high confidence © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 36
Page 358 l If BD=>AC then – BD=>A? – B=>AC? – B=>A? l An association rule X=>Y is redundant if there exists another rule X’=>Y’, where X is a subset of X’ and Y is a subset of Y’, such that the support and confidence for both rules are identical – XY is not closed – X is not closed u. When © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar X occurs, X’-X occurs Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 37
Page 358 {b} is not closed while {b, c} is l The association rule {b} => {d, e} is redundant since it has the same support and confidence as {b, c} => {d, e} l – Consider the first sentence – For the second sentence, do {b, d, e} and {b, c, d, e} have the same support? – Is this redundancy reasonable if all conditions hold? © Tan, Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 38
- Slides: 38