Summer 2021

Data Mining AND Machine

Learning (CSE 321)

Topic – 6: Association Analysis

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 1

 Topic Contents

Problem Definition

Frequent Itemset Generation

Rule Generation

Evaluation of Association Patterns

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 2

3

Recommended Reading

“Introduction to Data Mining,” Pang-Ning

Tan, Michael Steinbach and Vipin Kumar,
Addison Wesley, 2006.
 Chapter 6 (Association Analysis: Basic
Concepts and Algorithms)

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 3

3
 Association Rule Mining

 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
TID Items Rules
{Diaper}  {Beer},
1 Bread, Milk {Milk, Bread}  {Eggs,Coke},
2 Bread, Diaper, Beer, Eggs {Beer, Bread}  {Milk},
3 Milk, Diaper, Beer, Coke
4 Bread, Milk, Diaper, Beer Implication means co-occurrence,
5 Bread, Milk, Diaper, Coke not causality!

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 4

 Definition: Frequent Itemset
 Itemset
– A collection of one or more items
 Example: {Milk, Bread, Diaper}
– k-itemset TID Items

 An itemset that contains k items 1 Bread, Milk

2 Bread, Diaper, Beer, Eggs
 Support count ()
3 Milk, Diaper, Beer, Coke
– Frequency of occurrence of an itemset
4 Bread, Milk, Diaper, Beer
– E.g. ({Milk, Bread,Diaper}) = 2
5 Bread, Milk, Diaper, Coke
 Support
– Fraction of transactions that contain an
itemset
– E.g. s({Milk, Bread, Diaper}) = 2/5
 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 5
 Definition: Association Rule
 Association Rule
TID Items
– An implication expression of the form
1 Bread, Milk
X  Y, where X and Y are itemsets
2 Bread, Diaper, Beer, Eggs
– Example:
3 Milk, Diaper, Beer, Coke
{Milk, Diaper}  {Beer}
4 Bread, Milk, Diaper, Beer
5 Bread, Milk, Diaper, Coke
 Rule Evaluation Metrics
– Support (s)
 Fraction of transactions that contain Example:
both X and Y {Milk, Diaper}  Beer
– Confidence (c)
 Measures how often items in Y  (Milk , Diaper, Beer) 2
s   0.4
appear in transactions that |T| 5
contain X
 (Milk, Diaper, Beer) 2
c   0.67
 (Milk , Diaper) 3
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 6
 Association Rule Mining Task

 Given a set of transactions T, the goal of

association rule mining is to find all rules having
– support ≥ minsup threshold
– confidence ≥ minconf threshold

 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 7
 Mining Association Rules

Example of Rules:
TID Items
1 Bread, Milk
{Milk,Diaper}  {Beer} (s=0.4, c=0.67)
2 Bread, Diaper, Beer, Eggs
{Milk,Beer}  {Diaper} (s=0.4, c=1.0)
3 Milk, Diaper, Beer, Coke {Diaper,Beer}  {Milk} (s=0.4, c=0.67)
4 Bread, Milk, Diaper, Beer {Beer}  {Milk,Diaper} (s=0.4, c=0.67)
5 Bread, Milk, Diaper, Coke {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 8
 Mining Association Rules

 Two-step approach:
1. Frequent Itemset Generation
– Generate all itemsets whose support  minsup

2. Rule Generation
– 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 9

 Frequent Itemset Generation
null

A B C D E

AB AC AD AE BC BD BE CD CE DE

ABC ABD ABE ACD ACE ADE BCD BCE BDE CDE

ABCD ABCE ABDE ACDE BCDE

Given d items, there
are 2d possible
ABCDE candidate itemsets
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 10
 Frequent Itemset Generation
 Brute-force approach:
– Each itemset in the lattice is a candidate frequent itemset
– Count the support of each candidate by scanning the
database
Transactions List of
Candidates
TID Items
1 Bread, Milk
2 Bread, Diaper, Beer, Eggs
N 3 Milk, Diaper, Beer, Coke M
4 Bread, Milk, Diaper, Beer
5 Bread, Milk, Diaper, Coke
w
– Match each transaction against every candidate
– Complexity ~ O(NMw) => Expensive since M = 2d !!!
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 11
 Computational Complexity
 Given d unique items:
– Total number of itemsets = 2d
– Total number of possible association rules:

 d   d  k 
d 1 d k
R        
 k   j 
k 1 j 1

 3  2 1
d d 1

If d=6, R = 602 rules

Now let us consider how many rules we
generate from itemset (Bread, Milk, Sugar)
Fixed Bread, no of Combinations
(2C1+2C2) So total no 3C1*(2c1+2c2)
Fixed (Bread+Milk) in 3C2 ways we can do
From remaining 1 combination 1c1
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 12
 Frequent Itemset Generation Strategies
 Reduce the number of candidates (M)
– Complete search: M=2d
– Use pruning techniques to reduce M

 Reduce the number of transactions (N)

– Reduce size of N as the size of itemset increases
– Used by DHP and vertical-based mining algorithms
 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 13

 Reducing Number of Candidates

 Apriori principle:
– If an itemset is frequent, then all of its subsets must also
be frequent

 Apriori principle holds due to the following property

of the support measure:
X , Y : ( X  Y )  s( X )  s(Y )
– 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 14

 Illustrating Apriori Principle

null

A B C D E

AB AC AD AE BC BD BE CD CE DE

Found to be
Infrequent
ABC ABD ABE ACD ACE ADE BCD BCE BDE CDE

ABCD ABCE ABDE ACDE BCDE

Pruned
ABCDE
supersets
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 15
 Illustrating Apriori Principle

Item Count Items (1-itemsets)

Bread 4
Coke 2
Milk 4 Itemset Count Pairs (2-itemsets)
Beer 3 {Bread,Milk} 3
Diaper 4 {Bread,Beer} 2 (No need to generate
Eggs 1
{Bread,Diaper} 3 candidates involving Coke
{Milk,Beer} 2 or Eggs)
{Milk,Diaper} 3
{Beer,Diaper} 3
Minimum Support = 3
Triplets (3-itemsets)

If every subset is considered, Itemset Count

6
C1 + 6C2 + 6C3 = 41 {Bread,Milk,Diaper} 3
With support-based pruning,
6 + 6 + 1 = 13

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 16

 Apriori Algorithm

 Method:

– Let k=1
– Generate frequent itemsets of length 1
– Repeat until no new frequent itemsets are identified
 Generate length (k+1) candidate itemsets from length k
frequent itemsets
 Prune candidate itemsets containing subsets of length k that
are infrequent
 Count the support of each candidate by scanning the DB

 Eliminate candidates that are infrequent, leaving only those

that are frequent

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 17

 The Apriori Algorithm—An Example

Supmin = 2 Itemset sup

Itemset sup
Database TDB {A} 2
L1 {A} 2
Tid Items C1 {B} 3
{B} 3
10 A, C, D {C} 3
1st scan {C} 3
20 B, C, E {D} 1
{E} 3
30 A, B, C, E {E} 3
40 B, E
C2 Itemset sup C2 Itemset
{A, B} 1
L2 Itemset sup
{A, C} 2
2nd scan {A, B}
{A, C} 2 {A, C}
{A, E} 1
{B, C} 2 {A, E}
{B, C} 2
{B, E} 3
{B, E} 3 {B, C}
{C, E} 2
{C, E} 2 {B, E}
{C, E}
Itemset Itemset sup
C3 3rd scan L3 {B, C, E} 2
{B, C, E}
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 18
 The Apriori Algorithm

 Pseudo-code:
Ck: Candidate itemset of size k
Lk : frequent itemset of size k

L1 = {frequent items};
for (k = 1; Lk !=; k++) do begin
Ck+1 = candidates generated from Lk;
for each transaction t in database do
increment the count of all candidates in Ck+1
that are contained in t
Lk+1 = candidates in Ck+1 with min_support
end
return k Lk;
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 19
 Important Details of Apriori

 How to generate candidates?

– Step 1: self-joining Lk
– Step 2: pruning
 How to count supports of candidates?
 Example of Candidate-generation
– L3={abc, abd, acd, ace, bcd}
– Self-joining: L3*L3
abcd from abc and abd
acde from acd and ace
– Pruning:
acde is removed because ade is not in L3

– C4={abcd}

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 20

 How to Generate Candidates?

 Suppose the items in Lk-1 are listed in an order

 Step 1: self-joining Lk-1
insert into Ck
select p.item1, p.item2, …, p.itemk-1, q.itemk-1
from Lk-1 p, Lk-1 q
where p.item1=q.item1, …, p.itemk-2=q.itemk-2, p.itemk-1 < q.itemk-1

 Step 2: pruning
forall itemsets c in Ck do
forall (k-1)-subsets s of c do

if (s is not in Lk-1) then delete c from Ck

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 21

 Reducing Number of Comparisons
 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

Transactions Hash Structure

TID Items
1 Bread, Milk
2 Bread, Diaper, Beer, Eggs
N 3 Milk, Diaper, Beer, Coke k
4 Bread, Milk, Diaper, Beer
5 Bread, Milk, Diaper, Coke
Buckets
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 22
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 234

3,6,9 567
1,4,7 145 345 356 367
136 368
2,5,8 357
124 689
457 125 159
458
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 23
 Association Rule Discovery: Hash tree

Hash Function Candidate Hash Tree

1,4,7 3,6,9

2,5,8

234
567

145 136
345 356 367
Hash on
357 368
1, 4 or 7
124 159 689
125
457 458

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 24

 Association Rule Discovery: Hash tree

Hash Function Candidate Hash Tree

1,4,7 3,6,9

2,5,8

234
567

145 136
345 356 367
Hash on
357 368
2, 5 or 8
124 159 689
125
457 458

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 25

 Association Rule Discovery: Hash tree

Hash Function Candidate Hash Tree

1,4,7 3,6,9

2,5,8

234
567

145 136
345 356 367
Hash on
357 368
3, 6 or 9
124 159 689
125
457 458

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 26

 Subset Operation
Given a transaction t, what
Transaction, t
are the possible subsets of
size 3? 1 2 3 5 6

Level 1
1 2 3 5 6 2 3 5 6 3 5 6

Level 2

12 3 5 6 13 5 6 15 6 23 5 6 25 6 35 6

123
135 235
125 156 256 356
136 236
126

Level 3 Subsets of 3 items

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 27
 Subset Operation Using Hash Tree

Hash Function
1 2 3 5 6 transaction

1+ 2356
2+ 356 1,4,7 3,6,9

2,5,8
3+ 56

234
567

145 136
345 356 367
357 368
124 159 689
125
457 458

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 28

 Subset Operation Using Hash Tree

Hash Function
1 2 3 5 6 transaction

1+ 2356
2+ 356 1,4,7 3,6,9
12+ 356 2,5,8
3+ 56
13+ 56
234
15+ 6 567

145 136
345 356 367
357 368
124 159 689
125
457 458

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 29

 Subset Operation Using Hash Tree

Hash Function
1 2 3 5 6 transaction

1+ 2356
2+ 356 1,4,7 3,6,9
12+ 356 2,5,8
3+ 56
13+ 56
234
15+ 6 567

145 136
345 356 367
357 368
124 159 689
125
457 458
Match transaction against 9 out of 15 candidates
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 30
 Factors Affecting Complexity
 Choice of minimum support threshold
– lowering support threshold results in more frequent itemsets
– this may increase number of candidates and max length of
frequent itemsets
 Dimensionality (number of items) of the data set
– 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
– 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 31

 Rule Generation

 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, ABD C, ACD B, BCD A,
A BCD, B ACD, C ABD, D ABC
AB CD, AC  BD, AD  BC, BC AD,
BD AC, CD AB,

 If |L| = k, then there are 2k – 2 candidate

association rules (ignoring L   and   L)

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 32

 Rule Generation

 How to efficiently generate rules from frequent itemsets?

– In general, confidence does not have an anti-monotone 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(X->L-X)>=C(X’->L-X’) X’ is a subset of X

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

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 33

 Rule Generation for Apriori Algorithm

Lattice of rules
ABCD=>{ }
Low
Confidence
Rule
BCD=>A ACD=>B ABD=>C ABC=>D

CD=>AB BD=>AC BC=>AD AD=>BC AC=>BD AB=>CD

D=>ABC C=>ABD B=>ACD A=>BCD

Pruned
Rules

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 34

 Rule Generation for Apriori Algorithm

 Candidate rule is generated by merging two rules

that share the same prefix
in the rule consequent
CD=>AB BD=>AC

 join(CD=>AB,BD=>AC)
would produce the candidate
rule D => ABC
D=>ABC
 Prune rule D=>ABC if its
subset AD=>BC does not have
high confidence
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 35
 Compact Representation of Frequent Itemsets

 Some itemsets are redundant because they have identical

support as their supersets
TID A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

10  10
 Number of frequent itemsets  3     =3*(2^10-1)
k
k 1

 Need a compact representation

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 36
 Maximal Frequent Itemset
An itemset is maximal frequent if none of its immediate supersets
is frequent null

Maximal A B C D E
Itemsets

AB AC AD AE BC BD BE CD CE DE

ABC ABD ABE ACD ACE ADE BCD BCE BDE CDE

ABCD ABCE ABDE ACDE BCDE

Infrequent
Itemsets Border
ABCD
E

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 37

 Closed Itemset

 An itemset is closed if none of its immediate supersets

has the same support as the itemset

Itemset Support
{A} 4
TID Items Itemset Support
{B} 5
1 {A,B} {A,B,C} 2
{C} 3
2 {B,C,D} {A,B,D} 3
{D} 4
3 {A,B,C,D} {A,C,D} 2
{A,B} 4
4 {A,B,D} {B,C,D} 3
{A,C} 2
5 {A,B,C,D} {A,B,C,D} 2
{A,D} 3
{B,C} 3
• BC should not be a closed {B,D} 4
itemset.
{C,D} 3
•BCD should be a closed
itemset

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 38

 Maximal vs Closed Itemsets
null Transaction Ids
TID Items
1 ABC 124 123 1234 245 345
A B C D E
2 ABCD
3 BCE
4 ACDE 12 124 24 4 123 2 3 24 34 45
AB AC AD AE BC BD BE CD CE DE
5 DE

12 2 24 4 4 2 3 4
ABC ABD ABE ACD ACE ADE BCD BCE BDE CDE

2 4
ABCD ABCE ABDE ACDE BCDE

Not supported by
any transactions ABCDE

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 39

 Maximal vs Closed Frequent Itemsets
• We can use the Closed but
Minimum support = 2 null
Closed frequent not
item sets to maximal
124 123 1234 245 345 Closed and
determine support
A B C D E maximal
count for non-
closed frequent
items.
• Consider about 12 124 24 4 123 2 3 24 34 45
counting support AB AC AD AE BC BD BE CD CE DE
count of AD- a
frequent non-closed
item.
• not being closed 12 2 24 4 4 2 3 4
ABC ABD ABE ACD ACE ADE BCD BCE BDE CDE
its support count
will be same as one
of it’s largest
superset’s item
count (abd, ade, 2 4
acd) ABCD ABCE ABDE ACDE BCDE

•acd has larger # Closed = 9

support count than
# Maximal = 4
ade, abd, so ABCDE
support count of ad
is 2.
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 40
 Maximal vs Closed Itemsets

Frequent
Itemsets

Closed
Frequent
Itemsets

Maximal
Frequent
Itemsets

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 41

 FP-growth Algorithm

 Use a compressed representation of the

database using an FP-tree

 Once an FP-tree has been constructed, it uses a

recursive divide-and-conquer approach to mine
the frequent itemsets

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 42

 FP-tree construction
null
After reading TID=1:

A:1
TID Items
1 {A,B}
2 {B,C,D} B:1
3 {A,C,D,E}
4 {A,D,E} After reading TID=2:
5 {A,B,C} null
6 {A,B,C,D} B:1
A:1
7 {B,C}
8 {A,B,C}
9 {A,B,D} B:1 C:1
10 {B,C,E}
D:1
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 43
 FP-Tree Construction
TID Items
Transaction
1 {A,B}
2 {B,C,D} Database
null
3 {A,C,D,E}
4 {A,D,E}
5 {A,B,C}
A:7 B:3
6 {A,B,C,D}
7 {B,C}
8 {A,B,C}
9 {A,B,D} B:5 C:3
10 {B,C,E}
C:1 D:1

Header table D:1

C:3 E:1
Item Pointer D:1 E:1
A D:1
B E:1
C D:1
D Pointers are used to assist
E frequent itemset generation

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 44

 FP-growth

Conditional Pattern base

null
for D:
P = {(A:1,B:1,C:1),
A:7 B:1 (A:1,B:1),
(A:1,C:1),
(A:1),
B:5 C:1 (B:1,C:1)}
C:1 D:1
Recursively apply FP-
D:1 growth on P
C:3
D:1
D:1 Frequent Itemsets found
(with sup > 1):
D:1 AD, BD, CD, ACD, BCD,
ABD and D

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 45

Construct FP-tree from a Transaction
Database

TID items Items bought (ordered) frequent

100 {f, a, c, d, g, i, m, p} {f, c, a, m, p}
200 {a, b, c, f, l, m, o} {f, c, a, b, m} min_support = 3
300 {b, f, h, j, o, w} {f, b}
400 {b, c, k, s, p} {c, b, p}
500 {a, f, c, e, l, p, m, n} {f, c, a, m, p} {}
Header Table
1. Scan DB once, find
frequent 1-itemset Item frequency head f:4 c:1
(single item pattern) f 4
c 4 c:3 b:1 b:1
2. Sort frequent items in a 3
frequency descending b 3 a:3 p:1
order, f-list m 3
p 3
3. Scan DB again, m:2 b:1
construct FP-tree
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar
F-list=f-c-a-b-m-p
Introduction to Data Mining
p:2 m:1
4/18/2004 46
Find Patterns Having P From P-conditional
Database
 Starting at the frequent item header table in the FP-tree
 Traverse the FP-tree by following the link of each frequent item p
 Accumulate all of transformed prefix paths of item p to form p’s
conditional pattern base

{}
Header Table
f:4 c:1 Conditional pattern bases
Item frequency head
f 4 item cond. pattern base
c 4 c:3 b:1 b:1
c f:3
a 3
b 3 a:3 p:1 a fc:3
m 3 b fca:1, f:1, c:1
p 3 m:2 b:1 m fca:2, fcab:1
p:2 m:1 p fcam:2, cb:1
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 47
From Conditional Pattern-bases to Conditional FP-
trees

 For each pattern-base

– Accumulate the count for each item in the base
– Construct the FP-tree for the frequent items of the pattern
base

m-conditional pattern base:

{} fca:2, fcab:1
Header Table
Item frequency head All frequent
f:4 c:1 patterns relate to m
f 4 {}
c 4 c:3 b:1 b:1 m,

a 3 f:3  fm, cm, am,
b 3 a:3 p:1 fcm, fam, cam,
m 3 c:3 fcam
p 3 m:2 b:1
p:2 m:1 a:3
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining m-conditional FP-tree
4/18/2004 48
 Recursion: Mining Each Conditional FP-
tree

{}

{} Cond. pattern base of “am”: (fc:3) f:3

c:3
f:3
am-conditional FP-tree
c:3 {}
Cond. pattern base of “cm”: (f:3)
a:3 f:3
m-conditional FP-tree
cm-conditional FP-tree

{}
Cond. pattern base of “cam”: (f:3) f:3
cam-conditional FP-tree
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 49
 Alternative Methods for Frequent Itemset Generation

 Traversal of Itemset Lattice

– Equivalent Classes
null null

A B C D A B C D

AB AC AD BC BD CD AB AC BC AD BD CD

ABC ABD ACD BCD ABC ABD ACD BCD

ABCD ABCD

(a) Prefix tree (b) Suffix tree

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 50

 Alternative Methods for Frequent Itemset Generation

 Traversal of Itemset Lattice

– Breadth-first vs Depth-first

(a) Breadth first (b) Depth first

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 51

 Alternative Methods for Frequent Itemset Generation

 Traversal of Itemset Lattice

– General-to-specific vs Specific-to-general
Frequent
itemset Frequent
border null null itemset null
border

.. .. ..
.. .. ..
Frequent
{a1,a2,...,an} {a1,a2,...,an} itemset {a1,a2,...,an}
border
(a) General-to-specific (b) Specific-to-general (c) Bidirectional

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 52

 Alternative Methods for Frequent Itemset Generation

 Representation of Database
– horizontal vs vertical data layout
Horizontal
Data Layout Vertical Data Layout
TID Items A B C D E
1 A,B,E 1 1 2 2 1
2 B,C,D 4 2 3 4 3
3 C,E 5 5 4 5 6
4 A,C,D 6 7 8 9
5 A,B,C,D 7 8 9
6 A,E 8 10
7 A,B 9
8 A,B,C
9 A,C,D
10 B

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 53

 Tree Projection
null
Set enumeration tree:
A B C D E
Possible Extension:
E(A) = {B,C,D,E}

AB AC AD AE BC BD BE CD CE DE

ABC ABD ABE ACD ACE ADE BCD BCE BDE CDE

Possible Extension:
E(ABC) = {D,E}
ABCD ABCE ABDE ACDE BCDE

ABCDE

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 54

 Tree Projection

 Items are listed in lexicographic order

 Each node P stores the following information:
– Itemset for node P
– List of possible lexicographic extensions of P: E(P)
– Pointer to projected database of its ancestor node
– Bitvector containing information about which
transactions in the projected database contain the
itemset

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 55

 Projected Database
Projected Database
Original Database: for node A:
TID Items TID Items
1 {A,B} 1 {B}
2 {B,C,D} 2 {}
3 {A,C,D,E} 3 {C,D,E}
4 {A,D,E} 4 {D,E}
5 {A,B,C} 5 {B,C}
6 {A,B,C,D} 6 {B,C,D}
7 {B,C} 7 {}
8 {A,B,C} 8 {B,C}
9 {A,B,D} 9 {B,D}
10 {B,C,E} 10 {}
For each transaction T, projected transaction at node A is T  E(A)
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 56
 ECLAT

 For each item, store a list of transaction ids (tids)

Horizontal
Data Layout Vertical Data Layout
TID Items A B C D E
1 A,B,E 1 1 2 2 1
2 B,C,D 4 2 3 4 3
3 C,E 5 5 4 5 6
4 A,C,D 6 7 8 9
5 A,B,C,D 7 8 9
6 A,E 8 10
7 A,B 9
8 A,B,C
9 A,C,D
10 B TID-list

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 57

 ECLAT
 Determine support of any k-itemset by intersecting tid-lists
of two of its (k-1) subsets.
A B AB
1 1 1
4 2 5
5
6
 5
7
 7
8
7 8
8 10
9
 3 traversal approaches:
– top-down, bottom-up and hybrid
 Advantage: very fast support counting
 Disadvantage: intermediate tid-lists may become too large
for memory

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 58

 Effect of Support Distribution

 Many real data sets have skewed support

distribution

Support
distribution of
a retail data set

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 59

 Effect of Support Distribution

 How to set the appropriate minsup threshold?

– If minsup is set too high, we could miss itemsets
involving interesting rare items (e.g., expensive
products)

– If minsup is set too low, it is computationally

expensive and the number of itemsets is very large

 Using a single minimum support threshold may

not be effective

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 60

 Multiple Minimum Support

 How to apply multiple minimum supports?

– MS(i): minimum support for item i
– e.g.: MS(Milk)=5%, MS(Coke) = 3%,
MS(Broccoli)=0.1%, MS(Salmon)=0.5%
– MS({Milk, Broccoli}) = min (MS(Milk), MS(Broccoli))
= 0.1%

– Challenge: Support is no longer anti-monotone

 Suppose: Support(Milk, Coke) = 1.5% and
Support(Milk, Coke, Broccoli) = 0.5%

 {Milk,Coke} is infrequent but {Milk,Coke,Broccoli} is frequent

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 61

 Multiple Minimum Support

Item MS(I) Sup(I) AB ABC

AC ABD
A
A 0.10% 0.25%
AD ABE

B AE ACD
B 0.20% 0.26%
BC ACE
C
C 0.30% 0.29% BD ADE

D BE BCD
D 0.50% 0.05%
CD BCE
E
E 3% 4.20% CE BDE

DE CDE

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 62

 Multiple Minimum Support
AB ABC
Item MS(I) Sup(I)
AC ABD
A
A 0.10% 0.25% AD ABE

B AE ACD
B 0.20% 0.26%
BC ACE
C
C 0.30% 0.29% BD ADE

D BE BCD
D 0.50% 0.05%
CD BCE
E
E 3% 4.20% CE BDE

DE CDE

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 63

 Multiple Minimum Support (Liu 1999)

 Order the items according to their minimum

support (in ascending order)
– e.g.: MS(Milk)=5%, MS(Coke) = 3%,
MS(Broccoli)=0.1%, MS(Salmon)=0.5%
– Ordering: Broccoli, Salmon, Coke, Milk

 Need to modify Apriori such that:

– L1 : set of frequent items
– F1 : set of items whose support is  MS(1)
where MS(1) is mini( MS(i) )
– C2 : candidate itemsets of size 2 is generated from F1
instead of L1
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 64
 Multiple Minimum Support (Liu 1999)

 Modifications to Apriori:
– In traditional Apriori,
 A candidate (k+1)-itemset is generated by merging two
frequent itemsets of size k
 The candidate is pruned if it contains any infrequent subsets
of size k
– Pruning step has to be modified:
 Prune only if subset contains the first item
 e.g.: Candidate={Broccoli, Coke, Milk} (ordered according to
minimum support)
 {Broccoli, Coke} and {Broccoli, Milk} are frequent but
{Coke, Milk} is infrequent
– Candidate is not pruned because {Coke,Milk} does not contain
the first item, i.e., Broccoli.

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 65

 Pattern Evaluation

 Association rule algorithms tend to produce too

many rules
– many of them are uninteresting or redundant
– Redundant if {A,B,C}  {D} and {A,B}  {D}
have same support & confidence

 Interestingness measures can be used to

prune/rank the derived patterns

 In the original formulation of association rules,

support & confidence are the only measures used
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 66
 Application of Interestingness Measure
Knowledge
Interestingness
Measures Patterns
Postprocessing

Preprocessed
Data

Prod
Prod
Prod
Prod
Prod
Prod
Prod
Prod
Prod
Prod
uct
uct
uct
uct
uct
uct
uct
uct
uct
uct
Featur
Featur
e
Featur
e

Mining
Featur
e
Featur
e
Featur
e
Featur
e
Featur
e
Featur
e
Featur
e
e

Selected
Data

Data Preprocessing

Selection

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 67

 Computing Interestingness Measure

 Given a rule X  Y, information needed to compute rule

interestingness can be obtained from a contingency table

Contingency table for X  Y

Y Y f11: support of X and Y
X f11 f10 f1+ f10: support of X and Y
X f01 f00 fo+ f01: support of X and Y
f+1 f+0 |T| f00: support of X and Y

Used to define various measures

 support, confidence, lift, Gini,
J-measure, etc.

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 68

 Drawback of Confidence

Coffee Coffee
Tea 15 5 20
Tea 75 5 80
90 10 100

Association Rule: Tea  Coffee

Confidence= P(Coffee|Tea) = 0.75

but P(Coffee) = 0.9
 Although confidence is high, rule is misleading
 P(Coffee|Tea) = 0.9375

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 69

 Statistical Independence

 Population of 1000 students

– 600 students know how to swim (S)
– 700 students know how to bike (B)
– 420 students know how to swim and bike (S,B)

– P(SB) = 420/1000 = 0.42

– P(S)  P(B) = 0.6  0.7 = 0.42

– P(SB) = P(S)  P(B) => Statistical independence

– P(SB) > P(S)  P(B) => Positively correlated
– P(SB) < P(S)  P(B) => Negatively correlated
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 70
 Statistical-based Measures

 Measures that take into account statistical

dependence
P(Y | X )
Lift 
P (Y )
P( X , Y )
Interest 
P( X ) P(Y )
PS  P ( X , Y )  P ( X ) P (Y )
P ( X , Y )  P( X ) P(Y )
  coefficien t 
P ( X )[1  P ( X )]P (Y )[1  P (Y )]
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 71
 Example: Lift/Interest

Coffee Coffee
Tea 15 5 20
Tea 75 5 80
90 10 100

Association Rule: Tea  Coffee

Confidence= P(Coffee|Tea) = 0.75

but P(Coffee) = 0.9
 Lift = 0.75/0.9= 0.8333 (< 1, therefore is negatively associated)

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 72

 Drawback of Lift & Interest

Y Y Y Y
X 10 0 10 X 90 0 90
X 0 90 90 X 0 10 10
10 90 100 90 10 100

0.1 0.9
Lift   10 Lift   1.11
(0.1)(0.1) (0.9)(0.9)

Statistical independence:
If P(X,Y)=P(X)P(Y) => Lift = 1

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 73

There are lots of
measures proposed
in the literature

Some measures are

good for certain
applications, but not
for others

What criteria should

we use to determine
whether a measure
is good or bad?

What about Apriori-

style support based
pruning? How does
it affect these
measures?
 Properties of A Good Measure

 Piatetsky-Shapiro:
3 properties a good measure M must satisfy:
– M(A,B) = 0 if A and B are statistically independent

– M(A,B) increase monotonically with P(A,B) when P(A)

and P(B) remain unchanged

– M(A,B) decreases monotonically with P(A) [or P(B)]

when P(A,B) and P(B) [or P(A)] remain unchanged

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 75

 Comparing Different Measures
Exam ple f11 f10 f01 f00
10 examples of E1 8123 83 424 1370
contingency tables: E2
E3
8330
9481
2
94
622
127
1046
298
E4 3954 3080 5 2961
E5 2886 1363 1320 4431
E6 1500 2000 500 6000
E7 4000 2000 1000 3000
E8 4000 2000 2000 2000
Rankings of contingency tables E9 1720 7121 5 1154
using various measures: E10 61 2483 4 7452

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 76

 Property under Variable Permutation

B B A A
A p q B p r
A r s B q s

Does M(A,B) = M(B,A)?

Symmetric measures:
 support, lift, collective strength, cosine, Jaccard, etc
Asymmetric measures:
 confidence, conviction, Laplace, J-measure, etc
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 77
 Property under Row/Column Scaling

Grade-Gender Example (Mosteller, 1968):

Male Female Male Female

High 2 3 5 High 4 30 34
Low 1 4 5 Low 2 40 42
3 7 10 6 70 76

2x 10x
Mosteller:
Underlying association should be independent of
the relative number of male and female students
in the samples

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 78

 Property under Inversion Operation

A B C D E F

.
Transaction 1
1 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 1 1 1 0
. 0 0 1 1 1 0

.
0 0 1 1 1 0
0 1 1 0 1 1

. 0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
Transaction N 1 0 0 1 0 0

(a) (b) (c)

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 79

 Example: -Coefficient

 -coefficient is analogous to correlation coefficient

for continuous variables
Y Y Y Y
X 60 10 70 X 20 10 30
X 10 20 30 X 10 60 70
70 30 100 30 70 100

0.6  0.7  0.7 0.2  0.3  0.3

 
0.7  0.3  0.7  0.3 0.7  0.3  0.7  0.3
 0.5238  0.5238
 Coefficient is the same for both tables
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 80
 Property under Null Addition

B B B B
A p q A p q
A r s A r s+k

Invariant measures:
 support, cosine, Jaccard, etc
Non-invariant measures:
 correlation, Gini, mutual information, odds ratio, etc

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 81

Different Measures have Different Properties
Sym bol M e as ure Range P1 P2 P3 O1 O2 O3 O3' O4
 Correlation -1 … 0 … 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
 Lambda 0…1 Yes No No Yes No No* Yes No
 Odds ratio 0 … 1 …  Yes* Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes* Yes No
Q Y ule's Q -1 … 0 … 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Y Y ule's Y -1 … 0 … 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
 Cohen's -1 … 0 … 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No
M Mutual Information 0…1 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No* Yes No
J J-Measure 0…1 Yes No No No No No No No
G Gini Index 0…1 Yes No No No No No* Yes No
s Support 0…1 No Yes No Yes No No No No
c Confidence 0…1 No Yes No Yes No No No Yes
L Laplace 0…1 No Yes No Yes No No No No
V Conviction 0.5 … 1 …  No Yes No Yes** No No Yes No
I Interest 0 … 1 …  Yes* Yes Yes Yes No No No No
IS IS (cosine) 0 .. 1 No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes
PS Piatetsky-Shapiro's -0.25 … 0 … 0.25 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
F Certainty f actor -1 … 0 … 1 Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No
AV Added value 0.5 … 1 … 1 Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
S Collective strength 0 … 1 …  No Yes Yes Yes No Yes* Yes No
 Jaccard 0 .. 1 No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes
 2  1  2
K Klosgen's 
  1  2  3    0  Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar  3 3  to Data
 Introduction 3 3 Mining 4/18/2004 82
 Support-based Pruning

 Most of the association rule mining algorithms

use support measure to prune rules and itemsets

 Study effect of support pruning on correlation of

itemsets
– Generate 10000 random contingency tables
– Compute support and pairwise correlation for each
table
– Apply support-based pruning and examine the tables
that are removed

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 83

 Effect of Support-based Pruning

All Item pairs

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Correlation

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 84

 Effect of Support-based Pruning
Support < 0.01 Support < 0.03

300 300

250 250

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0

Correlation Correlation

Support < 0.05

300

250

Support-based pruning 200

eliminates mostly 150

negatively correlated
100

50

itemsets 0

Correlation

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 85

 Effect of Support-based Pruning

 Investigate how support-based pruning affects

other measures

 Steps:
– Generate 10000 contingency tables
– Rank each table according to the different measures
– Compute the pair-wise correlation between the
measures

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 86

 Effect of Support-based Pruning
 Without Support Pruning (All Pairs)
All Pairs (40.14%)
Conviction
1
Odds ratio
0.9
Col Streng th

Correlation 0.8
Interest

PS 0.7
CF
0.6
Yule Y

Jaccard
Reliability 0.5
Kappa

Klosg en 0.4
Yule Q
0.3
Confidence
Laplace 0.2
IS

Support 0.1
Jaccard
0
Lambda -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Gini Correlation
J-measure

Mutual Info

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Scatter Plot between Correlation

& Jaccard Measure
 Red cells indicate correlation between
the pair of measures > 0.85
 40.14% pairs have correlation > 0.85
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 87
 Effect of Support-based Pruning
 0.5%  support  50%
0.005 <= s upport <= 0.500 (61.45%)
Interest 1
Conviction
0.9
Odds ratio

Col Streng th 0.8

Laplace
Confidence 0.7
Correlation
0.6
Klosg en

Jaccard
Reliability
0.5
PS

Yule Q 0.4
CF
0.3
Yule Y
Kappa
0.2
IS
Jaccard 0.1
Support

Lambda
0
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Gini Correlation
J-measure
Mutual Info

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Scatter Plot between Correlation
& Jaccard Measure:
 61.45% pairs have correlation > 0.85

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 88

 Effect of Support-based Pruning
 0.5%  support  30%
0.005 <= s upport <= 0.300 (76.42%)
Support 1
Interest
Reliability
0.9

Conviction
0.8
Yule Q

Odds ratio 0.7

Confidence

CF
0.6

Jaccard
Yule Y
0.5
Kappa

Correlation 0.4
Col Streng th
IS 0.3
Jaccard
0.2
Laplace

PS 0.1
Klosg en

Lambda 0
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mutual Info Correlation
Gini

J-measure

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Scatter Plot between Correlation

& Jaccard Measure
 76.42% pairs have correlation > 0.85

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 89

 Subjective Interestingness Measure

 Objective measure:
– Rank patterns based on statistics computed from data
– e.g., 21 measures of association (support, confidence,
Laplace, Gini, mutual information, Jaccard, etc).

 Subjective measure:
– Rank patterns according to user’s interpretation
 A pattern is subjectively interesting if it contradicts the
expectation of a user (Silberschatz & Tuzhilin)
 A pattern is subjectively interesting if it is actionable
(Silberschatz & Tuzhilin)

© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 90

 Interestingness via Unexpectedness
 Need to model expectation of users (domain knowledge)

+ Pattern expected to be frequent

- Pattern expected to be infrequent
Pattern found to be frequent

Pattern found to be infrequent

+ - Expected Patterns

- + Unexpected Patterns

 Need to combine expectation of users with evidence from

data (i.e., extracted patterns)
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 91
 Interestingness via Unexpectedness

 Web Data (Cooley et al 2001)

– Domain knowledge in the form of site structure
– Given an itemset F = {X1, X2, …, Xk} (Xi : Web pages)
 L: number of links connecting the pages
 lfactor = L / (k  k-1)
 cfactor = 1 (if graph is connected), 0 (disconnected graph)
– Structure evidence = cfactor  lfactor
P( X  X ...  X )
– Usage evidence 
1 2 k

P( X  X  ...  X ) 1 2 k

– Use Dempster-Shafer theory to combine domain

knowledge and evidence from data
© Tan,Steinbach, Kumar Introduction to Data Mining 4/18/2004 92