Comparison of relational and attribute-IEEE-1999-published ...

Kovalerchuk, B., Vityaev E., Comparison of relational methods and attribute-based methods for data mining in
intelligent systems, 1999 IEEE Int. Symposium on Intelligent Control/Intelligent Systems, Cambridge, Mass,
1999. pp. 162-166.

Comparison of relational methods and attribute-based methods
for data mining in intelligent systems
Boris Kovalerchuk
Dept. of Computer Science, Central Washington University,
Ellensburg, WA, 98926-7520, USA
borisk@cwu.edu
Evgenii Vityaev
Institute of Mathematics, Russian Academy of Science,
Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia
vityaev@math.nsc.ru

Abstract that automatically improve with experience. In recent years
Most of the data mining methods in real-world intelligent many successful machine learning applications have been
systems are attribute-based machine learning methods such developed including autonomous vehicles that learn to
as neural networks, nearest neighbors and decision trees. drive on public [1].
They are relatively simple, efficient, and can handle noisy
data. However, these methods have two strong limitations: Currently statistical and Artificial Neural Network
(1) a limited form of expressing the background methods dominate in design of intelligent systems and data
knowledge and (2) the lack of relations other than “object- mining. There are three shortages of Neural Networks [1]
attribute” makes the concept description language for forecasting related to:
inappropriate for some applications. 1) Explainability,
2) Use of logical relations and
Relational hybrid data mining methods based on first-order 3) Tolerance for sparse data.
logic were developed to meet these challenges. In the
paper they are compared with Neural Networks and other Alternative relational (symbolic) machine learning
benchmark methods. The comparison shows several methods had shown their effectiveness in robotics
advantages of relational methods. (navigation, 3-dimensional scene analysis) and drug design
(selection of the most promising components for drug
design). . In practice, learning systems based on first-order
1. Problem definition and objectives representations have been successfully applied to many
problems in engineering, chemistry, physics, medicine.
Performance of intelligent systems such as intelligent finance and other fields [1,2]. Traditionally symbolic
control systems can be significantly improved if control methods are used in the areas with a lot of non-numeric
signals are generated using prediction of future behavior of (symbolic) knowledge. In robot navigation this is relative
the controlled system. In this study we assume that at each location of obstacles (on the right, on the left and so on).
moment t performance of the system is measured by gain We discuss the key algorithms and theory that form the
function G(t,yt,yt-1,u), were yt and yt-1 are system’s states core of symbolic machine learning methods for
in t and previous moment t-1, respectively and u is control applications with dominating numerical data. The
signal at the same moment t. Implementing this approach mathematical formalisms of first order logic rules
requires discovering regularities in system’s behavior and described in [1,3,4] are used. Note that a class of general
computing y ~ , predicted values of system’s state using
t propositional and first-order logic rules, covered by
discovered regularities. relational methods is wider than a class of decision trees
[1, pp. 274-275].
Data mining methods are design to for discovering hidden
regularities in databases. Data mining has two major
sources to infer regularities: database and machine learning Specifically Relational hybrid Data Mining (RHDM)
technologies. The field of machine learning is concerned combines inductive logic programming (ILP) with
with the question of how to construct computer programs probabilistic inference. The combination benefits from

noise robust probabilistic inference and highly expressive rely only on them then there are more chances that these
and understandable first-order logic rules employed in ILP. rules will not deliver a right forecast on other data.
Relational Data Mining technology is a data modeling
What is the motivation to use suggested MMDR method in
algorithm that does not assume the functional form of
particular? MMDR uses hypothesis/rule generation and
the relationship being modeled a priori. It can
selection process, based on fundamental representative
automatically consider a large number of inputs (e.g., time
measurement theory [3] The original challenge for MMDR
series characterization parameters) and learn how to
was the simulation of discovering scientific laws from
combine these to produce estimates for future values of a
empirical data in chemistry and physics. There is a well-
specific output variable.
known difference between “black box” models and
fundamental models (laws) in modern physics. The last
Relational data mining (RDM) has roots in logic
ones have much longer life, wider scope and a solid
programming which provides the solid theoretical basis for
background. Mitchell in [1] noted the importance that
RDM. On the other hand at present existing Inductive
relational assertions “can be conveniently expressed using
Logic Programming systems representing RDM are
first-order representations, while they are very difficult to
relatively inefficient and have rather limited facilities for
describe using propositional representations”.
handling numerical data [5]. We developed a hybrid ILP
and probabilistic technique (MMDR method) that handles
Many well-known rule learners such as AQ, CN2 are
numerical data efficiently [2,6].
propositional [1, p.279, 283]. Note that decision tree
methods represent a particular type of propositional
One of the main advantages of RDM over attribute-based
representation [1, p.275]. Therefore decision tree methods
learning is ILP’s generality of representation for
such as ID3 and its successor C4.5 fit better to tasks
background knowledge. This enables the user to provide,
without relational assertions. Mitchell argues and gives
in a more natural way, domain-specific background
examples that propositional representations offer no
knowledge to be used in learning. The use of background
general way to describe the essential relations among the
knowledge enables the user both to develop a suitable
values of the attributes [1, pp. 283-284]. Below we follow
problem representation and to introduce problem-specific
his simple illustrative example. In contrast with
constraints into the learning process. By contrast, attribute-
propositional rules, a program using first-order
based learners can typically accept background knowledge
representations could learn the following general rule:
in rather limited form only [5].
IF Father(x,y) & Female(y), THEN Daugher(x,y),
2. Relational methods
where x and y are variables that can be bound to any
person. For the target concept Daughter1,2 propositional
A machine learning type of method, called Machine rule learner such as CN2 or C4.5, the result would be a
Methods for Discovering Regularities (MMDR) is applied collection of very specific rules such as
for forecasting time series. Then this forecast is used to
compute control signals to get a better value of gain IF (Father1=Bob)&Name2=Bob)&Female1=True) THEN
function G. Daughter1,2=True.

MMDR method expresses patterns in first order logic and Although it is correct, this rule is so specific that it will
assigns probabilities to rules generated by composing rarely, if ever, be useful in classifying future pairs of
patterns. As any technique based on first order logic, people [4, pp.283-284]. It is obvious that similar problem
MMDR allows one to get human-readable forecasting exists for autoregression methods like ARIMA and Neural
rules [1, ch. 10], i.e. understandable in ordinary language Networks methods. First-order logic rules have an
in addition to the forecast. A field expert can evaluate the advantage in discovering relational assertions because they
performance of the forecast as well as a forecasting rule. capture relations directly, e.g., Father(x,y) in the example
above.
Also, as any technique based on probabilistic estimates,
this technique delivers rules tested on their statistical In addition, first order rules allow one to express naturally
significance. Statistically significant rules have advantage the other more general hypotheses not only the relation
in comparison with rules tested only for their performance between pairs of attributes [3]. These more general rules
on training and test data [1, ch. 5]. Training and testing can be as for classification problems as for an interval
data can be too limited and/or not representative. If rules

forecast of continuous variable. Moreover these rules are The next critical issue in applying data-driven forecasting
able to catch Markov chain type of models used for time systems is generalization. The "Discovery" system
series forecast. We share Mitchell’s opinion about the developed as software implementation MMDR [6]
importance of algorithms designed to learn sets of first- generalizes data through “lawlike” logical probabilistic
order rules that contain variables because first-order rules rules. Discovered rules have similar statistical estimate
are much more expressive than propositional rules” [1, and significance on training and test sets of studied time
p.274]. series. Theoretical advantages of MMDR generalization
are presented in [6, 1].
What is the difference between MMDR and other Machine
Learning methods dealing with first-order logic [1,4,5]? 3. Method for discovering regularities
From our viewpoint the main accent in other first-order
methods is on two computational complexity issues: how Figure 1 describes the steps of MMDR. On the first step
wide is the class of hypotheses tested by the particular we select and/or generate a class first–order logic rules
machine learning algorithms and how to construct a suitable for a particular task.
learning algorithm to find deterministic rules. The
emphasis of MMDR is on probabilistic first-order rules The next step is learning the particular first-order logic
and measurement issues, i.e., how we can move from a rules using available training data. Then we test first-order
real measurement to first-order logic representation. This is logic rules on training and test data using Fisher statistical
a non-trivial task [3]. For example, how to represent criterion. After that we select
temperature measurement in terms of first-order logic
MMDR models
without losing the essence of the attribute (temperature in (selecting/generating logical rules
this case) and without inputting unnecessary conventional with variables x,y,..,z:
properties? For instance, Fahrenheit and Celsius zeros of IF A(x,y,…,z)THEN B(x,y,…,z)
temperature are our conventions in contrast with Kelvin
scale where the zero is a real physical zero. There are no
Learning logical rules on training Testing and selecting
temperatures less than this zero. Therefore incorporating data using conditional logical rules (Occam’s
properties of the Fahrenheit zero into first-order rules may probabilities of inference razor, Fisher criterion)
force us to discover/learn properties of this convention P(B(x,y,…,z)/A(x,y,…z))
along with more significant scale invariant forecasting
rules. Learning algorithms in the space with those kind of Creating interval and threshold
accidental properties may be very time consuming and forecasts using rules
IF A(x,y,…,z) THEN B(x,y,…,z)
may produce inappropriate rules.
and p-quintiles

It is well known that the general problem of rule Figure 1. Flow diagram for MMDR: steps and technique applied
generating and testing is NP-complete. Therefore the
discussion above is closely related to the following statistically significant rules and apply Occam’s razor
questions. What determines the number of rules and when principle: prefer the simplest hypothesis (rules) that fits the
to stop generating rules? What is the justification for data [1, p. 65]. Simultaneously we use the rules’
specifying particular expressions instead of any other performance on training and test data for their selection.
expressions? Using the approach from [3] we select rules We may iterate back and forth among these three steps
which are simplest and consistent with measurement scales several times to find the best rules. The last step is creating
for a particular task. The algorithm stops generating new interval and threshold forecasts using selected first-order
rules when they become too complex (i.e., statistically logic rules:
insignificant for the data) in spite of possible high accuracy
on training data. The obvious other stop criterion is time IF A(x,y,…,z) THEN B(x,y,…,z).
limitation. Detailed discussion about a mechanism of
initial rule selection from measurement theory [3] As we mentioned above conceptually law-like rules came
viewpoint is out of the scope of this paper. A special study from philosophy of science. These rules attempt to
may result in a catalogue of initial rules/hypotheses to be mathematically capture the essential features of scientific
tested (learned) for particular applications. In this way any laws:
field analyst can choose rules to be tested without (1) High level of generalization;
generating them. (2) Simplicity (Occam’s razor); and,
(3) Refutability.

The first feature -- generalization -- means that any other “Law-like” rules defined in this way hold all three
regularity covering the same events would be less general, mentioned above properties of scientific laws: generality,
i.e., applicable only to the part of events covered by the simplicity, and refutability..
law-like regularity. The second feature – simplicity-- The “Discovery” software searches all chains
reflects the fact that a law-like rule is shorter than other
rules. A law-like rule, R1 is more refutable than another C1 , C2, …, Cm-1, Cm
rule R2 if there are more testing examples which refute R1
than R2, but the testing examples fail to refute R1. of nested “law-like” subrules, where C1 is a subrule of rule
C2 , C1 = sub(C2), C2 is a subrule of rule C3, C2 = sub(C3)
Formally, we present an IF-THEN rule C as and finally Cm-1 is a subrule of rule Cm, Cm-1 = sub(Cm). In
addition, they satisfy an important property:
A1& …&Ak ⇒ A0,
Prob(C1) < Prob(C2), … , Prob(Cm-1) < Prob(Cm).
where the IF-part, A1&...&Ak, consists of true/false logical
statements A1,…,Ak ,and the THEN-part consists of a This property is the base for the following
single logical statement A0. Each statements Ai is a given theorem [6]:
refutable statements or its negations, which are also
refutable. Rule C allows us to generate sub-rules with a All rules, which have a maximum value of
truncated IF part, e.g. conditional probability, can be found at the end of
such chains.
A1&A2 ⇒ A0 , A1&A2&A3 ⇒ A0
This theorem basically means that the MMDR algorithm
and so on. For rule C its conditional probability does not miss the best rules. The algorithm stops
generating new rules when they become too complex (i.e.,
Prob(C) = Prob(A0/A1&...&Ak) statistically insignificant for the data) even if the rules are
highly accurate on training data. The Fisher statistical
is defined. Similarly conditional probabilities criterion is used in this algorithm for testing statistical
significance. The obvious other stop criterion is time
Prob(A0/Ai1&...&Aih) limitation.

are defined for sub-rules Ci of the form 4. Performance

Ai1& …&Aih ⇒ A0. We consider a control task with three control actions u=1,
u=0 and u=-1, set as follows:
We use conditional probability  1, if y ~ > y
t t -1

 ~
Prob(C) = Prob(A0/A1&...&Ak) u =  0, if y t = y t -1
 ~
for estimating forecasting power of the rule to predict A0. - 1, if y t < y t -1

where yt-1 is an actual value of the time series for t-1
The goal is to find ‘law-like” rules. The rule is “law-like” moment and y ~ is the forecasted value of y for t moment.
t
if and only if all of its sub-rules have less conditional Forecasted values are generated by all four studied
probability than the rule, and statistical significance of methods including Neural Network method and relational
that is established. Each sub-rule Ci generalizes rule C, MMDR method.
i.e., potentially Ci is true for larger set of instances.
Another definition of “law-like” rules can be stated in The gain function G is computed for every t after all actual
terms of generalization. values of yt became known. Gain function G(t,u,yt ,yt-1)
depends on u and actual values of output yt ,yt-1:
The rule is “law-like” if and only if it can not be
generalized without producing a statistically significant
reduction in its conditional probability.

 y ~ − y t -1 , if u = 1
t

 5. Conclusion
G(t, u, y t , y t -1 ) =  0, if u = 0
 ~ In average human-readable and understadable regularities
- (y t − y t -1 ), if u = −1

generated by the relational method MMDR outperformed
other methods including widely used neural networks
The total gain is defined as (table 1).
Gtotal=Σt=1,n G(t,u, yt ,yt-1)
6. References
The adaptive linear method in essence works according to
~
the following fomula: y t =ay t-1+ byt-2 +c. 1. Mitchell T. “Machine Learning”, McGraw-Hill, NY,
1997
“Passive control” method ignores forecast yt and in all 2. Kovalerchuk, B., Vityaev E. “Discovering Law-like
cases generates the same control signal “do nothing”: Regularities in Financial Time Series”, Journal of
Computational Intelligence in Finance, Vol.6, No.3,
If (yt ~>yt-1 or yt ~≤yt-1) then u=0 (do nothing) 1998, pp.12-26,
Table 1 shows performance of MMDR in conparison with 3. Krantz D.H., Luce R.D., Suppes P., and Tversky A.
three other methods: Adaptive Linear, Passive Contol, and “Foundations of measurement”. vol.1-3, Acad. Press,
Neural Networks. NY, London, 1971, 1989, 1990
4. Russel S., Norvig P. “Artificial Intelligence. A modern
Table 1. Simulated gain approach”, Prentice Hall, 1995
5. Bratko, I., Muggleton. S. “Applications of
Method Gain (%)
inductive logic programming”, Communications
Data Data Average
set 1 set 2 (two data of ACM, vol.38, N. 11,1995, pp.65-70.
(477 (424 sets, 901 6. Vityaev E., Moskvitin A. “Introduction to Discovery
instances) instances) instances)
theory: Discovery system”, Computational Systems,
Adaptive Linear 21.9 18.28 20.09 v.148, Novosibirsk, pp.117-163, 1993 (in Russian).
MMDR 26.69 43.83 35.26
Passive control 30.39 20.56 25.47
Neural Network 18.94 16.07 17.5

Comparison of relational and attribute-IEEE-1999-published ...

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Comparison of relational and attribute-IEEE-1999-published ... (20)

More from butest (20)

Comparison of relational and attribute-IEEE-1999-published ...