CPAR: Classification based on Predictive Association Rules
Abstract
Recent studies in data mining have proposed a new classification approach, called associative classification, which, according to several reports, such as [7, 6], achieves higher classification accuracy than traditional classification approaches such as C4.5. However, the approach also suffers from two major deficiencies: (1) it generates a very large number of association rules, which leads to high processing overhead; and (2) its confidence-based rule evaluation measure may lead to overfitting. In comparison with associative classification, traditional rule-based classifiers, such as C4.5, FOIL and RIPPER, are substantially faster but their accuracy, in most cases, may not be as high. In this paper, we propose a new classification approach, CPAR (Classification based on Predictive Association Rules), which combines the advantages of both associative classification and traditional rule-based classification. Instead of generating a large number of candidate rules as in associative classification, CPAR adopts a greedy algorithm to generate rules directly from training data. Moreover, CPAR generates and tests more rules than traditional rule-based classifiers to avoid missing important rules. To avoid overfitting, CPAR uses expected accuracy to evaluate each rule and uses the best k rules in prediction.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
CPAR combines the positive aspects of both associative classification and traditional rule-based classification, does not generate a large set of candidates as in associative classification, and applies a greedy approach for generating rules c_g directly from training data.
“In [109] the authors propose the approach f named CPAR (Classification based on Predictive Association Rules) combining the positive aspects of both associative classification and traditional rule-based classification. Indeed, following the basic idea of FOIL [80], CPAR does not generate a large set of candidates as in associative classification, and applies a greedy approach for generating rules”
From A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models (2019) · cites this paper as [109]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on the Explainability of Supervised Machine Learning
Burkart, N., & Huber, M. F. (2021) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.12228 · Cited by 1,008 · see citing works
Interpretable machine learning: Fundamental principles and 10 grand challenges
Rudin, C., Chen, C., Chen, Z., Huang, H., Semenova, L., & Zhong, C. (2022) · Statistics Surveys · doi:10.1214/21-ss133 · Cited by 958 · see citing works
Letham, B., Rudin, C., McCormick, T. H., & Madigan, D. (2015) · The Annals of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1214/15-aoas848 · Cited by 766 · see citing works
Interpretable Decision Sets: A Joint Framework for Description and Prediction
Lakkaraju, H., Bach, S. H., & Leskovec, J. (2016) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2939672.2939874 · Cited by 687 · see citing works
A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models
Guidotti, R., Monreale, A., Ruggieri, S., Turini, F., Giannotti, F., & Pedreschi, D. (2019) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3236009 · Cited by 629 · see citing works
GLocalX—From Local to Global Explanations of Black Box AI Models
Setzu, M., Guidotti, R., Monreale, A., Turini, F., Pedreschi, D., & Giannotti, F. (2021) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2021.103457 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Tabular Data: A Survey
Sahakyan, M., Aung, Z., & Rahwan, T. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3116481 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
“Yin and Han [171] proposed CPAR, which stands for Classification based on Predictive Association Rules.”
BackgroundLearning Certifiably Optimal Rule Lists for Categorical Data
Angelino, E., Larus-Stone, N., Alabi, D., Seltzer, M., & Rudin, C. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1704.01701 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Luo, G. (2016) · Health Information Science and Systems · doi:10.1186/s13755-016-0015-4 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Integrating induction and deduction for finding evidence of discrimination
Pedreschi, D., Ruggieri, S., & Turini, F. (2009) · Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1145/1568234.1568252 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Berendt, B., & Preibusch, S. (2014) · Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1007/s10506-013-9152-0 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
- Authors
- Yin, X., & Han, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2003 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining
- Published
- 2003-05
- Pages
- 331-335
- OpenAlex
- W1623342295
- Cited by
- 833
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 71
- FWCI
- 19.68
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining Algorithms and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining and Machine Learning Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text and Document Classification Technologies
- Keywords
- associative classification, rule-based classification, overfitting, expected accuracy, rule evaluation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review