The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Selecting the right interestingness measure for association patterns
Abstract
Many techniques for association rule mining and feature selection require a suitable metric to capture the dependencies among variables in a data set. For example, metrics such as support, confidence, lift, correlation, and collective strength are often 'used to determine the interestingness of association patterns. However, many such measures provide conflicting information about the interestingness of a pattern, and the best metric to use for a given application domain is rarely known. In this paper, we present an overview of various measures proposed in the statistics, machine learning and data mining literature. We describe several key properties one should examine in order to select the right measure for a given application domain. A comparative study of these properties is made using twenty one of the existing measures. We show that each measure has different properties which make them useful for some application domains, but not for others. We also present two scenarios in which most of the existing measures agree with each other, namely, support-based pruning and table standardization. Finally, we present an algorithm to select a small set of tables such that an expert can select a desirable measure by looking at just this small set of tables.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases
Agrawal, R., Imieliński, T., & Swami, A. (1993) · Proceedings of the 1993 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data · doi:10.1145/170035.170072 · Cited by 14,907
Cited by
Frequent pattern mining: current status and future directions
Han, J., Cheng, H., Xin, D., & Yan, X. (2007) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1007/s10618-006-0059-1 · Cited by 1,380
Discriminative Frequent Pattern Analysis for Effective Classification
Cheng, H., Yan, X., Han, J., & Hsu, C.-W. (2007) · 2007 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/icde.2007.367917 · Cited by 357
Shrinkage observed-to-expected ratios for robust and transparent large-scale pattern discovery
Norén, G. N., Hopstadius, J., & Bate, A. (2013) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280211403604 · Cited by 336
Association analysis of moodle e‐tests in blended learning educational environment
Dimić, G., Predić, B., Rančić, D., Petrović, V., Maček, N., & Spalević, P. (2018) · Computer Applications in Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/cae.21894 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Tan, P.-N., Kumar, V., & Srivastava, J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2002-07-23
- Pages
- 32-41
- OpenAlex
- W2066277072
- Cited by
- 862
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 26.54
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Selecting the right interestingness measure for association patterns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/775047.775053
- The paper
- Tan, P.-N., Kumar, V., & Srivastava, J. (2002). Selecting the right interestingness measure for association patterns. Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. https://doi.org/10.1145/775047.775053
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.