Data Mining:

Concepts and Techniques

(3rd ed.)

— Chapter 8 —

1
Chapter 8. Classification: Basic Concepts

 Classification: Basic Concepts

 Decision Tree Induction
 Bayes Classification Methods
 Model Evaluation and Selection
 Summary

3
 Supervised vs. Unsupervised Learning

 Supervised learning (classification)

 Supervision: The training data (observations,
measurements, etc.) are accompanied by labels indicating
the class of the observations
 New data is classified based on the training set
 Unsupervised learning (clustering)
 The class labels of training data is unknown
 Given a set of measurements, observations, etc. with the
aim of establishing the existence of classes or clusters in
the data
4
 Prediction Problems: Classification vs.
Numeric Prediction
 Classification
 predicts categorical class labels (discrete or nominal)

 classifies data (constructs a model) based on the training

set and the values (class labels) in a classifying attribute
and uses it in classifying new data
 Numeric Prediction
 models continuous-valued functions, i.e., predicts
unknown or missing values
 Typical applications
 Credit/loan approval:

 Medical diagnosis: if a tumor is cancerous or benign

 Fraud detection: if a transaction is fraudulent

 Web page categorization: which category it is

5
 Classification—A Two-Step Process
 Model construction: describing a set of predetermined classes
 Each tuple/sample is assumed to belong to a predefined class, as

determined by the class label attribute

 The set of tuples used for model construction is training set

 The model is represented as classification rules, decision trees, or

mathematical formulae
 Model usage: for classifying future or unknown objects
 Estimate accuracy of the model

 The known label of test sample is compared with the classified

result from the model

 Accuracy rate is the percentage of test set samples that are

correctly classified by the model

 Test set is independent of training set (otherwise overfitting)

 If the accuracy is acceptable, use the model to classify new data

 Note: If the test set is used to select models, it is called validation (test) set
6
 Process (1): Model Construction

Classification
Algorithms
Training
Data

NAME RANK YEARS TENURED Classifier

M ike A ssistant P rof 3 no (Model)
M ary A ssistant P rof 7 yes
B ill P rofessor 2 yes
Jim A ssociate P rof 7 yes
IF rank = ‘professor’
D ave A ssistant P rof 6 no
OR years > 6
A nne A ssociate P rof 3 no
THEN tenured = ‘yes’
7
Process (2): Using the Model in Prediction

Classifier

Testing
Data Unseen Data

(Jeff, Professor, 4)
NAME RANK YEARS TENURED
T om A ssistant P rof 2 no Tenured?
M erlisa A ssociate P rof 7 no
G eorge P rofessor 5 yes
Joseph A ssistant P rof 7 yes
8
Chapter 8. Classification: Basic Concepts

 Classification: Basic Concepts

 Decision Tree Induction
 Bayes Classification Methods
 Model Evaluation and Selection
 Summary

9
 Decision Tree Induction: An Example
age income student credit_rating buys_computer
<=30 high no fair no
 Training data set: Buys_computer <=30 high no excellent no
 The data set follows an example of 31…40 high no fair yes
>40 medium no fair yes
Quinlan’s ID3 (Playing Tennis) >40 low yes fair yes
>40 low yes excellent no
 Resulting tree:
31…40 low yes excellent yes
age? <=30 medium no fair no
<=30 low yes fair yes
>40 medium yes fair yes
<=30 medium yes excellent yes
<=30 overcast
31..40 >40 31…40 medium no excellent yes
31…40 high yes fair yes
>40 medium no excellent no

student? yes credit rating?

no yes excellent fair

no yes yes
10
 Algorithm for Decision Tree Induction
 Basic algorithm (a greedy algorithm)
 Tree is constructed in a top-down recursive divide-and-

conquer manner
 At start, all the training examples are at the root

 Attributes are categorical (if continuous-valued, they are

discretized in advance)
 Examples are partitioned recursively based on selected

attributes
 Test attributes are selected on the basis of a heuristic or

statistical measure (e.g., information gain)

 Conditions for stopping partitioning
 All samples for a given node belong to the same class

 There are no remaining attributes for further partitioning –

majority voting is employed for classifying the leaf

 There are no samples left
11
 Brief Review of Entropy


m=2

12
 Attribute Selection Measure:
Information Gain (ID3/C4.5)
 Select the attribute with the highest information gain
 Let pi be the probability that an arbitrary tuple in D belongs to
class Ci, estimated by |Ci, D|/|D|
 Expected information (entropy) needed to classify a tuple in D:
m
Info( D)   pi log 2 ( pi )
i 1
 Information needed (after using A to split D into v partitions) to
classify D: v | D |
InfoA ( D)    Info( D j )
j

j 1 | D |
 Information gained by branching on attribute A

Gain(A)  Info(D) InfoA(D)

13
 Attribute Selection: Information Gain
 Class P: buys_computer = “yes” 5 4
Infoage ( D)  I (2,3)  I (4,0)
 Class N: buys_computer = “no” 14 14
9 9 5 5 5
Info( D)  I (9,5)   log 2 ( )  log 2 ( ) 0.940  I (3,2)  0.694
14 14 14 14 14
age pi ni I(pi, ni) 5
<=30 2 3 0.971 I ( 2,3)means “age <=30” has 5 out of
14
14 samples, with 2 yes’es and 3
31…40 4 0 0
>40 3 2 0.971 no’s. Hence
age
<=30
income student credit_rating
high no fair
buys_computer
no
Gain (age)  Info ( D )  Infoage ( D)  0.246
<=30 high no excellent no
31…40 high no fair yes
>40 medium no fair yes Similarly,
>40 low yes fair yes

Gain(income)  0.029
>40 low yes excellent no
31…40 low yes excellent yes
<=30 medium no fair no
<=30
>40
low
medium
yes fair
yes fair
yes
yes
Gain( student )  0.151
Gain(credit _ rating )  0.048
<=30 medium yes excellent yes
31…40 medium no excellent yes
31…40 high yes fair yes
>40 medium no excellent no 14
 Computing Information-Gain for
Continuous-Valued Attributes
 Let attribute A be a continuous-valued attribute
 Must determine the best split point for A
 Sort the value A in increasing order
 Typically, the midpoint between each pair of adjacent values
is considered as a possible split point
 (ai+ai+1)/2 is the midpoint between the values of ai and ai+1
 The point with the minimum expected information
requirement for A is selected as the split-point for A
 Split:
 D1 is the set of tuples in D satisfying A ≤ split-point, and D2 is
the set of tuples in D satisfying A > split-point
15
Gain Ratio for Attribute Selection (C4.5)
 Information gain measure is biased towards attributes with a
large number of values
 C4.5 (a successor of ID3) uses gain ratio to overcome the
problem (normalization to information gain)
v | Dj | | Dj |
SplitInfoA ( D)    log 2 ( )
j 1 |D| |D|
 GainRatio(A) = Gain(A)/SplitInfo(A)
 Ex.

 gain_ratio(income) = 0.029/1.557 = 0.019

 The attribute with the maximum gain ratio is selected as the
splitting attribute
16
Gini Index (CART, IBM IntelligentMiner)
 If a data set D contains examples from n classes, gini index,
gini(D) is defined as n 2
gini( D)  1  p j
j 1
where pj is the relative frequency of class j in D
 If a data set D is split on A into two subsets D1 and D2, the gini
index gini(D) is defined as
|D1| |D |
gini A ( D)  gini( D1)  2 gini( D2)
|D| |D|
 Reduction in Impurity:
gini( A)  gini(D)  giniA (D)
 The attribute provides the smallest ginisplit(D) (or the largest
reduction in impurity) is chosen to split the node (need to
enumerate all the possible splitting points for each attribute)
17
 Computation of Gini Index
 Ex. D has 9 tuples in buys_computer = “yes”
2
and
2
5 in “no”
9 5
gini( D)  1        0.459
 14   14 
 Suppose the attribute income partitions D into 10 in D1: {low,
medium} and 4 in D2 giniincome{low,medium} ( D)   10 Gini( D1 )   4 Gini( D2 )
 14   14 

Gini{low,high} is 0.458; Gini{medium,high} is 0.450. Thus, split on the

{low,medium} (and {high}) since it has the lowest Gini index
 All attributes are assumed continuous-valued
 May need other tools, e.g., clustering, to get the possible split
values
 Can be modified for categorical attributes 18
 Comparing Attribute Selection Measures

 The three measures, in general, return good results but

 Information gain:
 biased towards multivalued attributes
 Gain ratio:
 tends to prefer unbalanced splits in which one partition is
much smaller than the others
 Gini index:
 biased to multivalued attributes
 has difficulty when # of classes is large
 tends to favor tests that result in equal-sized partitions
and purity in both partitions
19
 Overfitting and Tree Pruning
 Overfitting: An induced tree may overfit the training data
 Too many branches, some may reflect anomalies due to

noise or outliers
 Poor accuracy for unseen samples

 Two approaches to avoid overfitting

 Prepruning: Halt tree construction early ̵ do not split a node

if this would result in the goodness measure falling below a

threshold
 Difficult to choose an appropriate threshold

 Postpruning: Remove branches from a “fully grown” tree—

get a sequence of progressively pruned trees

 Use a set of data different from the training data to

decide which is the “best pruned tree”

20
Enhancements to Basic Decision Tree Induction

 Allow for continuous-valued attributes

 Dynamically define new discrete-valued attributes
that partition the continuous attribute value into a
discrete set of intervals
 Handle missing attribute values
 Assign the most common value of the attribute
 Assign probability to each of the possible values

21
Chapter 8. Classification: Basic Concepts

 Classification: Basic Concepts

 Decision Tree Induction
 Bayes Classification Methods
 Model Evaluation and Selection
 Summary

22
 Bayesian Classification: Why?
 A statistical classifier: performs probabilistic prediction, i.e.,
predicts class membership probabilities
 Foundation: Based on Bayes’ Theorem.
 Performance: A simple Bayesian classifier, naïve Bayesian
classifier, has comparable performance with decision tree and
selected neural network classifiers
 Incremental: Each training example can incrementally
increase/decrease the probability that a hypothesis is correct —
prior knowledge can be combined with observed data
 Standard: Even when Bayesian methods are computationally
intractable, they can provide a standard of optimal decision
making against which other methods can be measured
23
 Bayes’ Theorem: Basics
M
 Total probability Theorem: P(B)   P(B | A )P( A )
i i
i 1

 Bayes’ Theorem: P(H | X)  P(X | H )P(H )  P(X | H ) P(H ) / P(X)

P(X)
 Let X be a data sample (“evidence”): class label is unknown
 Let H be a hypothesis that X belongs to class C
 Classification is to determine P(H|X), (i.e., posteriori probability): the
probability that the hypothesis holds given the observed data sample X
 P(H) (prior probability): the initial probability
 E.g., X will buy computer, regardless of age, income, …

 P(X): probability that sample data is observed

 P(X|H) (likelihood): the probability of observing the sample X, given that
the hypothesis holds
 E.g., Given that X will buy computer, the prob. that X is 31..40,

medium income
24
 Prediction Based on Bayes’ Theorem
 Given training data X, posteriori probability of a hypothesis H,
P(H|X), follows the Bayes’ theorem

P(H | X)  P(X | H )P(H )  P(X | H ) P(H ) / P(X)

P(X)
 Informally, this can be viewed as
posteriori = likelihood x prior/evidence
 Predicts X belongs to Ci iff the probability P(Ci|X) is the highest
among all the P(Ck|X) for all the k classes
 Practical difficulty: It requires initial knowledge of many
probabilities, involving significant computational cost

25
Classification Is to Derive the Maximum Posteriori
 Let D be a training set of tuples and their associated class
labels, and each tuple is represented by an n-D attribute vector
X = (x1, x2, …, xn)
 Suppose there are m classes C1, C2, …, Cm.
 Classification is to derive the maximum posteriori, i.e., the
maximal P(Ci|X)
 This can be derived from Bayes’ theorem
P(X | C )P(C )
P(C | X)  i i
i P(X)
 Since P(X) is constant for all classes, only
P(C | X)  P(X | C )P(C )
i i i
needs to be maximized

26
 Naïve Bayes Classifier
 A simplified assumption: attributes are conditionally
independent (i.e., no dependence relation between
attributes): n
P( X | C i)   P( x | C i)  P( x | C i)  P( x | C i)  ...  P( x | C i)
k 1 2 n
k 1
 This greatly reduces the computation cost: Only counts the
class distribution
 If Ak is categorical, P(xk|Ci) is the # of tuples in Ci having value xk
for Ak divided by |Ci, D| (# of tuples of Ci in D)
 If Ak is continous-valued, P(xk|Ci) is usually computed based on
Gaussian distribution with a mean μ and standard deviation σ
( x )2
1 
g ( x,  ,  )  e 2 2
and P(xk|Ci) is 2 

P ( X | C i )  g ( xk ,  C i ,  Ci )
27
 Naïve Bayes Classifier: Training Dataset
age income studentcredit_rating
buys_compu
<=30 high no fair no
Class: <=30 high no excellent no
C1:buys_computer = ‘yes’ 31…40 high no fair yes
C2:buys_computer = ‘no’ >40 medium no fair yes
>40 low yes fair yes
Data to be classified: >40 low yes excellent no
31…40 low yes excellent yes
X = (age <=30,
<=30 medium no fair no
Income = medium, <=30 low yes fair yes
Student = yes >40 medium yes fair yes
Credit_rating = Fair) <=30 medium yes excellent yes
31…40 medium no excellent yes
31…40 high yes fair yes
>40 medium no excellent no
28
 Naïve Bayes Classifier: An Example age income studentcredit_rating
buys_comp
<=30 high no fair no
<=30 high no excellent no
31…40 high no fair yes

 P(Ci): P(buys_computer = “yes”) = 9/14 = 0.643 >40

>40
medium
low
no fair
yes fair
yes
yes
>40 low yes excellent no

P(buys_computer = “no”) = 5/14= 0.357 31…40

<=30
low
medium
yes excellent
no fair
yes
no
<=30 low yes fair yes
 Compute P(X|Ci) for each class >40
<=30
medium yes fair
medium yes excellent
yes
yes
31…40 medium no excellent yes
P(age = “<=30” | buys_computer = “yes”) = 2/9 = 0.222 31…40
>40
high
medium
yes fair
no excellent
yes
no

P(age = “<= 30” | buys_computer = “no”) = 3/5 = 0.6

P(income = “medium” | buys_computer = “yes”) = 4/9 = 0.444
P(income = “medium” | buys_computer = “no”) = 2/5 = 0.4
P(student = “yes” | buys_computer = “yes) = 6/9 = 0.667
P(student = “yes” | buys_computer = “no”) = 1/5 = 0.2
P(credit_rating = “fair” | buys_computer = “yes”) = 6/9 = 0.667
P(credit_rating = “fair” | buys_computer = “no”) = 2/5 = 0.4
 X = (age <= 30 , income = medium, student = yes, credit_rating = fair)
P(X|Ci) : P(X|buys_computer = “yes”) = 0.222 x 0.444 x 0.667 x 0.667 = 0.044
P(X|buys_computer = “no”) = 0.6 x 0.4 x 0.2 x 0.4 = 0.019
P(X|Ci)*P(Ci) : P(X|buys_computer = “yes”) * P(buys_computer = “yes”) = 0.028
P(X|buys_computer = “no”) * P(buys_computer = “no”) = 0.007
Therefore, X belongs to class (“buys_computer = yes”) 29
 Avoiding the Zero-Probability Problem
 Naïve Bayesian prediction requires each conditional prob. be
non-zero. Otherwise, the predicted prob. will be zero
n
P( X | C i )   P( x k | C i )
k 1
 Ex. Suppose a dataset with 1000 tuples, income=low (0),
income= medium (990), and income = high (10)
 Use Laplacian correction (or Laplacian estimator)
 Adding 1 to each case

Prob(income = low) = 1/1003

Prob(income = medium) = 991/1003
Prob(income = high) = 11/1003
 The “corrected” prob. estimates are close to their

“uncorrected” counterparts
30
 Naïve Bayes Classifier: Comments
 Advantages
 Easy to implement

 Good results obtained in most of the cases

 Disadvantages
 Assumption: class conditional independence, therefore loss
of accuracy
 Practically, dependencies exist among variables

 E.g., hospitals: patients: Profile: age, family history, etc.

Symptoms: fever, cough etc., Disease: lung cancer,

diabetes, etc.
 Dependencies among these cannot be modeled by Naïve

Bayes Classifier
 How to deal with these dependencies? Bayesian Belief Networks
(Chapter 9)
31
Chapter 8. Classification: Basic Concepts

 Classification: Basic Concepts

 Decision Tree Induction
 Bayes Classification Methods
 Model Evaluation and Selection
 Summary

32
 Model Evaluation and Selection
 Evaluation metrics: How can we measure accuracy? Other
metrics to consider?
 Use validation test set of class-labeled tuples instead of
training set when assessing accuracy
 Methods for estimating a classifier’s accuracy:
 Holdout method, random subsampling
 Cross-validation
 Bootstrap
 Comparing classifiers:
 Confidence intervals
 Cost-benefit analysis and ROC Curves
33
 Classifier Evaluation Metrics: Confusion
Matrix
Confusion Matrix:
Actual class\Predicted class C1 ¬ C1
C1 True Positives (TP) False Negatives (FN)
¬ C1 False Positives (FP) True Negatives (TN)

Example of Confusion Matrix:

Actual class\Predicted buy_computer buy_computer Total
class = yes = no
buy_computer = yes 6954 46 7000
buy_computer = no 412 2588 3000
Total 7366 2634 10000

 Given m classes, an entry, CMi,j in a confusion matrix indicates

# of tuples in class i that were labeled by the classifier as class j
 May have extra rows/columns to provide totals
34
 Classifier Evaluation Metrics: Accuracy,
Error Rate, Sensitivity and Specificity
A\P C ¬C  Class Imbalance Problem:
C TP FN P
 One class may be rare, e.g.
¬C FP TN N
fraud, or HIV-positive
P’ N’ All
 Significant majority of the

 Classifier Accuracy, or negative class and minority of

recognition rate: percentage of the positive class
test set tuples that are correctly  Sensitivity: True Positive
classified recognition rate
Accuracy = (TP + TN)/All  Sensitivity = TP/P

 Error rate: 1 – accuracy, or  Specificity: True Negative

Error rate = (FP + FN)/All recognition rate

 Specificity = TN/N

35
 Classifier Evaluation Metrics:
Precision and Recall, and F-measures
 Precision: exactness – what % of tuples that the classifier
labeled as positive are actually positive

 Recall: completeness – what % of positive tuples did the

classifier label as positive?
 Perfect score is 1.0
 Inverse relationship between precision & recall
 F measure (F1 or F-score): harmonic mean of precision and
recall,

 Fß: weighted measure of precision and recall

 assigns ß times as much weight to recall as to precision

36
 Classifier Evaluation Metrics: Example

Actual Class\Predicted class cancer = yes cancer = no Total Recognition(%)

cancer = yes 90 210 300 30.00 (sensitivity
cancer = no 140 9560 9700 98.56 (specificity)
Total 230 9770 10000 96.40 (accuracy)

 Precision = 90/230 = 39.13% Recall = 90/300 = 30.00%

37
 Evaluating Classifier Accuracy:
Holdout & Cross-Validation Methods
 Holdout method
 Given data is randomly partitioned into two independent sets

 Training set (e.g., 2/3) for model construction

 Test set (e.g., 1/3) for accuracy estimation

 Random sampling: a variation of holdout

 Repeat holdout k times, accuracy = avg. of the accuracies

obtained
 Cross-validation (k-fold, where k = 10 is most popular)
 Randomly partition the data into k mutually exclusive subsets,
each approximately equal size
 At i-th iteration, use Di as test set and others as training set

 Leave-one-out: k folds where k = # of tuples, for small sized

data
 *Stratified cross-validation*: folds are stratified so that class
dist. in each fold is approx. the same as that in the initial data
38
 Chapter 8. Classification: Basic Concepts

 Classification: Basic Concepts

 Decision Tree Induction
 Bayes Classification Methods
 Model Evaluation and Selection
 Summary

39
 Summary (I)
 Classification is a form of data analysis that extracts models
describing important data classes.
 Effective and scalable methods have been developed for decision
tree induction, Naive Bayesian classification, rule-based
classification, and many other classification methods.
 Evaluation metrics include: accuracy, sensitivity, specificity,
precision, recall, F measure, and Fß measure.
 Stratified k-fold cross-validation is recommended for accuracy
estimation. Bagging and boosting can be used to increase overall
accuracy by learning and combining a series of individual models.

40
 Summary (II)

 Significance tests and ROC curves are useful for model selection.
 There have been numerous comparisons of the different
classification methods; the matter remains a research topic
 No single method has been found to be superior over all others
for all data sets
 Issues such as accuracy, training time, robustness, scalability,
and interpretability must be considered and can involve trade-
offs, further complicating the quest for an overall superior
method

41
 References (1)
 C. Apte and S. Weiss. Data mining with decision trees and decision rules. Future
Generation Computer Systems, 13, 1997
 C. M. Bishop, Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition. Oxford University Press,
1995
 L. Breiman, J. Friedman, R. Olshen, and C. Stone. Classification and Regression Trees.
Wadsworth International Group, 1984
 C. J. C. Burges. A Tutorial on Support Vector Machines for Pattern Recognition. Data
Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2(2): 121-168, 1998
 P. K. Chan and S. J. Stolfo. Learning arbiter and combiner trees from partitioned data
for scaling machine learning. KDD'95
 H. Cheng, X. Yan, J. Han, and C.-W. Hsu, Discriminative Frequent Pattern Analysis for
Effective Classification, ICDE'07
 H. Cheng, X. Yan, J. Han, and P. S. Yu, Direct Discriminative Pattern Mining for
Effective Classification, ICDE'08
 W. Cohen. Fast effective rule induction. ICML'95
 G. Cong, K.-L. Tan, A. K. H. Tung, and X. Xu. Mining top-k covering rule groups for
gene expression data. SIGMOD'05
42
 References (2)
 A. J. Dobson. An Introduction to Generalized Linear Models. Chapman & Hall, 1990.
 G. Dong and J. Li. Efficient mining of emerging patterns: Discovering trends and
differences. KDD'99.
 R. O. Duda, P. E. Hart, and D. G. Stork. Pattern Classification, 2ed. John Wiley, 2001
 U. M. Fayyad. Branching on attribute values in decision tree generation. AAAI’94.
 Y. Freund and R. E. Schapire. A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and
an application to boosting. J. Computer and System Sciences, 1997.
 J. Gehrke, R. Ramakrishnan, and V. Ganti. Rainforest: A framework for fast decision tree
construction of large datasets. VLDB’98.
 J. Gehrke, V. Gant, R. Ramakrishnan, and W.-Y. Loh, BOAT -- Optimistic Decision Tree
Construction. SIGMOD'99.
 T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data
Mining, Inference, and Prediction. Springer-Verlag, 2001.
 D. Heckerman, D. Geiger, and D. M. Chickering. Learning Bayesian networks: The
combination of knowledge and statistical data. Machine Learning, 1995.
 W. Li, J. Han, and J. Pei, CMAR: Accurate and Efficient Classification Based on Multiple
Class-Association Rules, ICDM'01.
43
 References (3)

 T.-S. Lim, W.-Y. Loh, and Y.-S. Shih. A comparison of prediction accuracy, complexity,
and training time of thirty-three old and new classification algorithms. Machine
Learning, 2000.
 J. Magidson. The Chaid approach to segmentation modeling: Chi-squared
automatic interaction detection. In R. P. Bagozzi, editor, Advanced Methods of
Marketing Research, Blackwell Business, 1994.
 M. Mehta, R. Agrawal, and J. Rissanen. SLIQ : A fast scalable classifier for data
mining. EDBT'96.
 T. M. Mitchell. Machine Learning. McGraw Hill, 1997.
 S. K. Murthy, Automatic Construction of Decision Trees from Data: A Multi-
Disciplinary Survey, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 2(4): 345-389, 1998
 J. R. Quinlan. Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning, 1:81-106, 1986.
 J. R. Quinlan and R. M. Cameron-Jones. FOIL: A midterm report. ECML’93.
 J. R. Quinlan. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.
 J. R. Quinlan. Bagging, boosting, and c4.5. AAAI'96.

44
 References (4)
 R. Rastogi and K. Shim. Public: A decision tree classifier that integrates building and
pruning. VLDB’98.
 J. Shafer, R. Agrawal, and M. Mehta. SPRINT : A scalable parallel classifier for data
mining. VLDB’96.
 J. W. Shavlik and T. G. Dietterich. Readings in Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann,
1990.
 P. Tan, M. Steinbach, and V. Kumar. Introduction to Data Mining. Addison Wesley,
2005.
 S. M. Weiss and C. A. Kulikowski. Computer Systems that Learn: Classification and
Prediction Methods from Statistics, Neural Nets, Machine Learning, and Expert
Systems. Morgan Kaufman, 1991.
 S. M. Weiss and N. Indurkhya. Predictive Data Mining. Morgan Kaufmann, 1997.
 I. H. Witten and E. Frank. Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and
Techniques, 2ed. Morgan Kaufmann, 2005.
 X. Yin and J. Han. CPAR: Classification based on predictive association rules. SDM'03
 H. Yu, J. Yang, and J. Han. Classifying large data sets using SVM with hierarchical
clusters. KDD'03.
45