Databases Reference
In-Depth Information
Naıve Rules Do Not Consider Underlying
Causality
Lawrence J. Mazlack
Applied Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0030, USA
mazlack@uc.edu
Summary.
Naıve association rules may result if the underlying causality of the
rules is not considered. The greatest impact on the decision value quality of associ-
ation rules may come from treating association rules as causal statements without
understanding whether there is, in fact, underlying causality. A complete knowl-
edge of all possible factors (i.e., states, events, constraints) might lead to a crisp
description of whether an effect will occur. However, it is unlikely that all possible
factors can be known. Commonsense understanding and reasoning accepts impreci-
sion, uncertainty and imperfect knowledge. The events in an event/effect complex
may be incompletely known; as well as, what constraints and laws the complex is
subject to. Usually, commonsense reasoning is more successful in reasoning about
a few large-grain sized events than many fine-grained events. A satisficing solution
would be to develop large-grained solutions and only use the finer-grain when the
impreciseness of the large-grain is unsatisfactory.
1 Introduction
One of the cornerstones of data mining is the development of association rules.
Association rules greatest impact is in helping to make decisions. One measure
of the quality of an association rule is its relative decision value. Association
rules are often constructed using simplifying assumptions that lead to naıve
results and consequently naıve and often wrong decisions. Perhaps the great-
est area of concern about the decision value is treating association rules as
causal statements without understanding whether there is, in fact, underlying
causality.
Causal reasoning occupies a central position in human reasoning. It plays
an essential role in human decision-making. Considerable effort over thousands
of years has been spent examining causation. Whether causality exists at
all or can be recognized has long been a theoretical speculation of scientists
and philosophers. Serious questions have been asked whether commonsense
perceptions of the world match the underlying reality. They run from the
implications of Zeno's paradox [42] and Plato's cave [23] to Einstein's relativity
L.J. Mazlack:
Naıve Rules Do Not Consider Underlying Causality
, Studies in Computational
