![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Subscribe]
DM: Re: DM Datamining Definition & UEA MSc & chaid questionFrom: K. Burn-Thornton Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:20:09 -0000
Tony,
what about the definition that George (Smith) used a few years ago
in his literature?.......Data Mining finds novel, valid, potentailly useful
and ultimately understandable patterns in mountains of data...........
K. Burn-Thornton
----- Original Message -----
>From Tony Bagnall <ajb@sys.uea.ac.uk>
To <datamine-l@nautilus-sys.com>
Sent 23 March 2000 1811
Subject Re DM Datamining Definition & UEA MSc & chaid question
> I'm sorry, I missed the initial reference to the knowledge extraction MSc,
> but I'll happily try to clarify the course content and give my opinions on
> what data mining is (which may differ from the rest of the research
groups!)
>
>
> At 1729 22/03/00 -0800, you wrote
> >Somebody posted the URL for an MSc in knowledge extraction from U East
> >Anglia the other day. The web site says, "extracting hidden knowledge
from
> >larger data bases". Would this Msc in knowledge extraction be necessarily
> >different from an MSc in data mining?
>
> I've always thought data mining was a misnomer. We don't actually mine FOR
> data in the way that you mine for gold or coal. Generally we have plenty
of
> data and we mine for patterns/knowledge in that data. I would say
> personally that knowledge extraction is closer to the true description of
> what we are trying to achieve.
>
> >If we go with such a broad term then data mining/knowledge extraction
> >becomes synonymous with machine learning does it not? Would an Msc in
> >machine learning then be the same as an Msc in data extraction?
>
> I'm not responsible for the course, but I know that it is definitely not
> equivalent to an MSc in machine learning, primarily because of the major
> statistical element to the course. We attempt to present the material from
> two sides the statistical approach to exploratory data analysis and the
> machine learning approach to data mining, and we try to highlight areas of
> obvious cross over (well, I do. I gave some lectures on Chaid and Bayesian
> networks last semester). Most (but not all) of the students are working
> in industry, particularly in insurance, and their bosses tend to be keen
on
> a high stats content. I think it presents a much rounder picture of the
> possible methods of approaching a problem than a pure machine learning
> course, but I would say that wouldn't I (see my job description below).
> Essentially I view the exploratory data analysis techniques used in stats
> as attempting to achieve pretty much the same tasks as the machine
learning
> methods used in data mining.
>
>
> The web page is at
> http//www.sys.uea.ac.uk/PGStudy/mscke.html
> the data mining groups page is at
> http//www.sys.uea.ac.uk/kdd
> There is a glossy brochure we can send you. Feel free to mail me with any
> queries about our courses or our research or you can go straight to the
top
> to Professor Rayward-Smith vjrs@sys.uea.ac.uk
>
> Tony Bagnall
> Lecturer in Statistics for Data Mining
> School of Information Systems/ School of Mathematics
> University of East Anglia
>
> http//www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~ajb/
>
> btw, as I'm posting, I sent a CHAID query to the list some time ago but
got
> no response. It was a bit involved, but I'll post it again just in case
>
> hi,
>
> I was hoping someone could answer a few related questions about CHAID and
> KS
>
> 1. CHAID if final groupings from two or more predictors are found to be
> significant, how does CHAID choose between them? I couldn't extract this
> info for the Kaas 1980 paper (although it may be there). My guess would be
> it chooses the predictor with the lowest p value, but this isnt completely
> obvious, since if for example a predictor has a p of 0.0004 and a
> Bonferroni adjusted threshold of 0.02, is it worse than a predictor with a
> p of 0.00035 and a Bonferroni adjusted threshold of 0.0004, or should the
p
> values by adjusted by the Bonferroni as well as the significance levels?
>
>
> 2. KS Again the question relates to how to choose between predictors for
> which a significant category grouping has been found. The Biggs et al 1991
> paper says
> "the significance level at which the 'best' k-way split of the 'best'
> variable should be tested is ..."
> which implies to me the predictors are ranked by their p values then a
> level is calculated. However, comments in the manual made me doubt this
and
> my initial assumption about CHAID Page 166 manual
> "as the predictor variables are ranked according to their significance
> level, it is important that the calculated levels not favour one variable
> over another"
> which seems to be saying KS takes the (significant) predictor with the
> lowest upper bound as calculated by alpha/N_Bv*N_Bc
> (e.g. P_1 has p of 0.00035 and a Bonferroni adjusted threshold of 0.02,
P_2
> a p of 0.009 and a Bonferroni adjusted threshold of 0.01, choose P_2)
>
> 3. Another KS question about the adjusters. When in cluster mode, does it
> use the CHAID Bonferroni adjusters (as implied in the manual) or the KS
> adjuster? If it uses the CHAID adjusters, does anyone know why (especially
> after spending pages explaining how they can favour monotonic etc)?
>
>
> thanks very much for any help, I appologise if the explanation is actually
> staring me in the face
>
> Tony Bagnall
> (bogged down in the detail)
>
>
>
>
|
MHonArc 2.2.0