Monday 07 February 2005 Lecture: Interstingness

Silberschatz & Tuzhilin

Actionable & Unexpected makes for interestingness

possibly: unexpectedness is roughly equivalent to actionability

unexpectedness as a criteria for interestingness is uninteresting

valid
understandable
novel
-->interestingness<--


Are there uninteresting facts that arise that somehow might cause beliefs to change? Or a lack of facts, can they cause beliefs to change?



the data vs the processing of it?

this statement is either trivial or false


terms change? terms must stay the same

statements

what is my confidence factor that all birds can fly? my confidence is low but some birds can fly
unexpectedness roughly equivalent

confidence factor & CYC: assign confidence associated with facts


Rational agency:
http://www.ryerson.ca/~dgrimsha/courses/cps720/rational.html


expected data returned
but
beliefs change


something between data and belief that seems absent form the discussion in the paper
there must be some sort of representation in between that converts data to belief that might be rational and might convert expected data into new beliefs
e.g., we might be able to test for significance

understanding was somewhat removed; a telltale sign is this elimination of the intermediary between the receipt of data and the formulation of belief

throw in data that is wildly aberrant & witness change?
unexpected data witness belief changes

monoitor belief changes, see if enough data is out there

what's better? monotinicity is conserved or maximally rejected?

reaction essay for every paper?....


(x/y)
correctly classified/incorrectly classified


homework:
pick a UCI dataset that starts with the same letter as your first name, if not, then last name
explore different classification algos within the WEKA toolkit
email Cathy the decision tree + 1 more classifier