Mining Association Rules

in Large Databases
Association rule mining
Mining single-dimensional Boolean association
rules from transactional databases
Mining multilevel association rules from
transactional databases
Mining multidimensional association rules from
transactional databases and data warehouse
From association mining to correlation analysis
Constraint-based association mining
Summary
Multiple-Level Association
Rules
Items often form hierarchy.
Items at the lower level are
expected to have lower
support.
Rules regarding itemsets at
appropriate levels could be
quite useful.
Transaction database can be
encoded based on
dimensions and levels
We can explore shared multi-
level mining
Food
bread milk
skim
Sunset Fraser
2% white wheat
TID Items
T1 {111, 121, 211, 221}
T2 {111, 211, 222, 323}
T3 {112, 122, 221, 411}
T4 {111, 121}
T5 {111, 122, 211, 221, 413}
Mining Multi-Level
Associations
A top_down, progressive deepening approach:
First find high-level strong rules:
milk bread [20%, 60%].
Then find their lower-level weaker rules:
2% milk wheat bread [6%, 50%].
Variations at mining multiple-level association
rules.
Level-crossed association rules:
2% milk Wonder wheat bread
Association rules with multiple, alternative
hierarchies:
2% milk Wonder bread
Multi-level Association: Uniform
Support vs. Reduced Support
Uniform Support: the same minimum support for all levels
+ One minimum support threshold. No need to examine itemsets
containing any item whose ancestors do not have minimum
support.
Lower level items do not occur as frequently. If support
threshold
too high miss low level associations
too low generate too many high level associations
Reduced Support: reduced minimum support at lower
levels
There are 4 search strategies:
Level-by-level independent
Level-cross filtering by k-itemset
Level-cross filtering by single item
Controlled level-cross filtering by single item
Uniform Support
Multi-level mining with uniform support
Milk
[support = 10%]
2% Milk
[support = 6%]
Skim Milk
[support = 4%]
Level 1
min_sup = 5%
Level 2
min_sup = 5%
Reduced Support
Multi-level mining with reduced support
2% Milk
[support = 6%]
Skim Milk
[support = 4%]
Level 1
min_sup = 5%
Level 2
min_sup = 3%
Milk
[support = 10%]
Multi-level Association:
Redundancy Filtering
Some rules may be redundant due to ancestor
relationships between items.
Example
milk wheat bread [support = 8%, confidence = 70%]
2% milk wheat bread [support = 2%, confidence = 72%]
We say the first rule is an ancestor of the second
rule.
A rule is redundant if its support is close to the
expected value, based on the rules ancestor.
Multi-Level Mining:
Progressive Deepening
A top-down, progressive deepening approach:
First mine high-level frequent items:
milk (15%), bread (10%)
Then mine their lower-level weaker frequent
itemsets:
2% milk (5%), wheat bread (4%)
Different min_support threshold across multi-
levels lead to different algorithms:
If adopting the same min_support across multi-
levels
then loss t if any of ts ancestors is infrequent.
If adopting reduced min_support at lower levels
then examine only those descendents whose ancestors
support is frequent/non-negligible.
Progressive Refinement of
Data Mining Quality
Why progressive refinement?
Mining operator can be expensive or cheap, fine or rough
Trade speed with quality: step-by-step refinement.
Superset coverage property:
Preserve all the positive answersallow a positive false test but
not a false negative test.
Two- or multi-step mining:
First apply rough/cheap operator (superset coverage)
Then apply expensive algorithm on a substantially reduced
candidate set (Koperski & Han, SSD95).
Progressive Refinement
Mining of Spatial
Association Rules
Hierarchy of spatial relationship:
g_close_to: near_by, touch, intersect, contain, etc.
First search for rough relationship and then refine it.
Two-step mining of spatial association:
Step 1: rough spatial computation (as a filter)
Using MBR or R-tree for rough estimation.
Step2: Detailed spatial algorithm (as refinement)
Apply only to those objects which have passed the rough
spatial association test (no less than min_support)
Mining Association Rules
in Large Databases
Association rule mining
Mining single-dimensional Boolean association
rules from transactional databases
Mining multilevel association rules from
transactional databases
Mining multidimensional association rules from
transactional databases and data warehouse
From association mining to correlation analysis
Constraint-based association mining
Summary
Multi-Dimensional Association:
Concepts
Single-dimensional rules:
buys(X, milk) buys(X, bread)
Multi-dimensional rules: 2 dimensions or
predicates
Inter-dimension association rules (no repeated predicates)
age(X,19-25) . occupation(X,student) buys(X,coke)
hybrid-dimension association rules (repeated predicates)
age(X,19-25) . buys(X, popcorn) buys(X, coke)
Categorical Attributes
finite number of possible values, no ordering among
values, also called nominal.
Quantitative Attributes
numeric, implicit ordering among values
Techniques for Mining
MD Associations
Search for frequent k-predicate set:
Example: {age, occupation, buys} is a 3-predicate set.
Techniques can be categorized by how age are treated.
1. Using static discretization of quantitative attributes
Quantitative attributes are statically discretized by using
predefined concept hierarchies.
2. Quantitative association rules
Quantitative attributes are dynamically discretized into
binsbased on the distribution of the data.
3. Distance-based association rules
This is a dynamic discretization process that considers the
distance between data points.
Static Discretization of
Quantitative Attributes
Discretized prior to mining using concept hierarchy.
Numeric values are replaced by ranges.
In relational database, finding all frequent k-predicate sets will require
k or k+1 table scans.
Data cube is well suited for mining.
The cells of an n-dimensional
cuboid correspond to the
predicate sets.
Mining from data cubes
can be much faster.
(income) (age)
()
(buys)
(age, income) (age,buys) (income,buys)
(age,income,buys)
Quantitative Association
Rules
age(X,30-34) . income(X,24K -
48K)
buys(X,high resolution TV)
Numeric attributes are dynamically discretized
Such that the confidence or compactness of the rules mined is
maximized.
2-D quantitative association rules: A
quan1
. A
quan2
A
cat

Cluster adjacent
association rules
to form general
rules using a 2-D
grid.
Example:
ARCS (Association Rule Clustering
System)
How does ARCS work?

1. Binning

2. Find frequent
predicateset

3. Clustering

4. Optimize

Limitations of
ARCS
Only quantitative attributes on LHS of rules.
Only 2 attributes on LHS. (2D limitation)
An alternative to ARCS
Non-grid-based
equi-depth binning
clustering based on a measure of partial
completeness.
Mining Quantitative Association Rules in
Large Relational Tables by R. Srikant and R.
Agrawal.
Mining Distance-based
Association Rules
Binning methods do not capture the semantics of interval
data






Distance-based partitioning, more meaningful discretization
considering:
density/number of points in an interval
closeness of points in an interval
Price($)
Equi-width
(width $10)
Equi-depth
(depth 2)
Distance-
based
7 [0,10] [7,20] [7,7]
20 [11,20] [22,50] [20,22]
22 [21,30] [51,53] [50,53]
50 [31,40]
51 [41,50]
53 [51,60]
Mining Association Rules
in Large Databases
Association rule mining
Mining single-dimensional Boolean association
rules from transactional databases
Mining multilevel association rules from
transactional databases
Mining multidimensional association rules from
transactional databases and data warehouse
From association mining to correlation analysis
Constraint-based association mining
Summary
Interestingness Measurements
Objective measures
Two popular measurements:
support; and
confidence
Subjective measures (Silberschatz &
Tuzhilin, KDD95)
A rule (pattern) is interesting if
it is unexpected (surprising to the user); and/or
actionable (the user can do something with it)
Criticism to Support and
Confidence
Example 1: (Aggarwal & Yu, PODS98)
Among 5000 students
3000 play basketball
3750 eat cereal
2000 both play basket ball and eat cereal
play basketball eat cereal [40%, 66.7%] is misleading
because the overall percentage of students eating cereal is 75%
which is higher than 66.7%.
play basketball not eat cereal [20%, 33.3%] is far more
accurate, although with lower support and confidence

basketball not basketball sum(row)
cereal 2000 1750 3750
not cereal 1000 250 1250
sum(col.) 3000 2000 5000
Criticism to Support and
Confidence (Cont.)
Example 2:
X and Y: positively correlated,
X and Z, negatively related
support and confidence of
X=>Z dominates
We need a measure of dependent
or correlated events



P(B|A)/P(B) is also called the lift
of rule A => B
X 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Y 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Rule Support Confidence
X=>Y 25% 50%
X=>Z 37.50% 75%
) ( ) (
) (
,
B P A P
B A P
corr
B A

=
Other Interestingness Measures:
Interest
Interest (correlation, lift)
taking both P(A) and P(B) in consideration
P(A^B)=P(B)*P(A), if A and B are independent events
A and B negatively correlated, if the value is less than 1;
otherwise A and B positively correlated
) ( ) (
) (
B P A P
B A P .
X 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Y 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Itemset Support Interest
X,Y 25% 2
X,Z 37.50% 0.9
Y,Z 12.50% 0.57
Mining Association Rules
in Large Databases
Association rule mining
Mining single-dimensional Boolean association
rules from transactional databases
Mining multilevel association rules from
transactional databases
Mining multidimensional association rules from
transactional databases and data warehouse
From association mining to correlation analysis
Constraint-based association mining
Summary
Constraint-Based Mining
Interactive, exploratory mining giga-bytes of data?
Could it be real? Making good use of constraints!
What kinds of constraints can be used in mining?
Knowledge type constraint: classification, association,
etc.
Data constraint: SQL-like queries
Find product pairs sold together in Vancouver in Dec.98.
Dimension/level constraints:
in relevance to region, price, brand, customer category.
Rule constraints
small sales (price < $10) triggers big sales (sum > $200).
Interestingness constraints:
strong rules (min_support > 3%, min_confidence > 60%).
Rule Constraints in Association
Mining
Two kind of rule constraints:
Rule form constraints: meta-rule guided mining.
P(x, y) ^ Q(x, w) takes(x, database systems).
Rule (content) constraint: constraint-based query
optimization (Ng, et al., SIGMOD98).
sum(LHS) < 100 ^ min(LHS) > 20 ^ count(LHS) > 3 ^ sum(RHS) >
1000
1-variable vs. 2-variable constraints (Lakshmanan,
et al. SIGMOD99):
1-var: A constraint confining only one side (L/R) of the
rule, e.g., as shown above.
2-var: A constraint confining both sides (L and R).
sum(LHS) < min(RHS) ^ max(RHS) < 5* sum(LHS)
Constrain-Based Association
Query
Database: (1) trans (TID, Itemset ), (2) itemInfo (Item, Type, Price)
A constrained asso. query (CAQ) is in the form of {(S1, S2 )|C },
where C is a set of constraints on S1, S2 including frequency constraint
A classification of (single-variable) constraints:
Class constraint: S c A. e.g. S c Item
Domain constraint:
Su v, u e { =, =, <, s, >, > }. e.g. S.Price < 100
vu S, u is e or e. e.g. snacks e S.Type
Vu S, or Su V, u e { _, c, ., =, = }
e.g. {snacks, sodas } _ S.Type
Aggregation constraint: agg(S) u v, where agg is in {min, max, sum, count,
avg}, and u e { =, =, <, s, >, > }.
e.g. count(S1.Type) = 1 , avg(S2.Price) < 100
Constrained Association Query
Optimization Problem
Given a CAQ = { (S1, S2) | C }, the algorithm should be :
sound: It only finds frequent sets that satisfy the given
constraints C
complete: All frequent sets satisfy the given constraints C
are found
A nave solution:
Apply Apriori for finding all frequent sets, and then to
test them for constraint satisfaction one by one.
Our approach:
Comprehensive analysis of the properties of constraints
and try to push them as deeply as possible inside the
frequent set computation.
Anti-monotone and Monotone
Constraints
A constraint C
a
is anti-monotone iff. for
any pattern S not satisfying C
a
, none of
the super-patterns of S can satisfy C
a

A constraint C
m
is monotone iff. for any
pattern S satisfying C
m
, every super-
pattern of S also satisfies it
Succinct Constraint
A subset of item I
s
is a succinct set, if it can
be expressed as o
p
(I) for some selection
predicate p, where o is a selection operator
SP_2
I
is a succinct power set, if there is a
fixed number of succinct set I
1
, , I
k
_I, s.t.
SP can be expressed in terms of the strict
power sets of I
1
, , I
k
using union and minus
A constraint C
s
is succinct provided SAT
Cs
(I) is
a succinct power set

Convertible Constraint
Suppose all items in patterns are listed in a
total order R
A constraint C is convertible anti-monotone iff
a pattern S satisfying the constraint implies
that each suffix of S w.r.t. R also satisfies C
A constraint C is convertible monotone iff a
pattern S satisfying the constraint implies that
each pattern of which S is a suffix w.r.t. R
also satisfies C
Relationships Among
Categories of Constraints
Succinctness
Anti-monotonicity Monotonicity
Convertible constraints
Inconvertible constraints
Property of Constraints:
Anti-Monotone
Anti-monotonicity: If a set S violates the constraint, any
superset of S violates the constraint.
Examples:
sum(S.Price) s v is anti-monotone
sum(S.Price) > v is not anti-monotone
sum(S.Price) = v is partly anti-monotone
Application:
Push sum(S.price) s 1000 deeply into iterative
frequent set computation.
Characterization of
Anti-Monotonicity
Constraints
S u v, u e { =, s, > }
v e S
S _ V
S _ V
S = V
min(S) s v
min(S) > v
min(S) = v
max(S) s v
max(S) > v
max(S) = v
count(S) s v
count(S) > v
count(S) = v
sum(S) s v
sum(S) > v
sum(S) = v
avg(S) u v, u e { =, s, > }
(frequent constraint)
yes
no
no
yes
partly
no
yes
partly
yes
no
partly
yes
no
partly
yes
no
partly
convertible
(yes)
Example of Convertible
Constraints: Avg(S) u V
Let R be the value descending order
over the set of items
E.g. I={9, 8, 6, 4, 3, 1}
Avg(S) > v is convertible monotone
w.r.t. R
If S is a suffix of S
1
, avg(S
1
) > avg(S)
{8, 4, 3} is a suffix of {9, 8, 4, 3}
avg({9, 8, 4, 3})=6 > avg({8, 4, 3})=5
If S satisfies avg(S) >v, so does S
1

{8, 4, 3} satisfies constraint avg(S) > 4, so
does {9, 8, 4, 3}
Property of Constraints:
Succinctness
Succinctness:
For any set S1 and S2 satisfying C, S1 S2 satisfies C
Given A1 is the sets of size 1 satisfying C, then any set S
satisfying C are based on A1 , i.e., it contains a subset
belongs to A1 ,
Example :
sum(S.Price ) > v is not succinct
min(S.Price ) s v is succinct
Optimization:
If C is succinct, then C is pre-counting prunable. The
satisfaction of the constraint alone is not affected by the
iterative support counting.
Characterization of Constraints
by Succinctness
S u v, u e { =, s, > }
v e S
S _V
S _ V
S = V
min(S) s v
min(S) > v
min(S) = v
max(S) s v
max(S) > v
max(S) = v
count(S) s v
count(S) > v
count(S) = v
sum(S) s v
sum(S) > v
sum(S) = v
avg(S) u v, u e { =, s, > }
(frequent constraint)
Yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
weakly
weakly
weakly
no
no
no
no
(no)
Mining Association Rules
in Large Databases
Association rule mining
Mining single-dimensional Boolean association
rules from transactional databases
Mining multilevel association rules from
transactional databases
Mining multidimensional association rules from
transactional databases and data warehouse
From association mining to correlation analysis
Constraint-based association mining
Summary
Why Is the Big Pie Still There?
More on constraint-based mining of associations
Boolean vs. quantitative associations
Association on discrete vs. continuous data
From association to correlation and causal structure
analysis.
Association does not necessarily imply correlation or causal
relationships
From intra-trasanction association to inter-transaction
associations
E.g., break the barriers of transactions (Lu, et al. TOIS99).
From association analysis to classification and clustering
analysis
E.g, clustering association rules
Mining Association Rules
in Large Databases
Association rule mining
Mining single-dimensional Boolean association
rules from transactional databases
Mining multilevel association rules from
transactional databases
Mining multidimensional association rules from
transactional databases and data warehouse
From association mining to correlation analysis
Constraint-based association mining
Summary
Summary
Association rule mining
probably the most significant contribution from the
database community in KDD
A large number of papers have been published
Many interesting issues have been explored
An interesting research direction
Association analysis in other types of data: spatial
data, multimedia data, time series data, etc.
References
R. Agarwal, C. Aggarwal, and V. V. V. Prasad. A tree projection algorithm for generation
of frequent itemsets. In Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing (Special Issue on
High Performance Data Mining), 2000.
R. Agrawal, T. Imielinski, and A. Swami. Mining association rules between sets of items
in large databases. SIGMOD'93, 207-216, Washington, D.C.
R. Agrawal and R. Srikant. Fast algorithms for mining association rules. VLDB'94 487-499,
Santiago, Chile.
R. Agrawal and R. Srikant. Mining sequential patterns. ICDE'95, 3-14, Taipei, Taiwan.
R. J. Bayardo. Efficiently mining long patterns from databases. SIGMOD'98, 85-93, Seattle,
Washington.
S. Brin, R. Motwani, and C. Silverstein. Beyond market basket: Generalizing association
rules to correlations. SIGMOD'97, 265-276, Tucson, Arizona.
S. Brin, R. Motwani, J. D. Ullman, and S. Tsur. Dynamic itemset counting and implication
rules for market basket analysis. SIGMOD'97, 255-264, Tucson, Arizona, May 1997.
K. Beyer and R. Ramakrishnan. Bottom-up computation of sparse and iceberg cubes.
SIGMOD'99, 359-370, Philadelphia, PA, June 1999.
D.W. Cheung, J. Han, V. Ng, and C.Y. Wong. Maintenance of discovered association rules
in large databases: An incremental updating technique. ICDE'96, 106-114, New Orleans,
LA.
M. Fang, N. Shivakumar, H. Garcia-Molina, R. Motwani, and J. D. Ullman. Computing
iceberg queries efficiently. VLDB'98, 299-310, New York, NY, Aug. 1998.
References (2)
G. Grahne, L. Lakshmanan, and X. Wang. Efficient mining of constrained correlated sets.
ICDE'00, 512-521, San Diego, CA, Feb. 2000.
Y. Fu and J. Han. Meta-rule-guided mining of association rules in relational databases.
KDOOD'95, 39-46, Singapore, Dec. 1995.
T. Fukuda, Y. Morimoto, S. Morishita, and T. Tokuyama. Data mining using two-
dimensional optimized association rules: Scheme, algorithms, and visualization.
SIGMOD'96, 13-23, Montreal, Canada.
E.-H. Han, G. Karypis, and V. Kumar. Scalable parallel data mining for association rules.
SIGMOD'97, 277-288, Tucson, Arizona.
J. Han, G. Dong, and Y. Yin. Efficient mining of partial periodic patterns in time series
database. ICDE'99, Sydney, Australia.
J. Han and Y. Fu. Discovery of multiple-level association rules from large databases.
VLDB'95, 420-431, Zurich, Switzerland.
J. Han, J. Pei, and Y. Yin. Mining frequent patterns without candidate generation.
SIGMOD'00, 1-12, Dallas, TX, May 2000.
T. Imielinski and H. Mannila. A database perspective on knowledge discovery.
Communications of ACM, 39:58-64, 1996.
M. Kamber, J. Han, and J. Y. Chiang. Metarule-guided mining of multi-dimensional
association rules using data cubes. KDD'97, 207-210, Newport Beach, California.
M. Klemettinen, H. Mannila, P. Ronkainen, H. Toivonen, and A.I. Verkamo. Finding
interesting rules from large sets of discovered association rules. CIKM'94, 401-408,
Gaithersburg, Maryland.
References (3)
F. Korn, A. Labrinidis, Y. Kotidis, and C. Faloutsos. Ratio rules: A new paradigm for fast,
quantifiable data mining. VLDB'98, 582-593, New York, NY.
B. Lent, A. Swami, and J. Widom. Clustering association rules. ICDE'97, 220-231,
Birmingham, England.
H. Lu, J. Han, and L. Feng. Stock movement and n-dimensional inter-transaction
association rules. SIGMOD Workshop on Research Issues on Data Mining and
Knowledge Discovery (DMKD'98), 12:1-12:7, Seattle, Washington.
H. Mannila, H. Toivonen, and A. I. Verkamo. Efficient algorithms for discovering
association rules. KDD'94, 181-192, Seattle, WA, July 1994.
H. Mannila, H Toivonen, and A. I. Verkamo. Discovery of frequent episodes in event
sequences. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 1:259-289, 1997.
R. Meo, G. Psaila, and S. Ceri. A new SQL-like operator for mining association rules.
VLDB'96, 122-133, Bombay, India.
R.J. Miller and Y. Yang. Association rules over interval data. SIGMOD'97, 452-461,
Tucson, Arizona.
R. Ng, L. V. S. Lakshmanan, J. Han, and A. Pang. Exploratory mining and pruning
optimizations of constrained associations rules. SIGMOD'98, 13-24, Seattle, Washington.
N. Pasquier, Y. Bastide, R. Taouil, and L. Lakhal. Discovering frequent closed itemsets for
association rules. ICDT'99, 398-416, Jerusalem, Israel, Jan. 1999.
References (4)
J.S. Park, M.S. Chen, and P.S. Yu. An effective hash-based algorithm for mining
association rules. SIGMOD'95, 175-186, San Jose, CA, May 1995.
J. Pei, J. Han, and R. Mao. CLOSET: An Efficient Algorithm for Mining Frequent Closed
Itemsets. DMKD'00, Dallas, TX, 11-20, May 2000.
J. Pei and J. Han. Can We Push More Constraints into Frequent Pattern Mining? KDD'00.
Boston, MA. Aug. 2000.
G. Piatetsky-Shapiro. Discovery, analysis, and presentation of strong rules. In G.
Piatetsky-Shapiro and W. J. Frawley, editors, Knowledge Discovery in Databases, 229-
238. AAAI/MIT Press, 1991.
B. Ozden, S. Ramaswamy, and A. Silberschatz. Cyclic association rules. ICDE'98, 412-
421, Orlando, FL.
J.S. Park, M.S. Chen, and P.S. Yu. An effective hash-based algorithm for mining
association rules. SIGMOD'95, 175-186, San Jose, CA.
S. Ramaswamy, S. Mahajan, and A. Silberschatz. On the discovery of interesting
patterns in association rules. VLDB'98, 368-379, New York, NY..
S. Sarawagi, S. Thomas, and R. Agrawal. Integrating association rule mining with
relational database systems: Alternatives and implications. SIGMOD'98, 343-354,
Seattle, WA.
A. Savasere, E. Omiecinski, and S. Navathe. An efficient algorithm for mining
association rules in large databases. VLDB'95, 432-443, Zurich, Switzerland.
A. Savasere, E. Omiecinski, and S. Navathe. Mining for strong negative associations in a
large database of customer transactions. ICDE'98, 494-502, Orlando, FL, Feb. 1998.
References (5)
C. Silverstein, S. Brin, R. Motwani, and J. Ullman. Scalable techniques for mining
causal structures. VLDB'98, 594-605, New York, NY.
R. Srikant and R. Agrawal. Mining generalized association rules. VLDB'95, 407-419,
Zurich, Switzerland, Sept. 1995.
R. Srikant and R. Agrawal. Mining quantitative association rules in large relational
tables. SIGMOD'96, 1-12, Montreal, Canada.
R. Srikant, Q. Vu, and R. Agrawal. Mining association rules with item constraints.
KDD'97, 67-73, Newport Beach, California.
H. Toivonen. Sampling large databases for association rules. VLDB'96, 134-145,
Bombay, India, Sept. 1996.
D. Tsur, J. D. Ullman, S. Abitboul, C. Clifton, R. Motwani, and S. Nestorov. Query
flocks: A generalization of association-rule mining. SIGMOD'98, 1-12, Seattle,
Washington.
K. Yoda, T. Fukuda, Y. Morimoto, S. Morishita, and T. Tokuyama. Computing
optimized rectilinear regions for association rules. KDD'97, 96-103, Newport Beach,
CA, Aug. 1997.
M. J. Zaki, S. Parthasarathy, M. Ogihara, and W. Li. Parallel algorithm for discovery
of association rules. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 1:343-374, 1997.
M. Zaki. Generating Non-Redundant Association Rules. KDD'00. Boston, MA. Aug.
2000.
O. R. Zaiane, J. Han, and H. Zhu. Mining Recurrent Items in Multimedia with
Progressive Resolution Refinement. ICDE'00, 461-470, San Diego, CA, Feb. 2000.