AI and Robotics

Oct 15, 2013 (4 years and 8 months ago)

134 views

1

STUDY MATERIAL

Subject

: Data Mining

Staff

: Usha.P

Class : III B.Sc(CS
-
B)

Semester : V

UNIT
-
V:
Rule Representations

Frequent Item sets and Association Rules

Generalizations

Finding Episodes from Sequences

Selective Discovery of Patterns and Rules

From
Local Patterns to Global Models

Predictive Rule Induction. Retrieval by Content:
Introdu
ction

Evaluation of Retrieval Systems
-

Text Retrieval

Modeling Individual
Preferences. Image Retrieval

Time Series and Sequential Retrieval.

The problem of finding useful patterns and rules from large data sets. Recall that a
pattern is a local co
ncept, telling us something about a particular aspect of the data, while a
model can be thought of as giving a full description of the data
.

Rule Representations

A
rule
consists of a left
-
hand side proposition (the antecedent or condition) and a
right

hand

side (the consequent), e.g., "If it rains then the ground will be wet." Both the left

and right
-
hand sides consist of Boolean (true or false) statements (or propositions) about

the world. The rule states that if the left
-
hand side is true, then the ri
ght
-
hand side is also

true.

A
probabilistic rule
modifies this defi
nition so that the right
-
hand side is true with

Probability

p
, given that the left
-
hand side is true

the probability
p
is simply the
conditional
probability of the right
-
hand side being tr
ue gi
ven the left
-
hand side is true.
Rules have a long
history as a knowledge representation

and artificial
intelligence. Rules can also be relatively e
asy for humans to interpret (at
least relatively small
sets of rules are)

and, as such,

have been found to be a useful
interpretable knowledge from data i
n machine learning research. In
fact, classification tree
learning can be thought of as a special case of learning a set of rules: the conditions at t
he
nodes along the path to each
leaf can be considered a conjunction of statements that
make up
the left
-
hand side of a
rule, and the class label assignment at the leaf node prov
ides the right
-
hand side of the
rule.

Frequent Item sets and Association Rules

Association rules

provide a very simple but

useful form of rule patterns for data mining.
Consider again an artificial example of 0/1

data (an "indicator matrix") shown in figure 13.1.
The rows represent the transactions of

individual customers (in, for ex
ample, a "market
basket" of items that were purchased

together), and the columns represent the items in the
store
.

A 1 in location (
i, j
) indicates that customer
i
purchased item
j
, and a 0 indicates that
that item was not purchased.

2

[htb]

A

B

C

D

E

T1

1

0

0

0

0

T2

1

1

1

1

0

T3

1

0

1

0

1

T4

0

0

1

0

0

T5

0

1

1

1

0

T6

1

1

1

0

0

T7

1

0

1

0

1

T8

0

1

1

0

1

T9

1

0

0

1

0

T10

1

0

0

1

0

Figure 13.1:
An Artificial Example of Basket Data.

We are
interested in finding useful rules from such data. Given a set of 0,1 valued

observations over variables
A
1
, ...,
A
p
, an association rule has the form

Given a set of 0
, 1

valued observations over variables
A
1, ...,
Ap
, an association rule has the
form

where 1 =
ij
=
p
for all
j
. Such an association rule can be written more briefly as
.

A pattern such as

is called an
itemset
. Thus, association rules can be viewed as rules of the form ? ? ?
,
where ?
is an itemset pattern and ? is an itemset

pattern c
onsisting of a single conjunct.
We could also
allow conjunctions on the right
-
hand side of
rules, but for simplicity we do
not.

The framework of association rules was originally developed for large sparse
transaction data sets. The concept can be directly generalized to non
-
binary variables taking a
finite number of values, although we will not do so here (for simplicity of notatio
n). Given an
itemset pattern ?, its
frequency fr
(?) is the number of cases in the data that satisfy ?. Note that
the frequency ƒ
r
(? ? ? ) is sometimes referred to as the
support
. Given an association rule ? ?
? , its
accuracy c
(? ? ? ) (also sometimes refe
rred to as the
confidence
) is the fraction of rows
that satisfy ? among those rows that satisfy ?, i.e.

,

3

Finding Frequent Sets and Association Rules

methods for finding association rules from large 0/1 matrices.For

document applications, a typical input data set might have 105 to 108 data rows, and 102 to
106 variables. These matrices are often quite sparse, since the number of 1s in any given row
is typically very small, e.g., with 0.1% or le
ss chance of finding a 1 in any given entry in the
matrix.

The task in association rule discovery is to find all rules fulfilling given pre
-
specified
frequency and accuracy criteria. This task might seem a little daunting, as there is an
exponential numbe
r of potential frequent sets in the number of variables of the data, and that
number tends to be quite large in, say, market basket applications. Fortunately, in real data
sets it is the typical case that there will be relatively few frequent sets (for exa
mple, most
customers will buy only a small subset of the overall universe of products).

If the data set is large enough, it will not fit into main memory. Thus we aim at methods that
read the data as few times as possible. Algorithms to find association r
ules from data
typically divide the problem into two parts:

first find the frequent itemsets

form the rules from the frequent sets.

If the frequent sets are known, then finding association rules is simple. If a rule
X
?
B

has frequency at least
s
, then
the set
X
must by definition have frequency at least
s
.
Thus, if all frequent sets are known, we can generate all rules of the form
X
?
B
, where
X
is
frequent, and evaluate the accuracy of each of the rules in a single pass through the data.

A trivial method for finding frequent sets would be to compute the frequency of all
subsets, but obviously that is too slow. The key observation is that a set
X
of variables can be
frequent only if all the subsets of
X
are frequent. This means that we do n
ot have to find the
frequency of any set
X
that has a non
-
frequent proper subset. Therefore, we can find all
frequent sets by first finding all frequent sets consisting of 1 variable. Assuming these are
known, we build candidate sets of size 2: sets {
A, B
}

such that {
A
} is frequent and {
B
} is
frequent. After building the candidate sets of size 2, we find by

looking at the data which of
them are really frequent. This gives the frequent sets of size 2. From these, we can build
candidate sets of size 3, whose
frequency is then computed from the data, and so on. As an
algorithm, the method is as follows.

i
= 0;

Ci
= {{
A
} |
A
is a variable };

while
Ci
is not empty
do

database pass:

for each set in
Ci
, test whether it is frequent;

let
Li
be the collection of frequent sets from
Ci
;

candidate formation:

let
Ci
+1 be those sets of size
i
+ 1

whose all subsets are frequent;

End.

4

This method is known as the APriori algorithm. Two issues remain to be solved: how
are the candidates formed? and h
ow is the frequency of each candidate computed? The first
problem is easy to solve in a satisfactory manner. Suppose we have a collection
Li
of frequent
sets, and we want to find all sets
Y
of size
i
+ 1 that possibly can be frequent; that is, all sets
Y
w
hose all proper subsets are frequent. This can be done by finding all pairs {
U, V
} of sets
from
Li
such that the union of
U
and
V
has size
i
+ 1, and then testing whether the union
really is a potential candidate. There are fewer than |
Li
|2 pairs of sets i
n
Li
, and for each one
of them we have to check whether |
Li
| other sets are present. The worst
-
case complexity is
approximately cubic in the size of
Li
. In practice the method usually runs in linear time with
respect to the size of
Li
, since there are ofte
n only a few overlapping elements in
Li
. Note that
candidate formation is independent of the number of records
n
in the actual data.

There exist many variants of the basic association rule algorithm. The methods typically
strive toward one or more of the
following three goals:

minimizing the number of passes through the data

minimizing the number of candidates that have to be inspected

minimizing the time needed for computing the frequency of individual candidates

Another important way of speeding up the computation of frequent sets is to use
sampling. Since we are interested in finding patterns describing large
subgroups, that are

patterns having frequency higher than a given threshold, it is clear that just using
a sample
instead of the whole data set will give a fairly good approximation for the collection of
frequent sets and their frequencies. A sample can also be used to obtain a method that with
high probability needs only two passes through the data. First, c
ompute from the sample the
collection of frequent sets
F
using a threshold that is slightly lower than the one given by
the user. Then compute the frequencies in the whole data set of each set in
F
. This produces
the exact answer to the problem of finding
the frequent sets in the whole data set, unless
there is a set
Y
of variables that was not frequent in the sample but all of whose subsets
turned out to be frequent in the whole data set; in this case, we have to make an extra pass
through the database.

F
inding Episodes from Sequences

Another

application of the general idea of finding association

rules: we describe
algorithms for finding
episodes
from sequences.

Given a set of
E
of
event types
, an
event sequence
S

is a sequence of pairs (
e, t
),
where
e
(
-

E
and
t
is an integer, the occurrence time of the event of type
e
. An
episode
a is a
partial order of event types, such as the ones shown in figure 13.2
. Episodes can be
viewed as
graphs.

Episodes a, ß, and
.

5

The method is based on the same general

idea as the association rule algorithms: the

frequencies of patterns are computed by starting from
the simplest possible patterns.
New
candidate patterns are built using the information f
rom previous passes through the
data, and
a pattern is not considere
d if any of its subpatterns is not frequent

enough. The
main
difference compared to the algorithms outlined in th
e previous sections is that the
conjunctive
structure of episodes is not as obvious.

An episode ß is defined as a
subepisode
of an episode a

if all the nodes of ß occur also

in a and if all the relationships between the nodes in

ß are also present in a. Using graph
theoretic terminology, we can say that ß is an in
duced subgraph of a. We write ß
? a if ß is a
subepisode of a, and ß ? a if ß ? a

and ß ? a.

Given a set
E
of event types, an event sequence s over
E
, a set e of episodes, a window width
win
,
and a frequency threshold
min_fr
, the following algorithm computes the collection
FE
(
s
,
win, min_fr
)
of frequent episodes.

C
1
:= {a

e ||a| =
1};

l
:= 1;

while
C
l
?
f
do

/* Database pass: */

compute
F
l
:= {a

C
l
|
fr
(a, s,
win
)
=
min_fr
};

l
:=
l
+ 1;

/* Candidate generation: */

compute
C
l
:= {a

e ||a| =
l
and for all ß

e such that ß
?
a

and |ß| <
l
we have ß

F
|ß|
};

end
;

for
all
l
do
output
F
l
;

Selective Discovery of Patterns and Rules

Introduction

The previous sections discussed methods that are used to find all rules of a certain
type that fulfill

simple frequency and accuracy criteria. While this task is useful in several
applications, there are also simple and important classes of patterns for which we definitely
do not want to see all th
e

patterns. Consider, for example, a data set having variab
les with
continuous values.

All of this means that the search for patterns has to be pruned in addition to the use of
frequency criteria. The pruning is typically done using two criteria:

1. interestingness: whether a discovered pattern is sufficiently i
nt
eresting
to be output;

2. promise: whether a discovered patter
n has a potentially interesting specialization.

Note that a pattern can be promising even though it is no
t interesting. A simple
example is any pattern
that is true of all the data objects:

it i
s not interesting, but some
specialization of it can be. Interestingness can be quant
ified in various ways using the
frequency and accuracy of the pattern as well as background knowledge.

6

Heuristic Search for Finding Patterns

Assume we have a way
of defining the interestingness and promise of a pattern, as well as a
way of pruning. Then a generic heuristic search algorithm for finding interesting

patterns can be formulated as follows.

C
= { the most general pattern };

while
C
? f
do

E
= all
suitable selected specializations of

elements of
C
;

for
q
Î
E
do

if
q
satisfies the interestingness criteria
then
output
q
;

if
q
is not promising
then
q
else
retain
q

End;

E
;

End;

C
=
E
;

end;

As instantiations of this algorithm,

we get several more or less familiar methods:

1. Assume patterns are sets of variables,

and define the interestingness
and promise of an
itemset
X
both by the predicate
fr
(
X
) > s. Do no
is in
principle the same as
the
algorithm for finding association rules.

2. Suppose the

patterns are rules of the form
a1 ? ... ? a
k
?
ß,
where a
i
and ß are conditions of
the form
X
=
c, X
<
c
, or
X
>
c
for a variable
X

and a constant
c
. Let the interestingnes
s
criterion be that the rule is
statistically significant in some sense and let th
e promise criteria
be trivially
true. The additional pruning step retains only one rule from
E
, the one with the

highest statistical significance. This gives us a
hill
-
climbi
ng search for a rule
with the highest
statistical significance. (Of

course, significance cannot be
interpreted in a properly formal
sense here

because of the large number of
interrelated tests.)

3. Suppose the interestingness criterion is

that the rule is
statistically
significant, the promise
test is trivially t
retains the
K
rules whose significan
ce is the
the case for
K
= 1; an arbitrary
K
gives us
beam search
.

Criteria for Interestingness

In the
previous sections we referred to measures of interestingness for rules. Given a

rule ? ? ? , its interestingness can be defined in m
any ways. Typically, background
knowledge
about the variables referred to in the patterns ? and ?
have great influence in
th
e
interestingness of the rule. For example, in a credit s
coring data set we might decide
beforehand that rules connecting the month of birth and cr
edit score are not interesting.
Or, in
a market basket database, we might say that the

interest in a rule is
directly
proportional to
the frequency of the rules multiplied by th
e prices of the items mentioned
in the product, that
is, we would be more interested
in rules of high frequency that
connect expensive items.
Generally, there is no single
method for autom
atically taking
background knowledge into
account, and rule discove
ry systems need to make it easy
for the user to use such application
-
dependent criteria for interestingness.

7

From Local Patterns to Global Models

Given a collection of patterns occurring
in the data, is there a way of forming a global

model using the patterns? In this section we briefly outl
ine two ways of doing this.

The first method forms a decision list or rule set for a classification task,

second method constructs an approximation of
the probability distribution
using the frequencies of the patterns.

Let
B
be, for simplicity, a binary variable and suppose that we have a discovered a

collection of rules of the form ?
i
?
B
= 1 and ?
i
?
B
=
0. How would we form a decision
list
for finding

out or predicting the value of
B
? (A decision list for variable
B
is an ordered
list of
rules of the form ?
i
?
B
=
bi
, where ?
i
is a pattern and
bi
is a possible value of
B
.) The
accuracy of such a decision list can be defined as the

fraction of rows for which the
list gives
the correct prediction. The optimal decisio
n list could be constructed, in
principle at least, by
considering all possible orderings of
the rules and checking for each
one that produces the
best solution. However,

this wou
ld take exponential time in the
number of rules. A relatively
good approximation can be
obtained by viewing the problem
as a weighted set cover task and
using the greedy algorithm

Predictive Rule Induction

In this chapter we have so far focused p
rimarily on association rules and similar rule

Formalisms. We began the chapter with a general definiti
on of a rule, and we now return
to
this framework. Recall that we can interpret each branc
h of a classification tree as a
rule,
where the internal nodes
on the path from the root to t
he leaf define the terms in the
conjunctive left
-
hand side of the rule and the class label assigned to the leaf is the right

hand

side. For classification problems the right
-
hand side of the rule will be of the form
C
=
ck
,
w
ith a particular value being predicted for the class variable
C
.

Thus, we can consider our classification tree as consisting of a
set of rules
. This set
has

some rather specific properties

namely, it forms a mutually exclusive (disjoint) and

Exhaustive p
artition of the space of input variables. In this manner, any observation
x
will
be
classified by one and only one rule (namely the br
anch defining the region within
which it
lies). The set of rules is said to "cover"
the input space in this manner.
We can

see that it may
be worth considering rule sets which are more general than tree

structured
rule sets. The tree
representation can be particularly inefficient (for exa
mple)
at representing disjunctive
Boolean functions. For ex
ample, consider the disjunctiv
e
mapping defined by (
A
= 1 ?
B
= 1)
V (
D
= 1 ?
E
= 1) ?
C
= 1 (and where
C
= 0
otherwise). We can represent this quite
efficiently via the two rules (
A
= 1 ?
B
= 1) ?
C

= 1 and (
D
= 1 ?
E
= 1) ?
C
= 1. A tree
represent
ation of the same mapping would
neces
sarily involve a specific single root
-
node
variable for all branches (e.g.,
A
) even
though this variable is relevant to only part of the
mapping.

Retrieval by Content

Introduction

In a database context, the traditional notion of a query i
s well defined, as an operation
that returns a set of records (or entities) that
exactly match a set of required
specifications. An
example of such a query in a personnel database would be [level =

MANAGER] AND [age <
8

30], which (presumabl
y) would return a

list of young
employees with significant
nal database management systems have been designed to provide
answers to such precise queries efficiently as discussed
.

T
here are many instances, particularly in data analysis, in which we
are

interested in more
general, but less precise, queries. Con
sider a medical context, with a
patient for whom we
have demographic information (s
uch as age, sex, and so forth),
results from blood tests and
other routine physical te
sts, as well as biomedica
l time
series and X
-
ray images. To assist in
the diagnosis of this
patient, a physician would like
to know whether the hospital's database
contains any simila
r patients, and if so, what the
diagnoses, treatments, and outcomes were
for each. The di
fficult p
art of this problem is
determining
similarity
among patients based on
different data types (here, mul
tivariate,
time series and image data). However, the notion of

an exact match is not directly
relevant here, since it is highly unlikely that any other pat
ient
will match this particular
patient exactly in terms of measurements.

Examples of such queries might be

searching historical records of the Dow Jones index for past occurrences of a

particular time series pattern,

searching a database of satellite
images of the earth for any images which

contain
evidence of recent volcano eruptions in Central America,

Searching the Internet for online documents that provide reviews of

restaurants in
Helsinki.

Evaluation of Retrieval Systems

The Difficulty of
Evaluating Retrieval Performance

In classification and regression the performance of a model can always be ju
dged in
an
objective manner by empirically estimating the accuracy
of the model (or more generally
its loss) on unseen test data. This makes comp
a
risons of different models and
algorithms
straightforward.

For retrieval by content, however, the problem of evaluating the performance of a

particular retrieval algorithm or technique is more
complex and subtle. The primary
difficulty
is that the ultimate

measure of a retrieval sys
tem's performance is determined by the
usefulness of the retrieved information to the user.

Thus, retrieval performance in
a real
-
world situation is inherently subjective (again, i
n contrast to classification or
regression).
Retr
ieval is a human
-
centered, i
nteractive process, which makes
performance evaluation
difficult.

Precision and Recall in Practice

Precision
-
recall evaluations have been particularly popular in text retrieval research,

although in principle the methodology is applicable to retrieval of any data type. The Text
Retrieval Conferences (TREC) are an example of a large
-
scale precision
-
recall evaluation
experiment, held roughly annually by the U.S. National Institute of Standa
rds and
Technology (NIST). A number of gigabyte
-
sized text data sets are used, consisting of roughly
1 million separate documents (objects) indexed by about 500 terms on average. A significant
9

practical problem in this context is the evaluation of relevanc
e, in particular determining the
total number of relevant documents (for a given query
Q
) for the calculation of recall. With
50 different queries being used, this would require each human judge to supply on the order
of 50 million class labels! Because of

the large number of participants in the TREC
conference (typically 30 or more), the TREC judges restrict their judgments to the set
consisting of the union of the top 100 documents returned by each participant, the assumption
being that this set typically

contains almost all of the relevant documents in the collection.
Thus, only a few thousand relevance judgments need to be made rather than tens of millions.

More generally, determining recall can be a significant practical problem. For
example, in the ret
rieval of documents on the Internet it can be extremely difficult to
accurately estimate the total number of potentially available relevant documents. Sampling
techniques can in principle be used, but, combined with the fact that subjective human
judgment
is involved in determining relevance in the first place, precision
-
recall experiments
on a large
-
scale can be extremely nontrivial to carry out.

Text Retrieval

Retrieval of text
-
based information has traditionally been termed information retrieval
(IR)

and has recently become a topic of great interest with the advent of text search engines

on the Internet. Text is considered to be composed of two fundamental units, namely the

document
and the
term
. A
document
onal document such as a book
or
journal
paper, but more

generally is used as a name for

any structured segment of text
such as
chapters, sections, paragraphs, or e
ven e
-
mail messages, Web pages,
computer source code,
and so forth. A
term
can be a word
, word
-
pair, or phrase within a
do
cument, e.g., the word
data or word
-
pair data mining
.

text queries
are specified as sets of terms. Although documents
will

usually be much longer than queries, it is convenient to think of a single representation

language that we can
use to represent both documen
ts and queries. By representing
both in a
unified manner, we can begin to think of direc
tly computing distances between
queries and
documents, thus providing a framework wit
hin which to directly implement
simple text
retrieval
algorithms
.

Representation of Text

Much research in text

retrieval focuses on finding general
representations
for documents that
support both

the capability to retain as much of the semantic content of the data as

possible, and

the

computation of distance measures between queries and documents

in an efficient
manner.

A user who is using a text retrieval system (such as a search engine on the Web) wants

to retrieve documents that are relevant to his or her need
s in terms of semantic content.
At a
fundamental level, this requires solving a long
-
standing problem in artificial
intelligence,
namely,
natural language processing
(NL
P), or the ability to program a computer to
"understand" text data in the sense that it

c
an map the ascii letters of the text into some well
-
defined semantic representation. In
its general unconstrained form,
this has been found to be
an extremely challenging problem.
Polysemy
(the same word
having several different
meanings) and
synonmy
(se
veral

different ways to describe the
same thing) are just two of the
factors that make automat
ed understanding of text rather
difficult. Thus, perhaps not
10

surprisingly, NLP techniques (which try to explicitly model and

extract the semantic content
of a doc
ument) are not th
e mainstay of most practical IR
systems in use today; i.e., practical
retrieval systems do no
t typically contain an explicit
model of the meaning of a document.

Image Retrieval

Image and video data sets are increasingly common, from
the hobbyist who stores
digital
images of family birthdays to organizations such as NA
SA and military agencies that
gather and archive remotely sensed images of the earth o
n a continuous basis. Retrieval
by
content is particularly appealing in this context

as the number of images becomes large.
Manual
annotation of images is time
-
consuming, s
ubjective, and may miss certain
characteristics of the image depending on the specifi
c viewpoint of the annotator. A
picture
may be worth a thousand words, but which th
ousa
nd words to use is a nontrivial
problem!

Thus, there is considerable motivation to develop efficient and accurate query
-
by
-
content

algorithms for image databases, i.e., to develop interacti
ve systems that allow a user
to
issue queries such as "find th
e K most similar images to this query image" or "find the K

images which best match this set of image properties."

Potential applications of such
algorithms are numerous: searching for similar diagnost
relevant stock footage

art, and fashion.

Image Understanding

Querying image data comes with an important caveat. Finding images that are similar
to

each other is in a certain sense equivalent to solving
the general image understanding
problem, namely the problem of extracting semantic content f
rom image data. Humans
excel
at this. However, several decades of research in p
attern recognition and computer
vision have
clearly shown that the performance of hum
ans in visual understanding and
recognition is
extremely difficult to replicate with computer algorithms.

Image Representation

For retrieval purposes, the original pixel data in an image can be abstracted to a
feature

representation. The features are typ
ically expressed in te
rms of primitives such as
color
and texture features. As with text documents, the origi
nal images are converted into a
more standard data matrix format where each row (object
) represents a particular image
and
each column (variable) r
epresents an image featur
e. Such feature representations
are typically
more robust to changes in scale and tr
anslation than the direct pixel
measurements, but
nonetheless may be invariant to
only small changes in lighting,

Typically the features for the images in the image database are precomputed and stored

for use in retrieval. Distance calculations and retrieval are thus
carried out in
multidimensional
feature space. As with text, the original pixel data is reduced to a standard
N

×
p
data matrix, where each image is now represented as a
p
-
dimensional vector in
feature
space.

11

Image Queries

As with text data, the nature of the abstracted representati
on for images (i.e., the

computed features) critically determines what types of que
ry and retrieval operations can
be
performed. The feature representation provides a
language for query formulation.
Queries can
be expressed in two basic forms. In query

by
example we provide a sample
image of what we
are looking for, or sketch the shape of t
he object of interest. Features are then computed for
the example image, and the compu
ted feature vector of the query is then matched to the
precomputed database of featu
re ve
ctors. Alternatively, the query
can be expressed directly in
terms of the feature representa
tion itself, e.g., "Find images
that are 50% red in color and
contain a texture with spec
ific directional and coarseness
properties." If the query is
expressed

in terms of only a sub
set of the features (e.g., only
color features are specified in
the query), only that subset of features is used in the

distance calculations.

Time Series and Sequence Retrieval

The problem of efficiently and accurately locating
patterns of interest in time series
and

sequence data sets is an important and nontrivi
al problem in a wide variety of
applications, including diagnosis and monitoring of c
omplex systems, biomedical data
analysis, and exploratory data analysis in scientifi
c and

include

finding customers whose spending patterns over time are similar to a given

spending
profile;

searching for similar past examples of unusual current sensor signals for
real time

monitoring and fault diagnosis of
complex systems such as aircraft;

noisy matching of substrings in protein sequences.

Sequential data can be considered to be the one
-
dimensional analog to two
-
dimensional

image data.
Time series
data are perhaps the m
ost well
-
known example, where a
sequence of
observations is measured over time, such t
hat each observation is indexed
by a time variable
t
. These measurements are often made at

fixed time intervals, so that
without loss of
generality
t
can be treated as an integer taking values from 1 to

T
. The
measurements at each
time
t
can be multivar
iate (rather than just a single
measurement), such as (for example) the
daily closing stock prices of a
set
of individual
stocks. Time series data are measured across a
wide varie
ty of applications, in are
as as
diverse as economics, biomedicine, ecology,
atmospheric and ocean science, co
ntrol
engineering, and signal processing.

The notion of
sequential data
is more general than time series data in the sense that the

sequence need not necessarily be a
function of time
. For example, in computational
biology,
proteins are indexed by sequential
position
in a

protein sequence. (Text could,
of course, be
considered as just another form of sequenti
al data; however, it is usually
treated as a separa
te
data typ
e in its own right.)
As with image and text data, it is now commonplace to store large
ar
chives of sequential
data sets. For example, several thousand sensors of
each NASA Space
Shuttle mission
are archived once per second during the duration of
each missi
on. With each
mission
lasting several days, this is an enormous repository of data (on th
e order of 10 Gbytes
per mission, with order
of 100 missions flown to date).
Retrieval in this context can be stated
as follows:

find the subsequence that best
matches

a given query sequence
Q
. For example,
for t
he Shuttle archive, an engineer
might observe a potentially anomalous sensor behavior
12

(expressed as a short query

sequence
Q
) in real time and wish to determine wh
ether similar
observed in past

missions.

Global Models for Time Series Data

Structure and Shape in Time Series

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:

1.

Explain detail in
Nature of Data Sets

2.

The interacting roles of Statistics and Data mining
-
Dredging, Snooping and Fishing

3.

Explain:

Types of measurement

4.

Explain:
Tools for Displaying single variables

5.

Explain: Multi
-
dimensional

scaling

6.

Explain in detail about Hypothesis Testing

7.

Types of

sampling Methods.

8.

CART algorithm for Building Tree Classifiers

9.

Explain different
Score Functions for
Data Mining Algorithms

10.

Explain detail in Robust Methods.

11.

Explain Search Optimization method.

12.

Explain Stochastic Search and optimizing Techniques.

13.

Explain EM Algorithm.

14.

Relational Databases and different Manipulating Tables

15.

Explain
Data

warehousing and On
-
Line Analytical Processing (OLAP)

16.

Explain rules and pattern representations.

17.

Explain From Local Patterns to Global Models
.

18.

Explain detail in
-

Text Retrieval.

19.

Explain detail in Image Retrieval
.

20.

Explain different types of Time Series and

Sequential Retrieval.