MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4229516452 · doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-818-7.ch804

Pattern Discovery as Event Association

2011· book-chapter· en· W4229516452 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueMachine Learning · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueData Management and Algorithms
Établissements canadiensPattern Discovery Technologies (Canada)University of Waterloo
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEvent (particle physics)Association (psychology)Task (project management)Binary numberMathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsArithmeticPsychologyPhysics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A basic task of machine learning and data mining is to automatically uncover <b>patterns</b> that reflect regularities in a data set. When dealing with a large database, especially when domain knowledge is not available or very weak, this can be a challenging task. The purpose of <b>pattern discovery</b> is to find non-random relations among events from data sets. For example, the “exclusive OR” (XOR) problem concerns 3 binary variables, A, B and C=A<img src="http://resources.igi-global.com/Marketing/Preface_Figures/x_symbol.png">B, i.e. C is true when either A or B, but not both, is true. Suppose not knowing that it is the XOR problem, we would like to check whether or not the occurrence of the compound event [A=T, B=T, C=F] is just a random happening. If we could estimate its frequency of occurrences under the random assumption, then we know that it is not random if the observed frequency deviates significantly from that assumption. We refer to such a compound event as an event association pattern, or simply a <b>pattern</b>, if its frequency of occurrences significantly deviates from the default random assumption in the statistical sense. For instance, suppose that an XOR database contains 1000 samples and each primary event (e.g. [A=T]) occurs 500 times. The expected frequency of occurrences of the compound event [A=T, B=T, C=F] under the independence assumption is 0.5×0.5×0.5×1000 = 125. Suppose that its observed frequency is 250, we would like to see whether or not the difference between the observed and expected frequencies (i.e. 250 – 125) is significant enough to indicate that the compound event is not a random happening.<div><br></div><div>In statistics, to test the correlation between random variables, <b>contingency table</b> with chi-squared statistic (Mills, 1955) is widely used. Instead of investigating variable correlations, pattern discovery shifts the traditional correlation analysis in statistics at the variable level to association analysis at the event level, offering an effective method to detect statistical association among events.</div><div><br></div><div>In the early 90’s, this approach was established for second order event associations (Chan & Wong, 1990). A higher order <b>pattern discovery</b> algorithm was devised in the mid 90’s for discrete-valued data sets (Wong & Yang, 1997). In our methods, patterns inherent in data are defined as statistically significant associations of two or more primary events of different attributes if they pass a statistical test for deviation significance based on <b>residual analysis</b>. The discovered high order patterns can then be used for classification (Wang & Wong, 2003). With continuous data, events are defined as Borel sets and the pattern discovery process is formulated as an optimization problem which recursively partitions the sample space for the best set of significant events (patterns) in the form of high dimension intervals from which probability density can be estimated by Gaussian kernel fit (Chau & Wong, 1999). Classification can then be achieved using Bayesian classifiers. For data with a mixture of discrete and continuous data (Wong & Yang, 2003), the latter is categorized based on a global optimization discretization algorithm (Liu, Wong & Yang, 2004). As demonstrated in numerous real-world and commercial applications (Yang, 2002), pattern discovery is an ideal tool to uncover subtle and useful patterns in a database. </div><div><br></div><div>In pattern discovery, three open problems are addressed. The first concerns learning where noise and uncertainty are present. In our method, noise is taken as inconsistent samples against statistically significant patterns. Missing attribute values are also considered as noise. Using a standard statistical <b>hypothesis testing</b> to confirm statistical patterns from the candidates, this method is a less ad hoc approach to discover patterns than most of its contemporaries. The second problem concerns the detection of polythetic patterns without relying on exhaustive search. Efficient systems for detecting monothetic patterns between two attributes exist (e.g. Chan & Wong, 1990). However, for detecting polythetic patterns, an exhaustive search is required (Han, 2001). In many problem domains, polythetic assessments of feature combinations (or higher order relationship detection) are imperative for robust learning. Our method resolves this problem by directly constructing polythetic concepts while screening out non-informative pattern candidates, using statisticsbased heuristics in the discovery process. The third problem concerns the representation of the detected patterns. Traditionally, if-then rules and graphs, including networks and trees, are the most popular ones. However, they have shortcomings when dealing with multilevel and multiple order patterns due to the non-exhaustive and unpredictable hierarchical nature of the inherent patterns. We adopt <b>attributed hypergraph</b> (AHG) (Wang & Wong, 1996) as the representation of the detected patterns. It is a data structure general enough to encode information at many levels of abstraction, yet simple enough to quantify the information content of its organized structure. It is able to encode both the qualitative and the quantitative characteristics and relations inherent in the data set.<br></div>

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,962
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,219
Écart entre enseignants0,207 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle