Pattern Mining from big IoT Data with fog Computing: Models, Issues, and Research Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As we are living in the era of big data, huge volumes of a wide variety of complex data-which can be of different levels of veracity-are generated or collected at a high velocity from rich sources of data in various real-life applications. A rich source of these big data sources is the Internet of Things (IoT), which include a collection of sensors, smartphones and other mobile devices, wearable devices, as well as other "things" that are capable to operate within the existing Internet infrastructure. Embedded in these big data are valuable knowledge and useful information. Hence, the research problem of data mining from big IoT data have drawn attention of many researchers as it aims to discover implicit, previously unknown and potentially useful information and knowledge from the data. For instance, frequent pattern mining finds sets of frequently co-occurring items in the IoT domains. Associative classification discovers rules revealing relationships among items within the frequent patterns and their associations with the corresponding class labels. Induction based classification uses decision tree or random forest to learn from old big IoT for classifying or making predictions on new data. Over the past quarter of a century, many serial, distributed, parallel, and MapReduce-based (Hadook-based and Spark-based) big data mining algorithms have been proposed. These algorithms are run in local computers, distributed and parallel environments, clusters, grids, clouds and/or data centers. In this paper, we review some of these algorithms, discuss issues and research prospective in mining classification patterns from these big IoT data in fog. Our case study on a real-life application shows the feasibility on classifying real-life big IoT data over fog for urban analytics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".