Mining Partially Periodic Event Patterns with Unknown Periods
Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Data Engineering
Mining Asynchronous Periodic Patterns in Time Series Data
IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering
Efficient Mining of Partial Periodic Patterns in Time Series Database
ICDE '99 Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Data Engineering
Instantaneous offloading of web server load
Instantaneous offloading of web server load
Capacity planning tools for web and grid environments
valuetools '06 Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Performance evaluation methodolgies and tools
Discovering Periodic-Frequent Patterns in Transactional Databases
PAKDD '09 Proceedings of the 13th Pacific-Asia Conference on Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
Efficient Periodicity Mining in Time Series Databases Using Suffix Trees
IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering
Finding longest approximate periodic patterns
WADS'11 Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Algorithms and data structures
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Given ε∈[0, 1), the ε-Relative Error Periodic Pattern Problem (REPP) is the following: INPUT: An n-long sequence S of numbers si∈ℕ in increasing order. OUTPUT: The longest ε-relative error periodic pattern, i.e., the longest subsequence $s_{i_1}, s_{i_2},\ldots, s_{i_k}$ of S, for which there exists a number p such that the absolute difference between any two consecutive numbers in the subsequence is at least p and at most p(1+ε). The best known algorithm for this problem has O(n3) time complexity. This bound is too high for large inputs in practice. In this paper we give a new algorithm for finding the longest ε-relative error periodic pattern (the REPP problem). Our method is based on a transformation of the input sequence into a different representation: the ε-active maximal intervals listL, defined in this paper. We show that the transformation of S to the list L can be done efficiently (quadratic in n and linear in the size of L) and prove that our algorithm is linear in the size of L. This enables us to prove that our algorithm works in sub-cubic time on inputs for which the best known algorithm works in O(n3) time. Moreover, though it may happen that our algorithm would still be cubic, it is never worse than the known O(n3)-algorithm and in many situations its complexity is O(n2) time.