Gwangbum Pyun, Unil Yun, Journal of Internet Computing and Services, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 101-108, Jun. 2014
10.7472/jksii.2014.15.3.101, Full Text:
Keywords: Landmark Window, Frequent pattern mining, Online mining, Performance Evaluation, scalability

Abstract

With the development of online service, recent forms of databases have been changed from static database structures to dynamic stream database structures. Previous data mining techniques have been used as tools of decision making such as establishment of marketing strategies and DNA analyses. However, the capability to analyze real-time data more quickly is necessary in the recent interesting areas such as sensor network, robotics, and artificial intelligence. Landmark window-based frequent pattern mining, one of the stream mining approaches, performs mining operations with respect to parts of databases or each transaction of them, instead of all the data. In this paper, we analyze and evaluate the techniques of the well-known landmark window-based frequent pattern mining algorithms, called Lossy counting and hMiner. When Lossy counting mines frequent patterns from a set of new transactions, it performs union operations between the previous and current mining results. hMiner, which is a state-of-the-art algorithm based on the landmark window model, conducts mining operations whenever a new transaction occurs. Since hMiner extracts frequent patterns as soon as a new transaction is entered, we can obtain the latest mining results reflecting real-time information. For this reason, such algorithms are also called online mining approaches. We evaluate and compare the performance of the primitive algorithm, Lossy counting and the latest one, hMiner. As the criteria of our performance analysis, we first consider algorithms' total runtime and average processing time per transaction. In addition, to compare the efficiency of storage structures between them, their maximum memory usage is also evaluated. Lastly, we show how stably the two algorithms conduct their mining works with respect to the databases that feature gradually increasing items. With respect to the evaluation results of mining time and transaction processing, hMiner has higher speed than that of Lossy counting. Since hMiner stores candidate frequent patterns in a hash method, it can directly access candidate frequent patterns. Meanwhile, Lossy counting stores them in a lattice manner; thus, it has to search for multiple nodes in order to access the candidate frequent patterns. On the other hand, hMiner shows worse performance than that of Lossy counting in terms of maximum memory usage. hMiner should have all of the information for candidate frequent patterns to store them to hash's buckets, while Lossy counting stores them, reducing their information by using the lattice method. Since the storage of Lossy counting can share items concurrently included in multiple patterns, its memory usage is more efficient than that of hMiner. However, hMiner presents better efficiency than that of Lossy counting with respect to scalability evaluation due to the following reasons. If the number of items is increased, shared items are decreased in contrast; thereby, Lossy counting's memory efficiency is weakened. Furthermore, if the number of transactions becomes higher, its pruning effect becomes worse. From the experimental results, we can determine that the landmark window-based frequent pattern mining algorithms are suitable for real-time systems although they require a significant amount of memory. Hence, we need to improve their data structures more efficiently in order to utilize them additionally in resource-constrained environments such as WSN(Wireless sensor network).

Statistics
Cite this article