4.5 Article

caSPiTa: mining statistically significant paths in time series data from an unknown network

期刊

KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
卷 65, 期 6, 页码 2347-2374

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s10115-022-01800-7

关键词

Pattern mining; Statistically sound pattern mining; Time series; Graph mining

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the problem of mining statistically significant paths in time series data generated by an unknown underlying network. The challenge lies in the fact that the underlying network is unknown, making it impossible to directly identify such paths. The researchers propose caSPiTa, an algorithm that considers a generative null model based on meaningful characteristics of the observed dataset to efficiently mine large sets of significant paths while ensuring guarantees on false positives.
The mining of time series data has applications in several domains, and in many cases the data are generated by networks, with time series representing paths on such networks. In this work, we consider the scenario in which the dataset, i.e., a collection of time series, is generated by an unknown underlying network, and we study the problem of mining statistically significant paths, which are paths whose number of observed occurrences in the dataset is unexpected given the distribution defined by some features of the underlying network. A major challenge in such a problem is that the underlying network is unknown, and, thus, one cannot directly identify such paths. We then propose caSPiTa, an algorithm to mine statistically significant paths in time series data generated by an unknown and underlying network that considers a generative null model based on meaningful characteristics of the observed dataset, while providing guarantees in terms of false discoveries. Our extensive evaluation on pseudo-artificial and real data shows that caSPiTa is able to efficiently mine large sets of significant paths, while providing guarantees on the false positives.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据