skip to main content
10.1145/3405962.3405990acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswimsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Concept Drift Detection on Data Stream for Revising DBSCAN Cluster

Authors Info & Claims
Published:24 August 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Data stream mining of IoT data can help operators immediately isolate causes of equipment alarms. The challenge, however, is how to keep the classifiers high-purity (i.e., keep data of the same class in the right cluster) while dealing with the concept drifting ascribed to differences between alarm models and entities. We propose continuously revising the classification model in accordance with the data distribution and trend changes. Evaluations showed there was no purity deterioration for oscillation condition data with a drifting rate of 1%. This result demonstrates that our approach can help operators improve their decision making.

References

  1. C. C. Aggarwal, J. Han, J. Wang, and P. S. Yu. 2003. A Framework for Clustering Evolving Data Streams. In Proceedings of Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB '03). Berlin, Germany, 81--92.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. M. Ankerst, M. M. Breunig, H. P. Kriegel, and J. Sander. 1999. OPTICS: Ordering Points to Identify the Clustering Structure. In Proceedings on ACM Conferrence on Management of Data. Pennsylvania, USA, 49--60.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. D. Arthur and S. Vassilvitskii. 2007. K-means+ +: The Advantages of Careful Seeding. In Proceedings of ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 1027--1035.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. J. L. Bentley. 1975. Multidimensional Binary Search Trees Used for Associative Searching. Communication of the ACM 18, 9 (Sept. 1975), 509--517.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. F. Cao, M. Estert, W. Qian, and A. Zhou. 2006. Density-Based Clustering over an Evolving Data Stream with Noise. In Proceedings of SIAM Conference on Data Mining. Maryland, USA, 325--377.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. W. Colglazier. 2015. Sustainable Development Agenda: 2030. Science 349, 6252 (2015), 1048--1050.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. M. Deepa, P. Ravanthy, and P. Student. 2012. Validation of Document Clustering based on Purity and Entropy measures. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication Engineering 1, 3 (2012), 147--152.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. M. Ester, H. P. Kriegel, J. Sander, M. Wimmer, and X. Xu. 1998. Incremental Clustering for Mining in a Data Warehousing Environment. In Proceedings of Conference on Very Large Data Bases. California, USA, 323--333.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. M. Ester, H. P. Kriegel, J. Sander, and X. Xu. 1996. A Density-Based Algorithm for Discovering Clusters in Large Spatial Databases with Noise. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Oregon, USA, 226--231.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Gama, I. Žliobaitė, A. Bifet, and M. Pechenizkiy. 2014. A Survey on Concept Drift Adaptation. ACM Journal of Computing Surveys 46, 4 (2014), 1--37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. J. Gan and Y. Tao. 2015. DBSCAN Revisited: Mis-Claim, Un-Fixability, and Approximation. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Management of Data. Victoria, Australia, 519--530.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. K. Iwano, Y. Kimura, Y. Takashima, S. Bannai, and N. Yamada. 2017. Future Services & Societal Systems in Society 5.0. Workshop Report (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Janardan and S. Mehta. 2017. Concept drift in Streaming Data Classification: Algorithms, Platforms and Issues. Procedia Computer Science 122 (2017), 804--811.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. J. Leskovec, A. Rajaraman, and J. D. Ullman. 2014. Mining of Massive Datasets (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, England.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. D. Puschmann, P. Barnaghi, and R. Tafazolli. 2017. Adaptive Clustering for Dynamic IoT Data Streams. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 4, 1 (2017), 64--74.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. C.J. Rhodes. 2016. The 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference: COP21. Science Reviews 2000 Ltd. 99, 1 (2016), 97--104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. M. Szechtman, L. A. S. Pilotto, W. W. Ping, E. Salgado, A. R. C. Dias de Carvalho, W. F. Long, F. L. Alvarado, C. L. DeMarco, and C. A. Cañizares. 1994. DC Multiinfeed Study. Technical Report. Electric Power Research Institute.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Concept Drift Detection on Data Stream for Revising DBSCAN Cluster

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      WIMS 2020: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics
      June 2020
      279 pages
      ISBN:9781450375429
      DOI:10.1145/3405962

      Copyright © 2020 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 24 August 2020

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      WIMS 2020 Paper Acceptance Rate35of63submissions,56%Overall Acceptance Rate140of278submissions,50%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader