skip to main content
10.1145/3093742.3093917acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdebsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Automatic Learning of Predictive CEP Rules: Bridging the Gap between Data Mining and Complex Event Processing

Authors Info & Claims
Published:08 June 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Due to the undeniable advantage of prediction and proactivity, many research areas and industrial applications are accelerating the pace to keep up with data science and predictive analytics. However and due to three well-known facts, the reactive Complex Event Processing (CEP) technology might lag behind when prediction becomes a requirement. 1st fact: The one and only inference mechanism in this domain is totally guided by CEP rules. 2nd fact: The only way to define a CEP rule is by writing it manually with the help of a human expert. 3rd fact: Experts tend to write reactive CEP rules, because and regardless of the level of expertise, it is nearly impossible to manually write predictive CEP rules. Combining these facts together, the CEP is---and will stay--- a reactive computing technique. Therefore in this article, we present a novel data mining-based approach that automatically learns predictive CEP rules. The approach proposes a new learning algorithm where complex patterns from multivariate time series are learned. Then at run-time, a seamless transformation into the CEP world takes place. The result is a ready-to-use CEP engine with enrolled predictive CEP rules. Many experiments on publicly-available data sets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.

References

  1. Henrique CM Andrade, Buğra Gedik, and Deepak S Turaga. 2014. Fundamentals of Stream Processing: Application Design, Systems, and Analytics. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. K. Bache and M. Lichman. 2013. UCI machine learning repository. University of California, Irvine. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lars Brenna, Alan Demers, Johannes Gehrke, Mingsheng Hong, Joel Ossher, Biswanath Panda, Mirek Riedewald, Mohit Thatte, and Walker White. 2007. Cayuga: a high-performance event processing engine. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data. ACM, 1100--1102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Mustafa S Cetin, Abdullah Mueen, and Vince D Calhoun. 2015. Shapelet ensemble for multi-dimensional time series. In Proceedings of the 2015 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. SIAM, 307--315.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Gianpaolo Cugola and Alessandro Margara. 2012. Complex event processing with T-REX. Journal of Systems and Software 85, 8 (2012), 1709--1728. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Gianpaolo Cugola and Alessandro Margara. 2012. Low latency complex event processing on parallel hardware. J. Parallel and Distrib. Comput. 72, 2 (2012), 205--218. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Gianpaolo Cugola and Alessandro Margara. 2012. Processing flows of information: From data stream to complex event processing. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 44, 3 (2012), 15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Yagil Engel and Opher Etzion. 2011. Towards proactive event-driven computing. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM international conference on Distributed event-based system. ACM, 125--136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Mohamed F Ghalwash and Zoran Obradovic. 2012. Early classification of multivariate temporal observations by extraction of interpretable shapelets. BMC bioinformatics 13, 1 (2012), 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Mohamed F Ghalwash, Vladan Radosavljevic, and Zoran Obradovic. 2013. Extraction of interpretable multivariate patterns for early diagnostics. In Data Mining (ICDM), 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on. IEEE, 201--210.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Yu-Feng Lin, Hsuan-Hsu Chen, Vincent S Tseng, and Jian Pei. 2015. Reliable Early Classification on Multivariate Time Series with Numerical and Categorical Attributes. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Springer, 199--211.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. David Lo, Siau-Cheng Khoo, and Jinyan Li. 2008. Mining and ranking generators of sequential patterns. In Proceedings of the 2008 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. SIAM, 553--564.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. David Luckham. 2002. The power of events. Vol. 204. Addison-Wesley Reading.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. David C Luckham. 2011. Event processing for business: organizing the real-time enterprise. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Alessandro Margara, Gianpaolo Cugola, and Giordano Tamburrelli. 2014. Learning from the past: automated rule generation for complex event processing. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on Distributed Event-Based Systems. ACM, 47--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Raef Mousheimish, Yehia Taher, and Karine Zeitouni. 2016. autoCEP: Automatic Learning of Predictive Rules for Complex Event Processing. In International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing. Springer, 586--593.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Abdullah Mueen, Eamonn Keogh, and Neal Young. 2011. Logical-shapelets: an expressive primitive for time series classification. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 1154--1162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Christopher Mutschler and Michael Philippsen. 2012. Learning event detection rules with noise hidden markov models. In Adaptive Hardware and Systems (AHS), 2012 NASA/ESA Conference on. IEEE, 159--166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Robert T Olszewski. 2001. Generalized feature extraction for structural pattern recognition in time-series data. Technical Report. DTIC Document.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Om P Patri, Abhishek B Sharma, Haifeng Chen, Guofei Jiang, Anand V Panangadan, and Viktor K Prasanna. 2014. Extracting discriminative shapelets from heterogeneous sensor data. In Big Data (Big Data), 2014 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1095--1104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Nicholas Poul Schultz-Møller, Matteo Migliavacca, and Peter Pietzuch. 2009. Distributed complex event processing with query rewriting. In Proceedings of the Third ACM International Conference on Distributed Event-Based Systems. ACM, 4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Sinan Sen, Nenad Stojanovic, and Ljiljana Stojanovic. 2010. An approach for iterative event pattern recommendation. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Conference on Distributed Event-Based Systems. ACM, 196--205. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Yulia Turchin, Avigdor Gal, and Segev Wasserkrug. 2009. Tuning complex event processing rules using the prediction-correction paradigm. In Proceedings of the Third ACM International Conference on Distributed Event-Based Systems. ACM, 10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Li Wei and Eamonn Keogh. 2006. Semi-supervised time series classification. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 748--753. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Li Wei, Eamonn Keogh, Helga Van Herle, Agenor Mafra-Neto, and Russell J Abbott. 2007. Efficient query filtering for streaming time series with applications to semisupervised learning of time series classifiers. Knowledge and information systems 11, 3 (2007), 313--344.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Lexiang Ye and Eamonn Keogh. 2009. Time series shapelets: a new primitive for data mining. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 947--956. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Chin-Chia Michael Yeh, Yan Zhu, Liudmila Ulanova, Nurjahan Begum, Yifei Ding, Hoang Anh Dau, Diego Furtado Silva, Abdullah Mueen, and Eamonn Keogh. 2016. Matrix Profile I: All Pairs Similarity Joins for Time Series: A Unifying View that Includes Motifs, Discords and Shapelets. In IEEE ICDM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Automatic Learning of Predictive CEP Rules: Bridging the Gap between Data Mining and Complex Event Processing

        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 Conferences
          DEBS '17: Proceedings of the 11th ACM International Conference on Distributed and Event-based Systems
          June 2017
          393 pages
          ISBN:9781450350655
          DOI:10.1145/3093742

          Copyright © 2017 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 the author(s) 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: 8 June 2017

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          DEBS '17 Paper Acceptance Rate22of60submissions,37%Overall Acceptance Rate130of553submissions,24%

          Upcoming Conference

          DEBS '24

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader