Modelling discrete event sequences as state transition diagrams

  • Adele E. Howe
  • Gabriel Somlo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1280)

Abstract

Discrete event sequences have been modeled with two types of representation: snapshots and overviews. Snapshot models describe the process as a collection of relatively short sequences. Overview models collect key relationships into a single structure, providing an integrated but abstract view. This paper describes a new algorithm for constructing one type of overview model: state transition diagrams. The algorithm, called State Transition Dependency Detection (STDD), is the latest in a family of statistics based algorithms for modeling event sequences called Dependency Detection. We present accuracy results for the algorithm on synthetic data and data from the execution of two AI systems.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Maxc Abrams, Alan Batongbacal, Randy Ribler, and Devendra Vazirani. CHITRA94: A tool to dynamically characterize ensembles of traces for input data modeling and output analysis. Department of Computer Science 94-21, Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University, June 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rakesh Agrawal, Manish Mehta, John Shafer, and Ramakrishnan Srikant. The Quest data mining system. In Proceedings of the Second International Conferrence on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Portland, OR, Aug. 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rakesh Agrawal and Ramakrishnan Srikant. Mining sequential patterns. In Proceedings of the Int'l Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), Taipei, Taiwan, March 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wray Buntine. Graphical models for discovering knowledge. In U. Fayyad, G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, P. Smyth, and R. Uthurusamy, editors, Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Horacio T. Cadiz. The development of a CHAID-based model for CHITRA93. Computer science dept., Virginia Polytechnic Institute, February 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Usama Fayyad, Gregory Piatetsky-Shapiro, and Padhraic Smyth. From data mining to knowledge discovery in databases. AI Magazine, 17(3):37–54, Fall 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adele E. Howe. Detecting imperfect patterns in event streams using local search. In D. Fisher and H. Lenz, editors, Learning from Data: Artificial Intelligence and Statistics V. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Adele E. Howe and Paul R. Cohen. Detecting and explaining dependencies in execution traces. In P. Cheeseman and R.W. Oldford, editors, Selecting Models from Data; Artificial Intelligence and Statistics IV, volume 89 of Lecture Notes in Statistics, chapter 8, pages 71–78. Springer-Verlag, NY,NY, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adele E. Howe and Paul R. Cohen. Understanding planner behavior. Artificial Intelligence, 76(1–2):125–166, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Adele E. Howe and Larry D. Pyeatt. Constructing transition models of AI planner behavior. In Proceedings of the 11th Knowledge-Based Software Engineering Conference, September 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eleftherios Koutsofios and Stephen C. North. Drawing graphs with dot. AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, October 1993.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heikki Mannila, Hannu Toivonen, and A. Inkeri Verkamo. Discovering frequent episodes in sequences. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Databases and Data Mining (KDD-95), Montreal, CA, Aug. 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tim Oates and Paul R. Cohen. Searching for planning operators with context-dependenct and probabilistic effects. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Judea Pearl. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, 1988.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Larry D. Pyeatt, Adele E. Howe, and Charles W. Anderson. Learning coordinated behaviors for control of a simulated robot. Technical report, Computer Science Dept, Colorado State University, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Raghavan Srinivasan and Adele E. Howe. Comparison of methods for improving search efficiency in a partial-order planner. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, CA, August 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adele E. Howe
    • 1
  • Gabriel Somlo
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DeptColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations