2006
DOI: 10.1007/11871637_35
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficient Mining of Correlation Patterns in Spatial Point Data

Abstract: We address the problem of analyzing spatial correlation between event types in large point data sets. Collocation rules are unsatisfactory, when confidence is not a sufficiently accurate interestingness measure, and Monte Carlo testing is infeasible, when the number of event types is large. We introduce an algorithm for mining correlation patterns, based on a non-parametric bootstrap test that, however, avoids the actual resampling by scanning each point and its distances to the events in the neighbourhood. As… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Examples: digital road map (Shekhar and Ma), census data (Malerba et al 2001), place name data (Leino et al 2003;Salmenkivi 2006).…”
Section: Key Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Examples: digital road map (Shekhar and Ma), census data (Malerba et al 2001), place name data (Leino et al 2003;Salmenkivi 2006).…”
Section: Key Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The correlation patterns introduced in Salmenkivi (2006) represent an intermediate approach between spatial point pattern analysis and co-location pattern mining. Correlation patterns are defined as interesting co-location patterns (in the event-centric model) of the form A !…”
Section: Statistical Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Large spatial databases and spatial datasets. Examples: digital road map (Shekhar and Ma), census data (Malerba et al 2001), place name data (Leino et al 2003;Salmenkivi 2006).…”
Section: Key Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Neighborhood‐based clustering discovered the clusters, based on the neighborhood characteristics of data. Prevalence measures were defined differently in different models of co‐locations mining . A user‐specified proximity neighborhood was used in place of transactions to specify groups of items.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prevalence measures were defined differently in different models of co-locations mining. 18,19 A user-specified proximity neighborhood 20,21 was used in place of transactions to specify groups of items. A novel Joinless approach 22 for efficient co-location pattern mining used an instance-lookup scheme instead of an expensive spatial or instance join operation for identifying co-location instances.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%