The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mining sequential patterns by pattern-growth: the PrefixSpan approach
Abstract
Sequential pattern mining is an important data mining problem with broad applications. However, it is also a difficult problem since the mining may have to generate or examine a combinatorially explosive number of intermediate subsequences. Most of the previously developed sequential pattern mining methods, such as GSP, explore a candidate generation-and-test approach [R. Agrawal et al. (1994)] to reduce the number of candidates to be examined. However, this approach may not be efficient in mining large sequence databases having numerous patterns and/or long patterns. In this paper, we propose a projection-based, sequential pattern-growth approach for efficient mining of sequential patterns. In this approach, a sequence database is recursively projected into a set of smaller projected databases, and sequential patterns are grown in each projected database by exploring only locally frequent fragments. Based on an initial study of the pattern growth-based sequential pattern mining, FreeSpan [J. Han et al. (2000)], we propose a more efficient method, called PSP, which offers ordered growth and reduced projected databases. To further improve the performance, a pseudoprojection technique is developed in PrefixSpan. A comprehensive performance study shows that PrefixSpan, in most cases, outperforms the a priori-based algorithm GSP, FreeSpan, and SPADE [M. Zaki, (2001)] (a sequential pattern mining algorithm that adopts vertical data format), and PrefixSpan integrated with pseudoprojection is the fastest among all the tested algorithms. Furthermore, this mining methodology can be extended to mining sequential patterns with user-specified constraints. The high promise of the pattern-growth approach may lead to its further extension toward efficient mining of other kinds of frequent patterns, such as frequent substructures.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mining frequent patterns without candidate generation
Han, J., Pei, J., & Yin, Y. (2000) · ACM SIGMOD Record · doi:10.1145/335191.335372 · Cited by 6,402
Self-citation
Cited by
Frequent pattern mining: current status and future directions
Han, J., Cheng, H., Xin, D., & Yan, X. (2007) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1007/s10618-006-0059-1 · Cited by 1,380
Self-citationRashidi, P., & Cook, D. J. (2013) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/2508037.2508045 · Cited by 94
Failure Diagnosis in Microservice Systems: A Comprehensive Survey and Analysis
Zhang, S., Xia, S., Fan, W., Shi, B., Xiong, X., Zhong, Z., Ma, M., Sun, Y., & Pei, D. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3715005 · Cited by 57
Mining clinical phrases from nursing notes to discover risk factors of patient deterioration
Korach, Z. T., Yang, J., Rossetti, S. C., Cato, K. D., Kang, M.-J., Knaplund, C., Schnock, K. O., Garcia, J. P., Jia, H., Schwartz, J. M., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.104053 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Pei, J., Han, J., Mortazavi-Asl, B., Wang, J., Pinto, H., Chen, Q., Dayal, U., & Hsu, M.-C.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering
- Published
- 2004-11
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1424-1440
- ISSN
- 1041-4347 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2168196587
- Cited by
- 1,340
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 107.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.