Advertisement

Journal of Intelligent Information Systems

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 267–290 | Cite as

Effective monitoring by efficient fingerprint matching using a forest of NAQ-trees

  • Ming Zhang
  • Keivan Kianmehr
  • Reda Alhajj
Article

Abstract

Sensor devices have been widely used in many applications, e.g., security, wildlife monitoring, critical health cases, etc. The sensors constantly capture information about the monitored case and encode the information into feature vectors, called fingerprints, which are sent to a central server for further analysis; the process is generally semi-automated. To ease the on-line analysis, the central server should maintain a reference database containing standard fingerprints representing the status of known conditions. The key operation is to find the matchings (i.e., nearest neighbors) for each fingerprint arriving from the remote sensor devices; thus the current status of each sensor device can be automatically determined. As the fingerprints are usually characterized by hundreds of dimensions and quick response is mostly the top priority in sensor based monitoring applications, the existing index structures for nearest neighbor search fail to properly satisfy such applications. In this paper, we propose a method that allows for fully automated monitoring by efficiently reporting the matchings for most fingerprints sent by the sensor devices. The proposed method consists of two steps; the first step clusters the reference database into r-separable clusters and one fingerprint (i.e., the centroid) is selected to represent each cluster. The second step builds indexes for the representative fingerprints using a set of NAQ-trees residing on multiple nodes of a parallel machine. In the query processing phase, the built indexes are queried in parallel and from each tree only a very small number of index nodes are searched to report the partial results, which are combined into the final result. Taking advantage of the “randomization” property and compact partitioning of the NAQ-tree construction, the union of the partial results is anticipated to cover most of the matchings; this has been demonstrated in the experiments that have been conducted to emphasize the applicability and effectiveness of the proposed approach.

Keywords

knn search High dimensionality Dimensionality reduction Indexing Similarity search Online monitoring 

References

  1. Agarwal, M., Sain, K., Singh, D., & Goyal, S. P. (2006). Monitoring habitat characteristics using GIS and remote sensing: A case study for mitigating human-leopard conflict in Pauri Garhwal, India. In Proceedings of carnivores 2006, habitats, challenges and opportunities. St. Petersburg, FL.Google Scholar
  2. Ankerst, M., Breunig, M. M., Kriegel, H. P., & Sander, J. (1999). Optics: Ordering points to identify the clustering structure. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD conference on management of data (pp. 49–60).Google Scholar
  3. Beckmann, N., Kriegel, H., Schneider, R., & Seeger, B. (1990). The R*-tree: An efficient and robust access method for points and rectangles. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data (pp. 322–331).Google Scholar
  4. Bentley, J. L. (1975). Multi-dimensional binary search tree used for associative searching. Communications of ACM, 18(9), 509–517.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berchtold, S., Keim, D., & Kriegel, H. P. (1996). The X-tree: An index structure for high-dimensional data. In: Proceedings of the international conference on very large databases.Google Scholar
  6. Bondmass, M., Bolger, N., Castro, G., & Avitall, B. (1999). The effect of physiologic home monitoring and telemanagement of chronic heart failure outcomes. The Internet Journal of Asthma, Allergy and Immunology, 3(2). ISSN:1523-6064.Google Scholar
  7. Bozkaya, T., & Ozsoyoglu, M. (1997). Distance-based indexing for high-dimensional metric spaces. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data (pp. 357–368).Google Scholar
  8. Chakrabarti, K., & Mehrotra, S. (2000). Local dimensionality reduction: A new approach to indexing high dimensional spaces. In Proceedings of the conference on very large databases, Cairo, Egypt (pp. 89–100).Google Scholar
  9. Ciaccia, P., Patella, M., & Zezula, P. (1997). M-Tree: An efficient access method for similarity search in metric spaces. In Proceedings of the international conference on very large databases, Athens, Greece (pp. 426–435).Google Scholar
  10. Egecioglu, O., & Ferhatosmanoglu, H. (2000). Dimensionality reduction and similarity distance computation by inner product approximations. In Proceedings of ACM international conference on information and knowledge management (pp. 219–226).Google Scholar
  11. Ester, M., Kriegel, H.-P., Sander, J., & Xu, X. (1996). A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. In Proceedings of ACM international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, Portland, OR (pp. 226–231).Google Scholar
  12. Faloutsos, C., Ranganathan, M., & Manolopoulos, Y. (1994). Fast subsequence matching in time-series databases. ACM SIGMOD Records, 23(2), 419–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Filho, R. F. S., Traina, A. J. M., Traina, C., & Faloutsos, C. (2001). Similarity search without tears: The OMNI family of all-purpose access methods. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on data engineering (pp. 623–630).Google Scholar
  14. Girgin, S., Polat, F., & Alhajj, R. (2007). Positive impact of state similarity on reinforcement learning performance. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B, 37(5), 1256–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guha, S., Rastogi, R., & Shim, K. (1998). Cure: An efficient clustering algorithm for large databases. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD conference on management of data (pp. 73–84).Google Scholar
  16. Guo, Z., Zhou, M. C., & Jiang, G. (2007). Adaptive sensor placement and boundary estimation for monitoring mass objects. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B, 38(1), 222–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guttman, A. (1984). R-trees: A dynamic index structure for spatial searching. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data (pp. 47–57).Google Scholar
  18. Hartigan, J. (1975). Clustering algorithms. Wiley, New York.MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Home and Community Care Digest (2007). Internet-based monitoring provides peace of mind for parents of children with asthma. Home and Community Care Digest, 6(4), 2007.Google Scholar
  20. Hudson, L. R., et al. (2005). Remote physiological monitoring: Clinical, financial, and behavioral outcomes in a heart failure population. Disease Management, 8(6), 372–381.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jagadish, H. V., Ooi, B. C., Tan, K. L., Yu, C., & Zhang, R. (2005). iDistance: An adaptive B+-tree based indexing method for nearest neighbor search. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 30(2), 364–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Katakis, I., Tsoumakas, G., Banos, E., Bassiliades, N., & Vlahavas, I. (2009). An adaptive personalized news dissemination system. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 32(2), 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Katamaya, N., & Satoh, S. (1997). The SR-tree: An index structure for high-dimensional nearest neighbor queries. Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data (pp. 369–380).Google Scholar
  24. Kaya, M., & Alhajj, R. (2004). Modular fuzzy-reinforcement learning approach with internal model capabilities for multiagent systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B, 34(2), 1210–1223.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keogh, E. J., Chu, S., & Pazzani, M. J. (2001). Ensemble-index: A new approach to indexing large databases. In Proceedings of ACM international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 117–125).Google Scholar
  26. Likas, A., Vlassis, N., & Verbeek, J. (2003). The global k-means clustering algorithm. Pattern Recognition, 36(2), 451–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Locke, S. L., Cline, M. D., Wetzel, D. L., Pittman, M. T., Brewer, C. E., & Harveson, L. A. (2005). A web-based digital camera for monitoring remote wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33(2), 761–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lukowski, T. I., Power, D., Yue, B., Randall, C. J., Youden, J., & Howell, C. (2004). Pipeline encroachment monitoring using polarimetric SAR imagery. In Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on geoscience and remote sensing (pp. 66–68).Google Scholar
  29. Priede, I. G., & Swift, S. M. (1992). Wildlife telemetry: Remote monitoring and tracking of animals. Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  30. Robinson, J. T. (1981). The K-D-B tree: A search structure for large multi-dimensional dynamic indexes. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data (pp. 0– 18).Google Scholar
  31. Seligman, L., Lehner, P., Smith, K., Elsaesser, C., & Mattox, D. (2000). Decision-centric information monitoring. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 14(1), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shaft, U., & Ramakrishnan, R. (2005). When is nearest neighbors indexable? In Proceedings of the international conference on database theory (pp. 158–172).Google Scholar
  33. Shah, N., Der, E., Ruggerio C., Heidenreich, P., & Massie, B. (1998). Prevention of hospitalizations for heart failure with an interactive home monitoring program. American Heart Journal, 135(2), 373–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Talukder, A., Morookian, J., Monacos, S., Lam, R., LeBaw, C., & Lambert, J. L. (2005). Eye-tracking architecture for biometrics and remote monitoring. Applied Optics, 44, 693–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Traina, C., Traina, A. J. M., Seeger, B., & Faloutsos, C. (2000). Slim-trees: Height performance metric trees minimizing overlap between nodes. In Proceedings of the international conference on extended database technology (pp. 51–65).Google Scholar
  36. Vieira, M. R., Traina, C., Chino, F. J. T., & Traina, A. J. M. (2004). DBM-tree: A dynamic metric access method sensitive to local density data. In Proceedings of the Brazilian symposium on databases (pp. 163–177).Google Scholar
  37. Wang, H., & Kasagami, F. (2008). A patient transfer apparatus between bed and stretcher. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B, 38(1), 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weber, R., Schek, H. J., & Blott, S. (1998). A quantitative analysis and performance study for similarity-search methods in high-dimensional space. In Proceedings of the international conference on very large databases (pp. 194–205).Google Scholar
  39. White, D. A., & Jain, R. (1996). Similarity indexing with the ss-tree. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on data engineering (pp. 516–523).Google Scholar
  40. Yasuda, M., & Kawakami, K. (2002). New method of monitoring remote wildlife via the internet. Ecological Research, 17(1), 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yianilos, P. (1993). Data structures and algorithms for nearest neighbor search in general metric spaces. In Proc. of ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms (pp. 311–321).Google Scholar
  42. Zhang, M., & Alhajj, R. (2008). Novel approach for nearest neighbor search in high dimensional space. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on intelligent systems, Bulgaria (pp. 26–31).Google Scholar
  43. Zhang, M., & Alhajj, R. (2010). Effectiveness of NAQ-tree as index structure for similarity search in high-dimensional metric space. Knowledge and Information Systems, 22(1), 1–26.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhao, H., & Chi, P. (2008). Incremental linear discriminant analysis for face recognition. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B, 38(1), 210–221.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringThe University of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceGlobal UniversityBeirutLebanon

Personalised recommendations