| Literature DB >> 28869503 |
Yingchi Mao1, Haishi Zhong2, Hai Qi3, Ping Ping4, Xiaofang Li5.
Abstract
Clustering analysis is one of the most important issues in trajectory data mining. Trajectory clustering can be widely applied in the detection of hotspots, mobile pattern analysis, urban transportation control, and hurricane prediction, etc. To obtain good clustering performance, the existing trajectory clustering approaches need to input one or more parameters to calibrate the optimal values, which results in a heavy workload and computational complexity. To realize adaptive parameter calibration and reduce the workload of trajectory clustering, an adaptive trajectory clustering approach based on the grid and density (ATCGD) is proposed in this paper. The proposed ATCGD approach includes three parts: partition, mapping, and clustering. In the partition phase, ATCGD applies the average angular difference-based MDL (AD-MDL) partition method to ensure the partition accuracy on the premise that it decreases the number of the segments after the partition. During the mapping procedure, the partitioned segments are mapped into the corresponding cells, and the mapping relationship between the segments and the cells are stored. In the clustering phase, adopting the DBSCAN-based method, the segments in the cells are clustered on the basis of the calibrated values of parameters from the mapping procedure. The extensive experiments indicate that although the results of the adaptive parameter calibration are not optimal, in most cases, the difference between the adaptive calibration and the optimal is less than 5%, while the run time of clustering can reduce about 95%, compared with the TRACLUS algorithm.Entities:
Keywords: adaptive parameter calibration; grid; mobile pattern analysis; spatio-temporal data; trajectory clustering
Year: 2017 PMID: 28869503 PMCID: PMC5621022 DOI: 10.3390/s17092013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The illustration of the proposed ATCGD approach.
Figure 2Illustration of the continuous representative segments and the discrete representative segments. (a) The continuous trajectory segments; and (b) The discrete trajectory segments.
Figure 3The illustration of distance measure between the two trajectory segments.
Figure 4The diagram of the discrete representative trajectory segment.
Figure 5Schematic diagram of the belonged Cell and adjacent Cell.
Figure 6The trajectory in the RT and HT datasets. (a) RT1; (b) RT2; and (c) HT.
Figure 7The clustering results on the RT and HT dataset, (a) RT1; (b) RT2; and (c) HT.
Comparison of clustering quality between ATCGD and TRACLUS.
| TRACLUS | ATCGD | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run Time (s) | Run Time (s) | |||
| HT-100 | 1,486,875 | 1.25 | 1,140,856 | 0.14 |
| HT-200 | 5,416,222 | 5.84 | 4,327,626 | 0.23 |
| HT-300 | 8,164,510 | 15.75 | 7,602,455 | 0.44 |
| HT-400 | 9,741,195 | 26.34 | 10,682,513 | 0.61 |
| RT1 | 461,437 | 1.07 | 39,426 | 0.09 |
| RT2 | 164,351 | 21.75 | 176,269 | 0.57 |
Figure 8values under different .
Figure 9Experimental results of parameter adaptive analysis, (a) HT-100; (b) HT-200; (c) HT-300; and (d) HT-400.