Time series numerical association rule mining variants in smart agriculture

In order to control the quality of the mined association rules in more detail, two additional measures are defined, i.e., inclusion and amplitude. Inclusion is defined as the ratio between the number of attributes of the rule and all the attributes in the database Hahsler and Hornik (2007):

where $M$ is the total number of attributes in the transaction database. Amplitude measures the quality of a rule, preferring attributes with smaller intervals, in other words Fister Jr. et al. (2021):

where $Ub_{k}$ and $Lb_{k}$ are the upper and lower bounds of the selected attribute, and $\max(o_{k})$ and $\min(o_{k})$ are the maximum and minimum feasible values of the attribute $o_{k}$ in the transaction database.

Stochastic population-based nature-inspired algorithms are a common name comprising two families of optimization algorithms under the same umbrella, i.e., Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) and Swarm Intelligence (SI) based algorithms. The characteristics of these are already hidden in their name. This means that they are stochastic in nature, due to employing a random generator by constructing new, potentially better solutions. In place of searching for a single solution, they explore the knowledge hidden within the whole population of solutions. The final characteristic, i.e., nature-inspired, refers to an inspiration taken from nature, on which their search process is found Del Ser et al. (2019); Tzanetos and Dounias (2021).

In our study, both kinds of algorithms are applied for solving the TS-ARM in smart agriculture. Therefore, the similarity and differences of both families are discussed in a nutshell in the remainder of the paper.

A NiaPy library Vrbančič et al. (2018) is a framework of nature-inspired algorithms implemented in Python programming language. This package is distributed under the MIT licence, and enable potential developers to avoid the implementation of these algorithms, which can sometimes be a difficult, complex, and tedious task. The implementations of algorithms in the library are verified, while their codes comply with the last Python standards. Currently, the library consists of 29 original nature-inspired, 7 modified, and 6 other algorithms.

Together with the aforementioned algorithms, a lot of test problems are also appended into the library. This fact enables the users to compare various algorithms between each other easily, and helps them to decide which algorithm to apply for solving their practical problems. Due to its simplicity of use, this library has also become an unavoidable tool for comparing the different nature-inspired algorithms at various universities around the world.

The hardware unit consists of sensors connected into a rural network, and an access point for acquiring data from the sensors and transmitting them to the Internet. Thus, the prototype hardware unit was built. Table 1 lists all the hardware components that were used in our solution.

All the applicable sensors have been welded permanently to a simple perfboard for the sake of proof-of-concept, and wired to the ESP32 NodeMCU module. Standard communication protocols were utilized. Figure 2 visualizes a collage of the individual elements.

Actually, the ESP32 module represents the heart of the system and enables processing power for the data collection. The data are obtained via an Adafruit BH1750 light intensity sensor, DHT22 AM2302 air temperature and humidity sensor, and Soil Moisture Hygrometer sensors. Data are transferred to the webserver in predefined time periods, where the data are stored in a database.

Data from the sensors, also Sensor Data (SD), are acquired as a tuple:

where the light, temperature, humidity, and moisture indicators are obtained from the corresponding sensors.

Actually, the tuples $SD$ are acquired in a specific time period that are defined by the user. Thus, it holds, the shorter the time period, the more detailed acquired data. These are transmitted to the Internet server using a straightforward Python application running on the web server, pprocessing the HTTP requests utilizing a web.py library.

Data preprocessing is usually one of the most critical steps in the whole data science process. Data preprocessing can be defined as a set of methods that enhance the overall quality of the raw data and try to enrich it Fan et al. (2021); Fister et al. (2022); Fister Jr. et al. (2022). Essentially, two tasks are required in time series data preprocessing phase:

• •

  data reduction,

• •

  feature extraction.

The first preprocessing task enables grouping the data in time frames, while the second is devoted to data enrichment.

Time series $TS$ is defined as a sequence of the collected data tuples $SD_{i}$ for $i=1,\ldots,T$:

where $T$ denotes the number of data tuples in time series (also time series size).

The lack of measured indicators prevents the TS-NARM to produce any specific insights. Therefore, we must enrich collected data by additional features reflecting a better outlook on time-series data. Time series Frame $TF$ is obtained by a data reduction ML preprocessing method, where it is expected that the method analyzing $TF$ provides the same results as analyzing the original $TS$. In line with this, a set of indicators collected in $TS$:

is reduced by a set of modifiers:

In order to determine a set of compound features, a Cartesian product of sets $MODIFIER$ and $INDICATOR$ is calculated except for the indicators $TIME$ and $DATE$. The results of the feature extraction is illustrated in Table 2,

where each compound feature is represented as a concatenation of $MODIFIER\times INDICATOR$ denoted by a character ’_’, while indicator $DATE$ is mapped to the feature $SEQUENCE$ and the indicator $TIME$ to the feature $CLASS$. Thus, the modifiers are mathematically defined as follows:

where $SD_{i}.INDICATOR$ for $i=1,\ldots,T$ specifies particular indicator collected by $i$-th frame of the specific TS. While the definition of the first three modifiers is self-explanatory, the modifier $DIF\_INDICATOR$ is expressed as an difference of the indicator measured at the end and the beginning the time period and thus highlights a variance of the values within the TS. The feature $SEQUENCE$ is calculated such that the starting date is attached to value $SEQUENCE=0$, and then the value is incremented by one for each next date. The indicator $TIME$ in the form $hh:mm:ss$ is mapped firstly to a timestamp $timestamp$ as:

and then to the proper feature $CLASS$ according to the following equation:

where $K$ denotes the number of time intervals, into which the 24-hour period (i.e., 86,400 sec) is divided. The selection of the proper value of $K$ is crucial for the results of the optimization.

In summary, the time series database $D$ of dimension $N\times M$, where $N$ denotes the number of transactions in the database, and $M$ is the number of features, where each transaction is defined as a sequence of the features defined in Table 2.

The purpose of this section is to present the mathematical foundations of TS-ARM and the necessary modifications that must be applied to nature-inspired algorithms for implementing TS-ARM. In our study, the following nature-inspired algorithms are applied:

• •

  Differential Evolution (DE) Storn and Price (1997),

• •

  Genetic Algorithm (GA) Goldberg (2013),

• •

  Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) Kennedy and Eberhart (1995),

• •

  Success-history based adaptive differential evolution using linear population size reduction (LSHADE) Tanabe and Fukunaga (2014),

• •

  self-adaptive differential evolution (jDE) Brest et al. (2006).

Actually, two components of nature-inspired algorithms need to be modified by implementation of the TS-ARM, i.e., representation of solutions and fitness function. Let us mention that the implementations of the original aforementioned algorithms are taken from NiaPy library.

TS-ARM is a new paradigm, which treats a transaction database as a time series data. In line with this, the formal definition of the NARM problem needs to be redefined. In the TS-ARM, the association rule is defined as an implication:

where $X(\Delta t)\subset O$, $Y(\Delta t)\subset O$, and $X(\Delta t)\cap Y(\Delta t)=\emptyset$. The variable $\Delta t=[t_{1},t_{2}]$ determines the sequence of the transactions arisen within the interval $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$, where $t_{1}$ denotes the start and $t_{2}$ the end time of the observation. The measures of support and confidence are redefined as follows:

where $\mathit{conf_{t}}(X(\Delta t)\implies Y(\Delta t))\geq C_{\max}$ and $\mathit{supp_{t}}(X(\Delta t)\implies Y(\Delta t))\geq S_{\max}$ denotes the confidence and support of the association rule $X(\Delta t)\implies Y(\Delta t)$ within the same time interval $\Delta t$.

Let us highlight Eq. (15) with the following example: Let us assume the itemset is given as follows:

and the transaction database captures features of passed 5 days, where each day is divided into 24 classes (i.e., total 120 transactions). If 2 matches in temperatures between $18^{\circ}C$ and are $20^{\circ}C$ are found in 5 days within the specified time interval $[12,14]$, the itemset has support $supp([12,14])=\frac{2}{5}=0.4$.

The other aforementioned NARM measures (i.e., inclusion and amplitude) are independent on time and, consequently, they are employed in their original form.

For the purpose of our study, Aloe Vera plant served as a plant for simulation of our smart agriculture concept. As can be seen at the Fig 3, a rural network is built using sensors connected directly to the ESP32 NodeMCU control process unit. The unit is powered by a power bank of 20000 mAh capacity.

Three sensors for light, air temperature and humidity, and moisture sense land characteristics and transmit sensor data in approximately 5 sec intervals. The sensor data form time series of duration 1 hour. This means, that each time frame (also transactions) bears characteristics of $12~/\min\times 60~\min=720$ sensor data, in other words $T=720$.

In summary, the transaction database contains data accumulated in 14 days. Consequently, it consists of $14\times 24=336$ different transactions.

In our study, five nature-inspired algorithms were applied as follows: DE, GA, PSO, LSHADE and jDE. Thus, all implementations of algorithms were taken from the NiaPy library, where default parameters were taken from NiaPy examples Vrbančič et al. (2018) (Table 3).

The number of function evaluations for all algorithms was set to $MaxFEs=10,000$ and all algorithms had the population size of 50. We performed ten independent runs for each algorithm in test.

The system presents a cost-effective solution in smart agriculture that supports: data acquiring, data collection, and data preprocessing. Therefore, the purpose of the test was to analyse how the system behaves in the sense of the following system’s quality metrics:

• •

  reliability,

• •

  robustness,

• •

  accuracy,

• •

  scalability.

Indeed, the test comprises of evaluating three system components: hardware unit (data acquiring), data collection, and preprocessing. In line with this, the system underwent to continuous operating in duration of 14 days (Table 4).

Thus, the acquired data from sensors are collected approximately each 5 seconds. In total, the system transmitted 233,980 records onto the web.

The results of data collection are depicted in Table 5,

from which it can be seen time series consisting of eight sensor data records acquired in 15.9.2022 starting at 00:00:04 AM. Each record consists of indicators obtained by light, temperature, humidity, and moisture sensors. The BH1750 light sensor provides 16-bit light measurements in lux, and measures light from 0 (night) to 100K lux (day). Temperature sensor senses temperature in range $-40^{\circ}C$ to $80^{\circ}C$. Humidity measuring range is in interval $0~\%$ RH to $100~\%$ RH with measurement accuracy of $\pm 2~\%$ RH. Soil moisture is detected by a simple water sensor, while the moisture values ranging from 0 to 2300. Data and time values are added by the web server.

As can be seen from Table 5, all data were obtained from measuring point number 1 during the night due to value 0 measured by light sensor. The values from other sensors remained almost constantly, while the variances of their values could be ascribed to the measurement accuracy of the particular sensor.

Due to the big number of features obtained as a result of preprocessing, the illustration of the transactions saved into transaction database is omitted in the paper. Instead of this, the statistics of the preprocessed transactions is summarized in Table 6,

from which it can be seen that 336 transactions (time frames) emerged as a result of preprocessing.

The experiments was focused on evaluating the proposed nature-inspired algorithms for TS-ARM according to the standard ARM measures. The algorithms in the comparative study used parameter settings as illustrated in Table 3. The results of the experiments are illustrated in Table 7

depicting the achieved values according to four measures (i.e., support, confidence, inclusion, and amplitude), and average lengths of corresponding antecedent and consequent per each observed algorithm. Columns ’Numrules’ and ’Intervals’ are added to the table and denote the number of mined rules and the percentage of intervals covered by the rule, respectively.

Interestingly, the best results according to support and confidence are distinguished by the DE, while the best results according to inclusion are achieved by the GA, and according to amplitude by the PSO. The longer length of features in antecedent and consequent are mined by the GA, where the length of both measures overcome the value of 2.30. The maximum number of rules were mined by the PSO (i.e., $3,386$), while the minimum by the GA (only $40$). As a matter of fact, all algorithms excellent cover the intervals in the rules.