Step 1.1.1.3: We use a trace (W_T) to check whether the candidate pattern is valid in an audit trail with a given support (sigma ).
As we might find a number of possible patterns, a degree of uncertainty emerges as either a number of candidate patterns for a single service or even for a set of similar services might exist.
Some psychometric tests have built-in measures that indicate whether a candidate's pattern of responses may reflect an attempt to come across a certain way or whether the candidate's answers are incongruent with one another.
Step 1.1.1.4: If the candidate pattern is valid in an audit trail then we append (langle T^{mathrm{min} k)}), (U), (b_c), (p_c), (e_crangle ) to a set (mathcal {P}).
If the candidate pattern is not valid in an audit trail then we return to Step 1.1.1.1 to collect the next value of parameter (p).
Nevertheless, the TwigStack-based method can still be expensive for computing the support of a large number of candidates, since it needs to scan fully the inverted lists corresponding to every candidate pattern.
Candidate pattern generated Figs. 9c, 10c and 11c compare the total candidates generated by sleuth, EmbTreeMiner, HomTMBasic and HomTreeMiner, respectively, under different support thresholds on the Treebank, XMark and CSlogs datasets.
Therefore, in searching for frequent pattern sets, all combinations of the intra-sentential language patterns for the cause and effect events are considered as candidate pattern sets.
Essentially, the cost function can be used to generate a ranked list of candidate patterns for a required QoS value in terms of the operational cost.
