October 2017 by Editor IJITCE

ISSN (ONLINE) : 2045 -8711 ISSN (PRINT) : 2045 -869X

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY & CREATIVE ENGINEERING

OCTOBER 2017 VOL-7 NO-10

@IJITCE Publication

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND CREATIVE ENGINEERING (ISSN:2045-8711) VOL.7 NO.10 OCTOBER 2017, IMPACT FACTOR: 1.04

UK: Managing Editor International Journal of Innovative Technology and Creative Engineering 1a park lane, Cranford London TW59WA UK E-Mail: editor@ijitce.co.uk Phone: +44-773-043-0249 USA: Editor International Journal of Innovative Technology and Creative Engineering Dr. Arumugam Department of Chemistry University of Georgia GA-30602, USA. Phone: 001-706-206-0812 Fax:001-706-542-2626 India: Editor International Journal of Innovative Technology & Creative Engineering Dr. Arthanariee. A. M Finance Tracking Center India 66/2 East mada st, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai -600041 Mobile: 91-7598208700

www.ijitce.co.uk

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND CREATIVE ENGINEERING (ISSN:2045-8711) VOL.7 NO.10 OCTOBER 2017, IMPACT FACTOR: 1.04

www.ijitce.co.uk

IJITCE PUBLICATION

International Journal of Innovative Technology & Creative Engineering Vol.7 No.10 October 2017

www.ijitce.co.uk

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND CREATIVE ENGINEERING (ISSN:2045-8711) VOL.7 NO.10 OCTOBER 2017, IMPACT FACTOR: 1.04

From Editor's Desk Dear Researcher, Greetings! Research article in this issue discusses about motivational factor analysis. Let us review research around the world this month. The probable encounter at least one machine-learning algorithm today. These clever computer codes sort search engine results, weed spam e-mails from inboxes and optimize navigation routes in real time. People entrust these programs with increasingly complex and sometimes life-changing decisions, such as diagnosing diseases and predicting criminal activity. Machine-learning algorithms can make these sophisticated calls because they do not simply follow a series of programmed instructions the way traditional algorithms do. Instead, these souped-up programs study past examples of how to complete a task, discern patterns from the examples and use that information to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, letting machines with this artificial intelligence or AI figure things out for themselves doesn’t just make them good critical “thinkers,” it also gives them a chance to pick up biases. It has been an absolute pleasure to present you articles that you wish to read. We look forward to many more new technologies related research articles from you and your friends. We are anxiously awaiting the rich and thorough research papers that have been prepared by our authors for the next issue.

Thanks, Editorial Team IJITCE

www.ijitce.co.uk

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND CREATIVE ENGINEERING (ISSN:2045-8711) VOL.7 NO.10 OCTOBER 2017, IMPACT FACTOR: 1.04

Editorial Members Dr. Chee Kyun Ng Ph.D Department of Computer and Communication Systems, Faculty of Engineering,Universiti Putra Malaysia,UPMSerdang, 43400 Selangor,Malaysia. Dr. Simon SEE Ph.D Chief Technologist and Technical Director at Oracle Corporation, Associate Professor (Adjunct) at Nanyang Technological University Professor (Adjunct) at ShangaiJiaotong University, 27 West Coast Rise #08-12,Singapore 127470 Dr. sc.agr. Horst Juergen SCHWARTZ Ph.D, Humboldt-University of Berlin,Faculty of Agriculture and Horticulture,Asternplatz 2a, D-12203 Berlin,Germany Dr. Marco L. BianchiniPh.D Italian National Research Council; IBAF-CNR,Via Salaria km 29.300, 00015 MonterotondoScalo (RM),Italy Dr. NijadKabbaraPh.D Marine Research Centre / Remote Sensing Centre/ National Council for Scientific Research, P. O. Box: 189 Jounieh,Lebanon Dr. Aaron Solomon Ph.D Department of Computer Science, National Chi Nan University,No. 303, University Road,Puli Town, Nantou County 54561,Taiwan Dr. Arthanariee. A. M M.Sc.,M.Phil.,M.S.,Ph.D Director - Bharathidasan School of Computer Applications, Ellispettai, Erode, Tamil Nadu,India Dr. Takaharu KAMEOKA, Ph.D Professor, Laboratory of Food, Environmental & Cultural Informatics Division of Sustainable Resource Sciences, Graduate School of Bioresources,Mie University, 1577 Kurimamachiya-cho, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan Dr. M. Sivakumar M.C.A.,ITIL.,PRINCE2.,ISTQB.,OCP.,ICP. Ph.D. Project Manager - Software,Applied Materials,1a park lane,cranford,UK Dr. Bulent AcmaPh.D Anadolu University, Department of Economics,Unit of Southeastern Anatolia Project(GAP),26470 Eskisehir,TURKEY Dr. SelvanathanArumugamPh.D Research Scientist, Department of Chemistry, University of Georgia, GA-30602,USA.

Review Board Members Dr. Paul Koltun Senior Research ScientistLCA and Industrial Ecology Group,Metallic& Ceramic Materials,CSIRO Process Science & Engineering Private Bag 33, Clayton South MDC 3169,Gate 5 Normanby Rd., Clayton Vic. 3168, Australia Dr. Zhiming Yang MD., Ph. D. Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Science,1550 Orleans Street Rm 441, Baltimore MD, 21231,USA Dr. Jifeng Wang Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana, Illinois, 61801, USA Dr. Giuseppe Baldacchini ENEA - Frascati Research Center, Via Enrico Fermi 45 - P.O. Box 65,00044 Frascati, Roma, ITALY.

www.ijitce.co.uk

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND CREATIVE ENGINEERING (ISSN:2045-8711) VOL.7 NO.10 OCTOBER 2017, IMPACT FACTOR: 1.04

Dr. MutamedTurkiNayefKhatib Assistant Professor of Telecommunication Engineering,Head of Telecommunication Engineering Department,Palestine Technical University (Kadoorie), TulKarm, PALESTINE. Dr.P.UmaMaheswari Prof &Head,Depaartment of CSE/IT, INFO Institute of Engineering,Coimbatore. Dr. T. Christopher, Ph.D., Assistant Professor &Head,Department of Computer Science,Government Arts College(Autonomous),Udumalpet, India. Dr. T. DEVI Ph.D. Engg. (Warwick, UK), Head,Department of Computer Applications,Bharathiar University,Coimbatore-641 046, India. Dr. Renato J. orsato Professor at FGV-EAESP,Getulio Vargas Foundation,São Paulo Business School,RuaItapeva, 474 (8° andar),01332-000, São Paulo (SP), Brazil Visiting Scholar at INSEAD,INSEAD Social Innovation Centre,Boulevard de Constance,77305 Fontainebleau - France Y. BenalYurtlu Assist. Prof. OndokuzMayis University Dr.Sumeer Gul Assistant Professor,Department of Library and Information Science,University of Kashmir,India Dr. ChutimaBoonthum-Denecke, Ph.D Department of Computer Science,Science& Technology Bldg., Rm 120,Hampton University,Hampton, VA 23688 Dr. Renato J. Orsato Professor at FGV-EAESP,Getulio Vargas Foundation,São Paulo Business SchoolRuaItapeva, 474 (8° andar),01332-000, São Paulo (SP), Brazil Dr. Lucy M. Brown, Ph.D. Texas State University,601 University Drive,School of Journalism and Mass Communication,OM330B,San Marcos, TX 78666 JavadRobati Crop Production Departement,University of Maragheh,Golshahr,Maragheh,Iran VineshSukumar (PhD, MBA) Product Engineering Segment Manager, Imaging Products, Aptina Imaging Inc. Dr. Binod Kumar PhD(CS), M.Phil.(CS), MIAENG,MIEEE HOD & Associate Professor, IT Dept, Medi-Caps Inst. of Science & Tech.(MIST),Indore, India Dr. S. B. Warkad Associate Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, Priyadarshini College of Engineering, Nagpur, India Dr. doc. Ing. RostislavChoteborský, Ph.D. Katedramateriálu a strojírenskétechnologieTechnickáfakulta,Ceskázemedelskáuniverzita v Praze,Kamýcká 129, Praha 6, 165 21 Dr. Paul Koltun Senior Research ScientistLCA and Industrial Ecology Group,Metallic& Ceramic Materials,CSIRO Process Science & Engineering Private Bag 33, Clayton South MDC 3169,Gate 5 Normanby Rd., Clayton Vic. 3168 DR.ChutimaBoonthum-Denecke, Ph.D Department of Computer Science,Science& Technology Bldg.,HamptonUniversity,Hampton, VA 23688 Mr. Abhishek Taneja B.sc(Electronics),M.B.E,M.C.A.,M.Phil., Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science & Applications, at Dronacharya Institute of Management and Technology, Kurukshetra. (India).

www.ijitce.co.uk

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND CREATIVE ENGINEERING (ISSN:2045-8711) VOL.7 NO.10 OCTOBER 2017, IMPACT FACTOR: 1.04

Dr. Ing. RostislavChotěborský,ph.d, Katedramateriálu a strojírenskétechnologie, Technickáfakulta,Českázemědělskáuniverzita v Praze,Kamýcká 129, Praha 6, 165 21

Dr. AmalaVijayaSelvi Rajan, B.sc,Ph.d, Faculty – Information Technology Dubai Women’s College – Higher Colleges of Technology,P.O. Box – 16062, Dubai, UAE Naik Nitin AshokraoB.sc,M.Sc Lecturer in YeshwantMahavidyalayaNanded University Dr.A.Kathirvell, B.E, M.E, Ph.D,MISTE, MIACSIT, MENGG Professor - Department of Computer Science and Engineering,Tagore Engineering College, Chennai Dr. H. S. Fadewar B.sc,M.sc,M.Phil.,ph.d,PGDBM,B.Ed. Associate Professor - Sinhgad Institute of Management & Computer Application, Mumbai-BangloreWesternly Express Way Narhe, Pune - 41 Dr. David Batten Leader, Algal Pre-Feasibility Study,Transport Technologies and Sustainable Fuels,CSIRO Energy Transformed Flagship Private Bag 1,Aspendale, Vic. 3195,AUSTRALIA Dr R C Panda (MTech& PhD(IITM);Ex-Faculty (Curtin Univ Tech, Perth, Australia))Scientist CLRI (CSIR), Adyar, Chennai - 600 020,India Miss Jing He PH.D. Candidate of Georgia State University,1450 Willow Lake Dr. NE,Atlanta, GA, 30329 Jeremiah Neubert Assistant Professor,MechanicalEngineering,University of North Dakota Hui Shen Mechanical Engineering Dept,Ohio Northern Univ. Dr. Xiangfa Wu, Ph.D. Assistant Professor / Mechanical Engineering,NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY SeraphinChallyAbou Professor,Mechanical& Industrial Engineering Depart,MEHS Program, 235 Voss-Kovach Hall,1305 OrdeanCourt,Duluth, Minnesota 55812-3042 Dr. Qiang Cheng, Ph.D. Assistant Professor,Computer Science Department Southern Illinois University CarbondaleFaner Hall, Room 2140-Mail Code 45111000 Faner Drive, Carbondale, IL 62901 Dr. Carlos Barrios, PhD Assistant Professor of Architecture,School of Architecture and Planning,The Catholic University of America Y. BenalYurtlu Assist. Prof. OndokuzMayis University Dr. Lucy M. Brown, Ph.D. Texas State University,601 University Drive,School of Journalism and Mass Communication,OM330B,San Marcos, TX 78666 Dr. Paul Koltun Senior Research ScientistLCA and Industrial Ecology Group,Metallic& Ceramic Materials CSIRO Process Science & Engineering Dr.Sumeer Gul Assistant Professor,Department of Library and Information Science,University of Kashmir,India

www.ijitce.co.uk

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND CREATIVE ENGINEERING (ISSN:2045-8711) VOL.7 NO.10 OCTOBER 2017, IMPACT FACTOR: 1.04 Dr. ChutimaBoonthum-Denecke, Ph.D Department of Computer Science,Science& Technology Bldg., Rm 120,Hampton University,Hampton, VA 23688

Dr. Renato J. Orsato Professor at FGV-EAESP,Getulio Vargas Foundation,São Paulo Business School,RuaItapeva, 474 (8° andar)01332-000, São Paulo (SP), Brazil Dr. Wael M. G. Ibrahim Department Head-Electronics Engineering Technology Dept.School of Engineering Technology ECPI College of Technology 5501 Greenwich Road Suite 100,Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Dr. Messaoud Jake Bahoura Associate Professor-Engineering Department and Center for Materials Research Norfolk State University,700 Park avenue,Norfolk, VA 23504 Dr. V. P. Eswaramurthy M.C.A., M.Phil., Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Government Arts College(Autonomous), Salem-636 007, India. Dr. P. Kamakkannan,M.C.A., Ph.D ., Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Government Arts College(Autonomous), Salem-636 007, India. Dr. V. Karthikeyani Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Government Arts College(Autonomous), Salem-636 008, India. Dr. K. Thangadurai Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science, Government Arts College ( Autonomous ), Karur - 639 005,India. Dr. N. Maheswari Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of MCA, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, SRM University, Kattangulathur, Kanchipiram Dt - 603 203, India. Mr. Md. Musfique Anwar B.Sc(Engg.) Lecturer, Computer Science & Engineering Department, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Mrs. Smitha Ramachandran M.Sc(CS)., SAP Analyst, Akzonobel, Slough, United Kingdom. Dr. V. Vallimayil Ph.D., Director, Department of MCA, Vivekanandha Business School For Women, Elayampalayam, Tiruchengode - 637 205, India. Mr. M. Moorthi M.C.A., M.Phil., Assistant Professor, Department of computer Applications, Kongu Arts and Science College, India PremaSelvarajBsc,M.C.A,M.Phil Assistant Professor,Department of Computer Science,KSR College of Arts and Science, Tiruchengode Mr. G. Rajendran M.C.A., M.Phil., N.E.T., PGDBM., PGDBF., Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science, Government Arts College, Salem, India. Dr. Pradeep H Pendse B.E.,M.M.S.,Ph.d Dean - IT,Welingkar Institute of Management Development and Research, Mumbai, India Muhammad Javed Centre for Next Generation Localisation, School of Computing, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland Dr. G. GOBI Assistant Professor-Department of Physics,Government Arts College,Salem - 636 007 Dr.S.Senthilkumar Post Doctoral Research Fellow, (Mathematics and Computer Science & Applications),UniversitiSainsMalaysia,School of Mathematical Sciences, Pulau Pinang-11800,[PENANG],MALAYSIA. Manoj Sharma Associate Professor Deptt. of ECE, PrannathParnami Institute of Management & Technology, Hissar, Haryana, India

www.ijitce.co.uk

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND CREATIVE ENGINEERING (ISSN:2045-8711) VOL.7 NO.10 OCTOBER 2017, IMPACT FACTOR: 1.04

RAMKUMAR JAGANATHAN Asst-Professor,Dept of Computer Science, V.L.B Janakiammal college of Arts & Science, Coimbatore,Tamilnadu, India Dr. S. B. Warkad Assoc. Professor, Priyadarshini College of Engineering, Nagpur, Maharashtra State, India Dr. Saurabh Pal Associate Professor, UNS Institute of Engg. & Tech., VBS Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, India Manimala Assistant Professor, Department of Applied Electronics and Instrumentation, St Joseph’s College of Engineering & Technology, Choondacherry Post, Kottayam Dt. Kerala -686579 Dr. Qazi S. M. Zia-ul-Haque Control Engineer Synchrotron-light for Experimental Sciences and Applications in the Middle East (SESAME),P. O. Box 7, Allan 19252, Jordan Dr. A. Subramani, M.C.A.,M.Phil.,Ph.D. Professor,Department of Computer Applications, K.S.R. College of Engineering, Tiruchengode - 637215 Dr. SeraphinChallyAbou Professor, Mechanical & Industrial Engineering Depart. MEHS Program, 235 Voss-Kovach Hall, 1305 Ordean Court Duluth, Minnesota 55812-3042 Dr. K. Kousalya Professor, Department of CSE,Kongu Engineering College,Perundurai-638 052 Dr. (Mrs.) R. Uma Rani Asso.Prof., Department of Computer Science, Sri Sarada College For Women, Salem-16, Tamil Nadu, India. MOHAMMAD YAZDANI-ASRAMI Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Babol"Noshirvani" University of Technology, Iran. Dr. Kulasekharan, N, Ph.D Technical Lead - CFD,GE Appliances and Lighting, GE India,John F Welch Technology Center,Plot # 122, EPIP, Phase 2,Whitefield Road,Bangalore – 560066, India. Dr. Manjeet Bansal Dean (Post Graduate),Department of Civil Engineering,Punjab Technical University,GianiZail Singh Campus,Bathinda -151001 (Punjab),INDIA Dr. Oliver Jukić Vice Dean for education,Virovitica College,MatijeGupca 78,33000 Virovitica, Croatia Dr. Lori A. Wolff, Ph.D., J.D. Professor of Leadership and Counselor Education,The University of Mississippi,Department of Leadership and Counselor Education, 139 Guyton University, MS 38677

www.ijitce.co.uk

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND CREATIVE ENGINEERING (ISSN:2045-8711) VOL.7 NO.10 OCTOBER 2017, IMPACT FACTOR: 1.04

Contents Dis-Similarity Calculation Using Clustering Mechanism A.Venkatesh Kumar & A.Sumathi .…………………………………….[437]

www.ijitce.co.uk

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND CREATIVE ENGINEERING (ISSN:2045-8711) VOL.7 NO.10 OCTOBER 2017, IMPACT FACTOR: 1.04

Dis-Similarity Calculation Using Clustering Mechanism A.Sumathi Part–Time Ph.D (Category – B), R&D Centre, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore & Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science, Navarasam Arts and Science College for Women, Erode, Tamil Nadu, India. A.Venkatesh Kumar Technology Specialist, Cognizant Technology Solution, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Abstract- This paper delineates evolution of Dis-Similarity percentage calculation using grouping technique. None of the existing algorithm produces the dis-similarity percentage between pair of string. There are two types of evolution model for duplicate detection i.e., duplicates detection without grouping and duplicate detection with grouping. This re-search proved that the duplicate detection with grouping is more powerful and performance wise also it is much better than duplicate detection without grouping. This research introduced new technique which includes merits and features of clustering algorithm and de-duplication algorithm to improve the performance and accuracy of the new technique. Keywords- Duplicate Detection, De-Duplication, Dis-Similarity, Grouping, Clustering .

1. INTRODUCTION Duplicate detection is based on entropy algorithm for discovering a finding by using dis-similarity calculation. This is a new solution for duplication problem. It employs entropy formula to calculate the homogeneity of a data for continuous attributes McCallum et al (2000) and Barrodaleand Ericson (1980). Gain is computed to estimate the gain produced by a split over an attribute. The quality of the result and the performance of the algorithm have been compared. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the related studies rendering the fusion methods with brief review. The characteristics of ENTROPY are described in detail and the proposed method ENTROPY is established in detail way in Section 3. In Section 4, the characteristics of INFORMATION GAIN(IG) is described . In Section5 algorithm description of with grouping and without grouping is analyzed. In section 6, the performance analysis is shown. Finally, a conclusion is given in section 7. 2. RELATED WORKS Record de-duplication is a growing research topic in database and related fields as digital libraries. Today, this problem arises mainly when data is collected from disparate sources using different information description styles and metadata standards. Other common place for replicas is found in data repositories created from OCR documents. These situations may lead to inconsistencies that may affect many systems such as those that depend on searching and mining tasks. To solve these inconsistencies it is necessary to design

a de-duplication function that combines the information available in the data repositories in order to identify whether a pair of record entries refers to the same real-world entity. In the realm of bibliographic citations, for instance, this problem was extensively discussed by Lawrence et.al (1999a,b) They proposed a number of algorithms for matching citations from different sources based on edit-distance, word matching, phrase matching, and subfield extraction. As more strategies for extracting disparate pieces of evidence become available, many works have proposed new distinct approaches to combine and use them. Elmagarmid et al (2007) classify these approaches into the following categories: Ad–Hoc or Domain Knowledge Approaches - This category includes approaches that usually depend on specific domain knowledge or specific string distance metrics. Techniques that make use of declarative languages Elmagarmid et al (2007) can be also classified in this category; Training based Approaches - This category includes all approaches that depend on some sort of training supervised or semi supervised in order to identify the replicas. Probabilistic and machine learning approaches fall into this category. Next, we briefly comment on some works based on these two approaches (domain knowledge and training– based), particularly those that exploit the domain knowledge and those that are based on probabilistic and machine learning techniques, which are the ones more related to our work. Domain Knowledge Approaches - The idea of combining evidence to identify replicas has pushed the data management research community to look for methods that could benefit from domain-specific information found in the actual data as well as for methods based on general similarity metrics that could be adapted to specific domains Elmagarmid et al (2007). As an example of a method that exploits general similarity functions adapted to a specific domain, we can mention Chaudhuri et al (2003). There the authors propose a matching algorithm that, given a record in a file (or repository), looks for another record in a reference file that matches the first record according to a given similarity function. The matched reference records are selected based on a user-defined minimum similarity threshold. Thus, more than one candidate record may be returned. In such cases, the user is required to choose one among them indicating which is the closest one. Records matching on high weight tokens (strings) are more similar than those matching on low weight tokens. The weights are calculated by the well-known IDF weighting method Baeza-Yates (1999). This weighting method is also

437

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND CREATIVE ENGINEERING (ISSN:2045-8711) VOL.7 NO.10 OCTOBER 2017, IMPACT FACTOR: 1.04

used in WHIRL Cohen (2000) a database management system that supports similarity joins among relations that have free text attribute values. In Carvalho and Da Silva (2003), the authors use the vector space model for computing similarity among fields from different sources and evaluate four distinct strategies to assigning weights and combining the similarity scores of each field. As a result of their experiment, they found that using evidence extracted from individual attributes improves the results of the replica identification task. Probabilistic Approaches - Bayesian et al were the first ones to address the record duplication problem as a Bayesian inference problem (a probabilistic problem) and proposed the first approach to automatically handle replicas. However, their approach was considered empirical by Elmagarmid et al (2007) since it lacks a more elaborated statistical ground. After Newcomb et al work, Fellegi (1969 a,b) proposed a more elaborated statistical approach to deal with the problem of combining evidence. Their method relies on the definition of two boundary values that are used to classify a pair of records as being replicas or not. Tools that implement this method (Freely Extensible Biomedical Record Linkag [6]), usually work with two boundaries as follows: Positive Identification Boundary – if the similarity value lies above this boundary, the records are considered as replicas.Negative Identification Boundary – if the similarity value lies below this boundary, the records are considered as not being replicas. For the situation in which similarity values stand between the two boundaries, the records are classified as “possible matches” and, in this case, a human judgment is necessary. Usually, most of the existing approaches to replica identification depend on several choices to set their parameters, and they may not be always optimal. Setting these parameters requires the accomplishment of the following tasks: Choosing the best evidence to use the more evidence, the more time is required to find the replicas, since more processing is needed to calculate the similarity among the attributes. Finding how to combine the best evidence some evidence may be more effective for replica identification than others. Finding the best boundary values to be used bad boundaries may increase the number of identification errors (e.g., false positives and false negatives), nullifying the whole process. Machine Learning Approaches - The proposals that are more related to our work are those that apply machine learning techniques for deriving record-level similarity functions that combine field-level similarity functions, including the proper assignment of weights (Bilenko et al (2003) and Cohen and Richman (2002) and Tejada et al (2001). These proposals use a small portion of the available data for training. This training data set is assumed to have similar characteristics to those of the test dataset, which makes feasible to the machine learning techniques to generalize their solutions to unseen data. The good results usually obtained with these techniques have empirically

demonstrated that those assumptions are valid. In Bilenko et al (2003), the authors use a machine learning technique to improve both the similarity functions that are applied. An approach distinct from the previous ones is presented in Guha et al (2004). The main idea is to generate individual rankings for each field based on generated similarity scores. The distance between these rankings is calculated by using the well-known Footrule metric, which is minimized by a modified version of the Hungarian Algorithm specifically tailored to this problem by the authors. Then, a merge algorithm based on a score scheme is applied to the resulting rankings. At the end of this process, the top records in this global ranking are considered to be the most similar to the input record. It may be noticed that this approach requires no training. Unfortunately, the experiments conducted do not evaluate the quality of the global ranking with respect to the record matching effectiveness. In Carvalho et al (2006), we propose a GP-based approach to improve results produced by the Fellegi and Sunters method (“Freely Extensible Biomedical Record Linkage,” [6]). Particularly, we use GP to balance the weight vectors produced by that statistical method, in order to generate a better evidence combination than the simple summation used by it. Our experimental results with real datasets show improvements of 7% in precision with respect to the traditional Fellegi and Sunters method. In comparison with our previous results in De Carvalho et al (2008) this article presents a more general and improved GP-based approach for deduplication, which is able to automatically generate effective deduplication functions even when a suitable similarity function for each record attribute is not provided in advance. In addition, it also adapts the suggested functions to changes on the replica identification boundary values used to classify a pair of records as replicas or not. These two characteristics are extremely important since they free the user from the burden of having to select the similarity function to use with each attribute required for the deduplication task and tune the replica identification boundary accordingly. 3. EVOLUTION OF DIS-SIMILARITY CALCULATION We have so far discussed two techniques in the dissimilarity calculation. The two techniques perform individual task but final output is same. The Duplicate Detection without grouping generates the dis-similarity value, but its number of comparison is huge and each record must want to compare with all other records in the data set. So the number of iteration for each data set is n*n and turnaround time for this method is more. Algorithm: Duplicate Detection without grouping Step 1: Extract the pair of record from given data set and Initialize the pair of attribute C1, C2. Step 2: Apply Decision making algorithm to construct Truth Table. Step 3: Apply the Entropy calculation logic “Entropy (P,N)” Step 4: Apply the Gain calculation logic “Gain (G)” Step 5: Return Dis-Similarity Percentage. Step 6: Repeat step 1 to 5 until it reaches end of record for each iterations.

438

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND CREATIVE ENGINEERING (ISSN:2045-8711) VOL.7 NO.10 OCTOBER 2017, IMPACT FACTOR: 1.04

Due to this performance and number of iteration reason, we introduced Duplicate Detection with grouping. This method will generate a dis-similarity value, and the number of comparison is less. Each record does not want to compare with all other records in the data set. It will compare the record within the group alone and so the total number of iteration for each group of data is G(n*n) and turnaround time for this method is less. We have proved and compared with the executed result. Algorithm: Duplicate Detection with grouping Step 1: Extract the pair of record from given data set. Initialize the self-sized vector VEC [N]. Step 2: Validate the extraction record if it is valid Send the record to further process. If it is not valid Reject the record and skip further process. Step3: Apply Pre-condition of ADTree for first level clustering If clustering index is already available Append the new record into the existing cluster P_VECTOR Else Create a new cluster P_VECTOR. Apply condition of ADTree for second level clustering if clustering index is already available Append the new record into the existing cluster C_ VECTOR. Else create a new cluster C_VECTOR. Step 4: Extract each cluster C_VECTOR one by one. Step5: Extract the pair of record from the given cluster. Initialize the pair of attribute C1, C2. Step 6: Apply Decision making algorithm to construct Truth Table. Step 7: Apply the Entropy calculation logic “Entropy (P, N)” Step 8: Apply the Gain calculation logic “Gain (G)” Step 9: Return Dis-Similarity Percentage. Step 10: Repeat step 1 to 9 until it reaches end of record for every iteration within the cluster record.

Query = Query +"AND SHORT_NAME NOT LIKE\'%3%\'"; Query = Query +"AND SHORT_NAME NOT LIKE\'%4%\'"; Query = Query +"AND SHORT_NAME NOT LIKE\'%5%\'"; Query = Query +"AND SHORT_NAME NOT LIKE\'%6%\'"; Query = Query +"AND SHORT_NAME NOT LIKE\'%7%\'"; Query = Query +"AND SHORT_NAME NOT LIKE\'%8%\'"; Query = Query +"AND SHORT_NAME NOT LIKE\'%9%\'"; Query = Query +"AND SHORT_NAME NOT LIKE\'%0%\'"; Query = Query +"ORDER BY SHORT_NAME ASC, LENGTH (SHORT_NAME) ASC

Table 4.1: Characteristics of Sample Cluster Bucket

4. PREDICTIVE ACCURACY The proposed algorithm is coded in java programming language on windows platform with Intel CORE i3 and 1GB RAM. This implementation produced accurate result within a short period. Extracted data from the data base grouping are not random selections. It will be observed that there are distinct patterns in the observed relations and that a particular entity is more likely to co-occur in a group with a specific subset of all entities rather than a random one. If we assume the entities belong to groups or cliques then the entities in any observed link will come from the same group in most cases. We may allow each entity to belong to multiple groups at the same time. For example consider the query given below for group detection while extracting data from the data base. If short name is already available in the data base, this query will retrieve the data as per our expected grouping output. And also this query is doing the basic cleansing work before grouping the data. Query = "SELECT BORROWER_NAME, SHORT_NAME, ACCOUNT_ID FROM BORROWER_BRANCH_DETAILS_LOAD WHERE SHORT_NAME NOT LIKE\'%&%\'"; Query = Query +"AND SHORT_NAME NOT LIKE\'%-%\'"; Query = Query +"AND SHORT_NAME NOT LIKE\'%1%\'"; Query = Query +"AND SHORT_NAME NOT LIKE\'%2%\'";

439

S.No 1

Name Venkatesh

Short Name V

Account Type SB

Account No SB9922

Region North

Cluster No 1,2

Venkatesh Kumar

SB28109r

South

Venkatesh Kumer

CR723759

South

Venketesh Kumar

CD7279

South

Venkatesh Kumar

DB729875

South

Venketesh

CR124188

North

1,2

Venkatesh Arumugam

SB639386

East

Venketesh Arumugam

CR644226

East

Venkates Arumugam

CD01274

East

Venkatesh Arumugum

DB9212221

East

Kumar

SB65113

West

3,4

Kumar Muru gesh

SB124574

South

Kumer Murugesh

CR536124

South

Kumar Murugash

CD912094

South

Kumar Muruge

DB65187

South

Kumer

CR7218921

West

3,4

Kumar D

CD7572121

South

Kumer D

DB673256

South

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND CREATIVE ENGINEERING (ISSN:2045-8711) VOL.7 NO.10 OCTOBER 2017, IMPACT FACTOR: 1.04

COMPANY NAME

BUCKET-ID

KEY-VALUE

Venkatesh Kumar

PRIMARY

SB28109

Venkatesh Kumar

DUPLCATE

DB729875

Venkatesh Kumer

DUPLCATE

CR723759

Account No

Venketesh Kumar 1 DUPLCATE CD7279 Figure 4.1: Characteristics of Sample Cluster Bucket Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 illustrate the predictive Venkatesh 2 PRIMARY SB9922 accuracy and simplicity of the grouping algorithm. It also clearly shows accurate grouping occur from given set. For Venketesh 2 DUPLCATE CR124188 the banking domain, for example, we can imagine the entities in a group to be short name with a different account that Figure 4.2: Duplicate Detection and Bucket collaborate. A name can have multiple accounts but all names Formation of any account share common information and same name. We would like to discover these groups given in our group data. 5. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS Figure 4.2 shows how De-duplication processes A turnaround measure is significant between the identify duplicates by doing an internal matching using duplicate detection with grouping and duplicate detection proposed algorithm with configurable set of data element like without grouping. It clearly shows duplicate detection with name. It groups the identified records and assigns the Bucketgrouping is much better than duplicate detection without ID and Key value for each of the records identified in the grouping. group. De-duplication is the process of grouping the similar Table 5.1 : Comparison of elapsed time in records and bring those records under one group id. The status minute between Single attribute and Single Token of Primary or Secondary will be given within the group after Totalfollowing the algorithmic procedure (which is based on marks Time Record Time( Without Cluster-Time DD Time for the right match).This process can be applied in lakhs and Taken Volume min) Grouping Taken Taken millions of records which are owned by any concern (such as 5K 10 1.06 0.18 0.31 0.49 banks). The status of the record is based on the score value .The one having superior scoring or first one first serve base or 10K 20 1.52 0.26 1.02 1.28 which one has bigger length will get the Primary status ; the other below scored records will get Secondary status within the 35K 30 8.42 0.39 1.46 2.25 group. The record which does not have match will be the only 50K 40 12.58 0.53 2.59 3.52 record in that group which is called unique record. The probability matrix for scoring records will be decided on the 70K 50 18.49 1.21 5.07 6.28 basis of thorough analysis of real customerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s records. Here we used greater than 80 as match record. The fields which will be 80K 60 20.31 1.43 6.27 8.1 given an input for de-duplication process are configurable based on the customerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s requirement. Each record may have n 100K 70 24.23 2.01 9.03 11.04 number of fields. The scoring will be given for each field. Eventually the records of Primary and Secondary will be decided.

S.No

Name

Venkatesh Venkatesh Kumar Venkatesh Kumer Venketesh Kumar Venkatesh Kumar Venketesh

2 3 4 5

Short Name

Accou nt Type

Account No

Region

Cluster No

SB9922

North

1,2

SB28109

South

CR723759

South

CD7279

South

VK V

DB CR

DB729875 CR124188

South North

1 1,2

Figure 5.1: Comparison of elapsed time in minute between Single attribute and Single Token

440

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND CREATIVE ENGINEERING (ISSN:2045-8711) VOL.7 NO.10 OCTOBER 2017, IMPACT FACTOR: 1.04

Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1 clearly show duplicate detection with grouping has taken less time for Dis-Similarity calculation with Single attribute and single Token with respect to any volume of data. Our executed result clearly shows for calculating dis-similarity value it takes maximum of around Ten minutes for 100k of data set volumes. If we consider duplicate detection without grouping for 100K volumes it takes around 25 minute. The overall result indicates admirable performance of reducing more than 150% of turnaround time for calculating dis-similarity value through grouping with respect to single attribute and single token. If we increase the dataset volume the performance will increase for with grouping and decrease for without grouping and there is no relevance for any number of attribute and token. Table 5.2: Comparison of elapsed time in minute between Single attribute and Multiple Token

of turnaround time for calculating dis-similarity value through grouping with respect to single attribute and multiple token. If we increase the dataset volume the performance will increase for with grouping and decrease for without grouping and there is no relevance for any number of attribute and token. Table 5.3: Predictive Accuracy of the different sector data Sector Name

Banking

Hospital

With Grouping

Record Volume 5K

Time (min) 10

Without Grouping 3.05

ClusterTime Taken 0.18

GainTime Taken 0.43

Manufacture

TotalTime Taken

Sales

1.01

10K

8.59

0.26

1.56

2.24

35K

12.01

0.39

3.01

3.4

50K

22.58

0.53

4.09

5.02

70K

35.29

1.21

6.53

8.14

80K

39.03

1.43

9.08

10.51

100K

56.12

2.01

12.47

14.48

Execution Type

Accuracy Of Output

Single Attribute with Single Token

95.06 ± 98.96

Single Attribute with Multiple Token Single Attribute with Single Token Single Attribute with Multiple Token Single Attribute with Single Token Single Attribute with Multiple Token Single Attribute with Single Token Single Attribute with Multiple Token

89.31 ± 93.71 91.19 ± 96.40 86.26 ± 92.09 93.06 ± 97.84 84.51 ± 90.89 90.44 ± 94.61 81.73 ± 86.19

Table 5.4 shows the accuracy of the output value has been evaluated for various kinds of sector, namely Banking, Hospital, Manufacture and Sales. As per tabulated result the predictive accuracy is more for banking data. The reason behind this is that the data is already in a standardized manner. The results of all the four sectors show that single attribute and single token produce more accuracy than single attribute and multiple attribute. The average of accuracy is around 90 percentages for both the combination. Table 5.4: Total number of Iteration between with grouping and without grouping

Figure 5.2: Comparison of elapsed time in minute between Single attribute and Multiple Token Table 5.2 and Figure 5.2 clearly show duplicate detection with grouping has taken less time for Dis-Similarity calculation with Single attribute and Multiple Token with respect to any volumes of data. Our executed result clearly shows for calculating dis-similarity value with grouping it takes maximum of around 15 minutes for 100k of data set volumes. If we consider duplicate detection without grouping for 100K volumes it takes around 56 minute. The overall result indicates admirable performance of reducing more than 300%

Record Volume 5K

No Of Iteration (Crore) 100

Without Grouping 2.5

With Grouping 0.16

10K 35K

300

0.37

500

122.5

4.56

50K

700

250

9.30

70K

900

490

18.23

80K

1100

640

23.80

100K

1300

1000

37.19

Figure 5.3: Total number of Iteration between with grouping and without grouping 441

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY AND CREATIVE ENGINEERING (ISSN:2045-8711) VOL.7 NO.10 OCTOBER 2017, IMPACT FACTOR: 1.04

Table 5.4 and Figure 5.3 show duplicate detection without grouping exponentially increase the number of iteration. Due to this large size of data, volume approach is not fit. And also there is a chance to face an out of memory issue and its control is out of our hand. But duplicate detection with grouping gradually increases the number of iteration even if we increase the data size. Grouping method may be able to control the out of memory issue. At the same time we can handle only one group for duplicate detection, as this control is in our hand.

10.

8. CONCLUSION This paper enlightened evaluation of dis-similarity calculation using group detection algorithm for dis-similarity calculation without grouping and dis-similarity calculation with grouping based on single attribute and single token, single attribute and multiple token. It is engaged simultaneously to find group detection solution as well as dis-similarity calculation among each group. It produces more accurate result when data set has a number of mixed token in the same attribute. Dis-similarity calculation with grouping approach reduces the elapsed time as well as produces more accurate and simple to make a good decision. As the various combination values were defined to the parameter attribute, several interesting phenomena were observed. From the observation, it is known that number of group, number of iteration and accuracy of outcome data are fully depended on the characteristics of the data set. The scalability of algorithm was measured by feeding different volumes of dataset. The results clearly indicated that the algorithm produced a more accurate result for a large data set.

REFERENCES Barrodale .I , Ericson.R, “An algorithm for leastsquares linear prediction and maximum entropy spectral analysis, Part-1: theory and part:2 fortron program Geophys, 45:420-466,1980. McCallum A,Freitag D, and F.C.N.Pereira, “Maximum Entropy Markov Models for Information Extraction and Segmentation,” Proc. 17th Int Conf. Machine Learning (ICML ‟00), pp. 591-598, 2000. Lawerwnce .S, Giles.C.L, Bollacker.K.D, “Autonomous citation matching in proceedings of the third international conference on Autonomous agents, pp.392-393,1999. Lawrence.S, Giles.L and Bollacker.K,” Digital libraries and autonomous citation indexing”, IEEE computer, vol.32,no.6,pp.67-71,1999. Elmagarmid.A,K.IpeirotisP.G and Verykio.V.S “Duplicate record detection: A survey” ,IEEE transactions on knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol.19,no.1,pp.1-16,2007. Baeza-Yates, R. A. and Ribeiro-Neto, B. A. Modern Information Retrieval. ACM press/Addison-Wesley, 1999. Cohen,W.W. “Data integration using similarity joins and a word-based information representation language,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems,vol.18, no.3, pp 288 -321, 2000.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

442

Fellegi, I. P. and Sunter, A. B. “A theory for record linkage,” Journal of American Statistical Association, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 1183–1210, 1969. Bilenko,M. Mooney,R.J. Cohen,W.W. Ravikumar,P. and Fienberg, S.E.“Adaptive Name Matching in Information Integration,” IEEE Intelligent Systems,vol.18, no. 5, pp. 16-23, Sept./Oct. 2003. Elmagarmid,A. K. Ipeirotis,P.G. and Verykios,V. S. “Duplicate record detection : A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2007. Bilenko.M and Mooney,R.J. “Adaptive duplicate detection using learnable string similarity measures,” in Proceedings of the Ninth ACM SIGKDD, International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp.39–48.2003. Cohen.W.W, and Richman.J,” Learning to match and cluster large high – dimensional data sets for integration ,” in proceedings of ninth ACM SIGKDD International conference of knowledge discovery and data mining, pp.475-480, 2002. Tejada.S, Knoblock.C.A and Minton.S, “Learning object identification for information integration, “Information systems, vol.26, no.8,pp.607-633, 2001. Guha.S, Koudas.N, Marathe.A, and Srivastava.D,”Merging the results of approximate match operations, “in proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on very large data bases,pp.636-647, 2004. Caryalho.J.C.P, and Da.Silva, A.S.Finding similar identities among objects from multiple web sources, “ in proceedings of the fifth ACM International workshop on web information and data management, pp.90-93, 2003. De carvalho, M.G. Laender, A.H.F Goncalves. M.A, and DaSilva, A.S,” Replica identification using genetic programming, “in proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM symposium on Applied ComputingSAC, 2008.

@IJITCE Publication