Public Notices

A graph matching method and a graph matching distance based on subgraph assignments

A graph matching method and a graph matching distance based on subgraph assignments
of 13
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  A graph matching method and a graph matching distance basedon subgraph assignments Romain Raveaux * , Jean-Christophe Burie, Jean-Marc Ogier L3I Laboratory, University of La Rochelle, av M. Crépeau, 17042 La Rochelle Cedex 1, France a r t i c l e i n f o  Article history: Received 17 November 2008Received in revised form 21 September2009Available online 24 October 2009Communicated by A. Shokoufandeh Keywords: Graph matchingGraph distanceBipartite graph matchingGraph based representation a b s t r a c t During the last decade, the use of graph-based object representation has drastically increased. As a mat-ter of fact, object representation by means of graphs has a number of advantages over feature vectors. Asa consequence, methods to compare graphs have become of first interest. In this paper, a graph matchingmethod and a distance between attributed graphs are defined. Both approaches are based on subgraphs.In this context, subgraphs can be seen as structural features extracted from a given graph, their natureenables them to represent local information of a root node. Given two graphs  G 1 ; G 2 , the univalent map-ping can be expressed as the minimum-weight subgraph matching between  G 1  and  G 2  with respect to acost function. This metric between subgraphs is directly derived from well-known graph distances. Inexperiments on four different data sets, the distance induced by our graph matching was applied to mea-sure the accuracy of the graph matching. Finally, we demonstrate a substantial speed-up compared toconventional methods while keeping a relevant precision.   2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Graphs are frequently used in various fields of computer sciencesince they constitute a universal modeling tool which allows thedescription of structured data. The handled objects and their rela-tions are described in a single and human-readable formalism. Agraph  G  is a set of vertex (nodes)  V   connected by edges (links)  E  .Thus  G  ¼ ð V  ; E  Þ . Tools for graphs supervised classification andgraph mining are more and more required in many applicationssuch as pattern recognition (Serrau et al., 2005), case-based rea-soning (Antoine Champin and Solnon, 2003), chemical componentsanalysis (Ralaivola et al., 2005) and semi-structured data retrieval(Schenker et al., 2004). To initiate the graph matching topic, wemention that a comprehensive survey of the technical achieve-ments over the last 30 years is provided in (Conte et al., 2004).In model-based pattern recognition problems, two graphs aregiven, the model graph  G M   and the data graph  G D . The procedurefor comparing them involves to check whether they are similaror not. Generally speaking, we can state the graph matching prob-lem as follows: Given two graphs  G M   ¼ ð V  M  ; E  M  Þ  and  G D  ¼ ð V  D ; E  D Þ ,with  j V  M  j ¼ j V  D j , the problem is to find a one-to-one mapping  f   :  V  D  !  V  M   such that  ð u ; v  Þ 2  E  D  iff   ð  f  ð u Þ ;  f  ð v  ÞÞ 2  E  M  . When sucha mapping  f   exists, this is called an isomorphism, and  G D  is saidto be isomorphic to  G M  . This type of problem is known as exactgraph matching. On the other hand, the term ‘‘inexact” applied tograph matching problems means that it is not possible to find anisomorphism between the two graphs. This is the case when thenumber of vertices or the labels are different in both the modeland data graphs. Therefore, in these cases no isomorphism canbe expected between both graphs, and the graph matching prob-lem does not consist in searching for the exact way of matchingvertices of a graph with vertices of the other, but in finding the bestmatching between them. This leads to a class of problems knownas inexact graph matching. In that case, the matching aims at find-ing a non-bijective correspondence between a data graph and amodel graph. If one of the graphs involved in the matching is largerthan the other, in terms of the number of nodes, then the matchingis performed by a subgraph isomorphism. A subgraph isomor-phism from  G M   to  G D  means finding a subgraph  sg   of   G D  such that G M   and  sg   are isomorphic.Two drawbacks can be stated for the use of graph matching.Firstly, its computational complexity. This is an inherent difficultyof the graph matching problem. A brute-force approach requires acomputational cost of   O ð n ! Þ  for a graph with  n  nodes. The subgraphisomorphism is proven to be NP-complete (Mehlhorn, 1984). How-ever, a research effort has been made to develop computationallytractable graph matching algorithms in particular applications.Such applications use some heuristics to cut down the computa-tional effort to a manageable size. Graph matching can even becomputed in polynomial time by using approximate algorithmsunder particular conditions. The second drawback is dealing withnoise and distortion. The encoding of an object of an image by anattributed graph may not be perfect due to noise and errors 0167-8655/$ - see front matter    2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2009.10.011 *  Corresponding author. Fax: +33 5 46 45 82 42. E-mail address: (R. Raveaux).Pattern Recognition Letters 31 (2010) 394–406 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Pattern Recognition Letters journal homepage:  introduced in low-level stages. In such situations, the presence of noise and distortion results in distorted graphs with different attri-bute values, missing or added vertices and edges, etc. This factmeans exact graph matching is useless in many computer visionapplications. The matching must incorporate an error model ableto identify the distortions which make one graph a distorted ver-sion of the other. A matching between two graphs involving an er-ror model is referred to as inexact graph matching and is computedby an error-correcting or error-tolerant (sub) graph isomorphism(Bunke and Messmer, 1997).Several techniques have been put forward to solve the (sub)graph isomorphism problem, e.g. probabilistic relaxation (Ben-goetxea et al., 2002; Coughlan and Ferreira, 2002; Christmas andKittler, 1995), EM algorithm (Cross and Hancock, 1998; Luo andHancock, 2000), neural networks (Lee and Park, 2002; Lee andLiu, 2000), decision trees (Messmer and Bunke, 1999) and a geneticalgorithm (Cross and Hancock, 1996; Auwatanamongkol, 2007).Let us now give an overview of the main approaches and reporton some of the most representative references. See reference (Lla-dós, 1997) for further study. 1.1. Error-tolerant algorithms Concerning graph matching in the presence of noise and distor-tion, the procedural solutionsto find an optimal error-tolerant sub-graph isomorphism between two graphs are based on theconstruction of a state-space which is then searched with branchand bound techniques. A different approach to modelize the uncer-tainty of structural patterns was proposed by Wong and You(1985). They defined random graphs as a particular type of graphswhich convey a probabilistic description of the data. Seong et al.(1994) developed a branch-and-bound algorithm to find the opti-mal isomorphism between two random graphs in terms of an en-tropy minimization formulation. 1.2. Approximate algorithms Approximate or continuous optimization algorithms for graphmatching offer the advantage that they can reach a solution inpolynomial time and, moreover, they can solve both the exactand the inexact graph matching problem. However, since the sim-ilarity function which they minimize can converge in a local min-imum, they may not find the optimal solution. Perhaps, the mostsuccessful of the optimization methods for graph matching usesome form of probabilistic relaxation (Christmas and Kittler,1995; Finch and Wilson, 1997; Gold and Rangarajan, 1996; Wilsonand Hancock, 1996). The idea is similar to the discrete relaxationmethods; however, the compatibility constraints between vertex-to-vertex assignments do not have a binary formulation, but aredefined in terms of a probability function that is iteratively up-dated by the relaxation procedure. Another continuous optimiza-tion approach is based on neural networks (Kuner andUeberreiter, 1988; Suganthan and Teoh, 1995; Suganthan andTeoh, 1995). The nodes of a neural network can represent vertex-to-vertex mappings and the connection weights between two net-work nodes represent a measure of the compatibility between thecorresponding mappings. The network is programmed in order tominimize an energy (cost) function which is defined in terms of the compatibility between mappings. The problem of neural net-works is that the minimization procedure is strongly dependenton the initialization of the network. Genetic algorithms is anothertechnique used to find the best match between two graphs (Crossand Wilson, 1997; Ford and Zhang, 1992; Jiang et al., 2000). Vec-tors of genes are defined to represent mappings from model verti-ces to input vertices. These solution vectors are combined bygenetic operators to find a solution.Now that we have detailed the main concepts, let’s introduceour proposal. In this paper, an error-tolerant graph matching algo-rithm is described. It is based on subgraph decomposition and wiseuse of the assignment problem. The assignment problem is one of the fundamental combinatorial optimization problems in thebranch of optimization or operations research in mathematics. Itconsists of finding a maximum weight matching in a weightedbipartite graph.In its proposed form, the problem is as follows:   There are  V  M   number of subgraphs from  G M   and  V  D  number of subgraphs from  G D . Any subgraph  ð sg  M  Þ  from  G M   can be assignedto any subgraph  ð sg  D Þ  of   G D , incurring some cost that may varydepending on the  sg  M  — sg  D  assignment. It is required to mapall subgraphs by assigning exactly one  sg  M   to each  sg  D  in sucha way that the total cost of the assignment is minimized. Thismatching cost is directly linked to the cost function that mea-sures the similarity between subgraphs.   The adopted strategy tackles non-deterministic methods (i.e.evolutionaryalgorithms) thanks to a combinatorial optimizationalgorithm which confers a better stability, in such a way that fora given case, every time we run the program we will obtain thesame results. Moreover, this combinatorial framework cutsdown the algorithmic complexity to an  O ð n 3 Þ  upper bound,depending on the number of nodes in the largest graph. Hence,the matching can be achieved in polynomial time which tacklesthe computational barrier. On the other hand, the number of calls to the graph distance is highly increased. In fact,  n 2 callsto the cost function are needed to complete the weighted bipar-tite graph. This drawback is reasonably acceptable since thecomparisons are performed on rather small subgraphs. Finally,the formulation into a bipartite graph matching offers the possi-bility to base the cost function on any kind of graph dissimilaritymeasures, making the system much more generic where thechoice of the graph distance can be seen as a meta parameter.All the later methods have as a common point the use of anoptimization algorithm to best fit a graph into another. Note thatin these cases, the fitness function measures the quality of the sim-ilarity. This function is designed taking into account the cost of mapping  V  D  !  V  M  .It is the author’sbeliefthat a suitable matchingwouldlead to anaccurate graph distance. According to this assumption, the perfor-mance evaluation question evolves into a graph distance problem.Furthermore, this point of view on the graph matching issue willallow a quantitative benchmark of our approach.In the next section, a short survey is presented and graph dis-tances used in this paper are introduced.The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in Section 3, theproposed method is theoretically defined and explained. Section4 is divided into two parts: The experimental evaluation of thealgorithm is described and results are examined. Finally, some dis-cussions conclude the paper. 2. Dissimilarity measures between graphs All of the methods discussed here begin with a crisply labeledset of training data  T   ¼ h  x i ;  y i if g Li ¼ 1 . Our presumption is that  T   con-tains at least one item with class label j, 1 6  j 6 c  . Let  x  be an unla-beled object that we wish to label as belonging to one of   c   classes.The standard nearest prototype 1   NN   classification rule assigns  x to the class of the ‘‘most similar” element in a set of labeled refer-ences. This notion of ‘‘the most similar one” is directly linked to theconcept of graph distance. Hence, the graph classification problemcan be stated as follows: it consists in inducing a mapping R. Raveaux et al./Pattern Recognition Letters 31 (2010) 394–406   395   f  ð  x Þ  :  v  !  C  , from given training examples,  T   ¼ h  x i ;  y i if g Li ¼ 1 , where  x i  2  v  is a labeled graph and  y i  2  C   is a class label associated withthe training data.Different approaches have been put forward over the last dec-ade to tackle the problem of graph classification. A first one con-sists into transforming the initial problem in a commonstatistical pattern recognition problem by describing the objectswith vectors in a Euclidean space. In such a context, some features(vertex degree, labels occurrence histograms, etc.) are extractedfrom the graph. Hence, the graph is projected in a Euclidean spaceand classical machine learning algorithms can be applied (Papado-poulos and Manolopoulos, 1999). Such approaches suffer from amain drawback: in order to have a satisfactory description of topo-logical structure and graph content, the number of such featureshas to be very large and dimensionality issues occur.Other approaches suggest using embeddings of the graphs in aEuclidean space of a given dimensionality using an optimizationprocess. The aim of which is to best fit the distance matrix betweeneach of the graphs. In such cases, a measure allowing graph com-parison has to be designed. It is the case for multidimensional scal-ing methods proposed in (Bonabeau, 2002; Cox and Cox, 2001).Another family of approaches also consists in using classicalmachine learning algorithms. At the opposite of the approachesmentioned above, the graphs are not explicitly but implicitly pro- jected in a Euclidean space, through the use of a similarity measureadapted to the processed data in the learning algorithm.In such a context, many kernel-based methods such as supportvector machine or Kernel principal analysis were recently put for-ward (Kashima and Tsuboi, 2004; Borgwardt and Kriegel, 2005).They consist in designing an appropriate graph-based kernel forcomputing inner products in the graph space. Many kernels havebeen proposed in the literature (Suard et al., 2006; Mahé et al.,2004; Mahé et al., 2005). In most cases, the graph is embeddedin a feature space composed of label sequences through a graphtraversal. According to this traversal, the kernel value is then com-putedby measuringthe similaritybetween label sequences.Even if such approaches have proven to achieve high performance, theysuffer from a computationally intensive cost if the dataset is large(Vapnik, 1982). This problem of computational cost is not inherentto kernel-based methods. It also occurs when using other classifi-cation algorithms like  k -NN. In conclusion, the problem of classify-ing graphs require the use of a fast but yet effective graph distance.Our contribution in this paper is twofold; a sub-optimal inexactgraph matching and a measure allowing to compare graphs with alow computational cost. This section offers a study of the differentmeasures used to compare graphs in the context of nearest-neigh-bor search. Then, based on the accuracy and the performance, it justifies the choice of a measure based on subgraph assignments.A dissimilarity measure is a function: d  :  X     X   ! R ; where  X   is the representation space for the object description. It hasthe following properties:   non-negativity d ð  x ;  y Þ P 0 ;  ð 1 Þ   uniqueness d ð  x ;  y Þ ¼  0  )  x  ¼  y ;  ð 2 Þ   symmetry d ð  x ;  y Þ ¼  d ð  y ;  x Þ :  ð 3 Þ Measures of dissimilarity can often be transformed into mea-sures of similarity(e.g.  s ð  x ;  y Þ ¼  k    d ð  x ;  y Þ , with k  beinga constant).If a dissimilarity measure also respects the triangle inequality (4),it is said to be a metric. d ð  x ;  y Þ 6 d ð  x ;  z  Þþ d ð  z  ;  y Þ :  ð 4 Þ Pseudo-metrics are another kind of function which allows tocompare objects. Pseudo-metrics respect the non-negativity, sym-metry and triangle inequality properties, but do not respect theuniqueness property. Pseudo-metrics can be obtained from dissim-ilarity measures, thanks to transformations that keep the orderrelation (e.g.  D ð  x ;  y Þ ¼  d ð  x ;  y Þ 1 þ d ð  x ;  y Þ  þ 1 (Gordon, 1999)).The triangle inequality property is often used to optimize simi-larity search in metric spaces as it is done in (Vidal, 1994) or (Ciac- cia et al., 1997), with direct application to classification ( k -NN) andinformation retrievaltasks. Whenthe compared objectsaregraphs,the uniqueness condition turns into an equivalence between a nulldissimilarity and graphisomorphism.Graphisomorphismsearchisknown to be a NP-Complete problem. However, if one defines ametric which is computationally tractable, then the graph isomor-phism problem is also present. The edit distance  ð ED Þ  is a dissimi-larity measure for graphs that represents the minimum-costsequence of basic editing operations to transform a graph into an-other graph by means of insertion, deletion and substitution of nodes or edges. Under certain conditions imposed to the cost asso-ciated with basic operations, the edit distance is a metric (Bunkeand Shearer, 1998). In order to apply edit distance to a real worldapplication, we have to consider that costs for basic operations areapplication dependent. This issue is tackled by automatic learningof cost functions (Neuhaus and Bunke, 2007). But, the edit distancecomputation also has a worst case exponential complexity whichprevents its use in the context of nearest-neighbor search in largedatasets.  2.1. Conditions for the edit distance being a metric  The srcinal graph to graph correction algorithm defined ele-mentary edit operations,  ð a ; b Þ – ð  ;  Þ , where  a  and  b  are symbolsfrom the two graphs or the NULL symbol,   . Thus, changing sym-bol  x  to  y  is denoted  ð  x ;  y Þ , inserting  y  is denoted  ð  ;  y Þ , and delet-ing  x  is denoted  ð  x ;  Þ . Formally, the edit distance can be expressedas the sum of the edit operations to change a graph  G 1  into a sub-graph  G 2 . d ED ð G 1 ; G 2 Þ ¼  min ð e 1 ; ... ; e k Þ2 c ð G 1 ; G 2 Þ X ki ¼ 1 ð edit  ð e i ÞÞ ; where  c ð G 1 ; G 2 Þ  denotes the set of edit paths transforming  G 1  into G 2 , and  edit   denotes the cost function measuring the strength edit  ð e i Þ  of edit operation  e i . From the conclusion drew in (Myerset al., 2000), an interesting property of this quantity is that it is ametric if   edit  ð e i Þ  >  0 for all non-identical pairs and 0 otherwise,and if   edit  ð e i Þ  is self-inverse. In order to define measures of dissimilarity between complexobjects (sets, strings, graphs, etc.), another possibility is to basethe measure on the quantity of shared terms. The simplest similar-ity measure between two complex objects  o 1  and  o 2  is the match-ing coefficient  mc  , which is based on the number of shared terms. mc   ¼  o 1  ^ o 2 o 1  _ o 2 ;  ð 5 Þ where  o 1  ^ o 2  denotes the intersection of   o 1 ; o 2  and  o 1  _ o 2  standsfor the union between the two objects. Based on this idea, dissimilarity measures which take into ac-count the maximal common subgraph  ð mcs Þ  of two graphs wereput forward: d ð G 1 ; G 2 Þ ¼  1   mcs ð G 1 ; G 2 Þ max ðj G 1 j ; j G 2 jÞ ;  ð 6 Þ 396  R. Raveaux et al./Pattern Recognition Letters 31 (2010) 394–406   where  j G j  denotes a combination of the number of nodes and thenumber of edges in  G . From Eq. (5), the expression  o 1  _ o 2  is substi-tuted by the size of the largest graph and the intersection of twographs  ð o 1  ^ o 2 Þ  is represented by the maximum common subgraph. d ð G 1 ; G 2 Þ ¼  1   mcs ð G 1 ; G 2 Þj G 1 jþj G 2 j mcs ð G 1 ; G 2 Þ ;  ð 7 Þ where  mcs ð G 1 ; G 2 Þ  is the largest subgraph common to  G 1  and  G 2 , cannot be extended to another common subgraph by the additionof any vertex or edge. The edit distance  ð ED Þ  and the size of   mcs  observe the followingequation: ED ð G 1 ; G 2 Þ ¼ j G 1 jþj G 2 j 2 j mcs ð G 1 ; G 2 Þj :  ð 8 Þ As long as the cost functions associated to the edit distance re-spect the conditions presented in (Bunke and Shearer, 1998). Theway to calculate the  mcs  size of two graphs can be used to computethe edit distance and viceversa. Then, both methods share thesame computational complexity. Due to the difficulty in applyingthese metrics, several approaches relying on different types of approximations were proposed in (Hidovic and Pelillo, 2004).Three other group of techniques can be employed to evaluategraph similarity, spectral graph theory (Robles-Kelly and Hancock,2005), probabilistic methods (Myers et al., 2000) or combinatorial optimization (Gold and Rangarajan, 1996; Peter Kriegel and Scho-nauer, 2003).Among them, the node/edge matching distance (NMD) pro-posed in (Peter Kriegel and Schonauer, 2003) is a combinatorialoptimization problem. It is based on the approximation of thetopological conservation of isomorphism by the search of a mini-mum cost matching between two nodes set. The matrix cost formatching different labeled nodes serves as an input for the Hun-garian algorithm. The node matching distance between two graphs G 1  and  G 2  results in the cost of the minimum-weight edge match-ing which is given with a worst case complexity of   O ð n 3 Þ , where  n is the largest number of edges. The node cost function has to bedetermined taking into account a distance label matrix. The nodematching distance for attributed graphs respects the non-negativ-ity (1), symmetry (3), triangle inequality (4) properties from the metric definition as it is shown in (Peter Kriegel and Schonauer,2003). Recently, Shokoufandeh et al. (2006) draws on spectral graph theory to derive a new algorithm for computing node corre-spondence.In computinga bipartitematching of nodeswhere theirtopological contexts is embedded into structural signature vectors.A faster technique for estimating graph similarity consists inextracting a graph description as a vector of probes. This method,called graph probing proposed by Lopresti and Wilfong (2003),can deal with graphs with hundreds or thousands of vertices andedges in linear time and can be applied to directed attributedgraphs. Definition.  Let  G  be a directed attributed graph and let  L  denote afinite set of edge labels:  l 1 ; l 2 ;  . . .  ; l a f g . Based on this notation, theedge structure of a given vertex can be described with a numericalvectors composed of a 2a-tuple of non-negative integers  x 1 ;  x 2 ; f . . .  ;  x a ;  y 1 ;  y 2 ;  . . .  ;  y a g  such that the vertex has exactly  x i  incomingedges labeled  l i , and  y  j  outgoing edges labeled  l  j .The Fig. 1 illustrates the principle of construction of an edgestructure for a given vertex. In this context, two types of probesare defined:   Probe 1 ð G Þ  : a vector which gathers the counts of vertices sharingthe same edge structure, for all encountered edge structures.   Probe 2 ð G Þ  : a vector which gathers the number of vertices foreach vertex label.The Fig. 1 illustrates the principle of construction of an edgestructure for a given vertex. Based on these probes and on the 1-norm  L 1, the graph probing distance is defined as: GP  ð G 1 ; G 2 Þ¼ L 1 ð Probe 1 ð G 1 Þ ; Probe 1 ð G 2 ÞÞþ L 1 ð Probe 2 ð G 1 Þ ; Probe 2 ð G 2 ÞÞ : The graph probing distance ( GP  ) only respects the non-negativ-ity, symmetry, and triangle inequality properties from the metricdefinition, but not the uniqueness property. In other words,  GP   isa pseudo-metric and two non-isomorphic graphs can have thesame graph probes. However, a upper bound relation within a fac-tor of four exists between the graph probing and the edit distance(Bunke and Shearer, 1998). GP  ð G 1 ; G 2 Þ 6 4  ED ð G 1 ; G 2 Þ :  ð 9 Þ In this context, the graph topology can be partially ignored bycounting the number of occurrences of a set of subgraphs (namedfingerprints or probes in different contexts) from each graph and todescribe the objects to be compared as vectors. Consequently, thishistogram view of a graph cannot lead to an univalent mappingprocess.  2.2. Comparison with the related work In (Lopresti and Wilfong, 2003), Wilfong and Lopresti proposeda graph decomposition into an histogramwhere histogram bins arevery simple sub-structures coded as numerical vectors. This strongassumption implies sub-elements to be very simple in term of structural information while cutting off drastically the computa-tion time. This histogram viewpoint makes the graph matchingcomputation not feasible loosing relationship between items. In-stead of an histogram organization, in our case, the informationis laid out in a bipartite graph, hence, a point to point mappingcan be carried out.In (Shokoufandeh et al., 2006), a ‘‘topological signature vector”described the structural context of a node. This vector was derivedfrom the spectral properties of the directed acyclic subgraphrooted at that node. Thereby, a bipartite graph was defined be-tween the nodes in two graphs, and edge costs were distances be-tween two nodes’ corresponding signatures, see Fig. 2. In such away, the structural information is partially ignored to be embed-ded into a numerical vector. Fig. 1.  Edge structure of a vertex in the graph probing context. R. Raveaux et al./Pattern Recognition Letters 31 (2010) 394–406   397  On the contrary, our strong point is the combination of a graphdata structure encoding combined with a bipartite matching pro-cedure to find the optimal match. This formal description givesgood properties to our method. The subgraph decompositionmakes different graph distances applicable, thus, a wise use of the past-work in this field of science can be done.By now, from the srcinal idea stated in (Peter Kriegel and Scho-nauer, 2003; Shokoufandeh et al., 2006), the minimum cost match-ing between two element sets, the authors extended this paradigmto more complex and discriminating objects called subgraphs.Where a subgraph takes into account the vertex information andits neighborhood context. The rest of the paper will present anew metric that involves an univalent subgraph mapping that in-volves adjacent vertices into the matching process. 3. Subgraph matching and subgraph matching distance (  SGMD )  3.1. Definition and notation 3.1.1. Graph definition In this work, the problem which is considered concerns thematching of directed labeled graphs. Such graphs can be definedas follows: Let  L V   and  L E   denote the set of node and edge labels,respectively. A labeled graph  G  is a 4-tuple  G  ¼ ð V  ; E  ; l ; n Þ , where   V   is the set of nodes,   E  # V     V   is the set of edges,   l  :  V   !  L V   is a function assigning labels to the nodes, and   n  :  E   !  L E   is a function assigning labels to the edges.  3.1.2. Subgraph decomposition From this definition of a given graph, the subparts for thematching problem can be expressed as follows:Let  G  be an attributed graph with edges labeled from the finiteset  l 1 ; l 2 ;  . . .  ; l a f g . Let  SG  be a set of subgraphs extracted from  G .There is a subgraph  sg   associated to each vertex of the graph  G . Asubgraph  ð sg  Þ  is defined as a structure gathering the edges andtheir corresponding ending vertices from a root vertex. In such away, the neighborhood information of a given vertex is taken intoaccount. A subgraph represents a local information, a ‘‘star” struc-ture from a root node. The mapping of these subparts should leadto a meaningful graph matching approximation. The subgraphextraction is done by parsing the graph which is achievable in lin-ear time through the joint use of the adjacency matrix. The sub-graph decomposition is illustrated in Fig. 3.  3.2. Subgraph matching  Let  G 1 ð V  1 ; E  1 Þ  and  G 2 ð V  2 ; E  2 Þ  be two attributed graphs. Withoutloss of generality, we assume that  j  SG 1  j P j  SG 2  j . The completebipartite graph  G em ð V  em  ¼  SG 1  [  SG 2  [ 4 ; SG 1   ð SG 2  [ 4ÞÞ , where 4  represents an empty dummy subgraph, is called the subgraphmatching graph of   G 1  and  G 2 . A subgraph matching between  G 1 and  G 2  is defined as a maximal matching in  G em . We define thematching distance between  G 1  and  G 2 , denoted by  SGMD ð G 1 ; G 2 Þ , Fig. 2.  Forming the structural signature. Fig. 3.  Graph decomposition into subgraph world.398  R. Raveaux et al./Pattern Recognition Letters 31 (2010) 394–406 
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks