There are many theories about calculating of graph similarity such as vertex edge overlap, jacard, co-sine, edit distance, signature similarity, lambda distance, deltacon so on. These things are based on single edge of the graph. But there are many graphs having multiple edges in real world.
Given similar two graphs like above, how could we calculate graph similarity?
Using previous graph similarity, there are only 2-dimension vector and the entry is just scalar that is number, but in multiple edge's graph, the entry should be tuple. Because there are one more actions between nodes. For the previous method, it could be called who-knows-whom schem, but latter graph, it could be said who-knows-whom*-how*. I think the previous mothods could be used for the multiple edge's graph easily, so there aren't logic or methods about it.
Thanks in advance!
There is not "the" way yo compute graph similarity.
Depending on your data and problem, very different approaches may be good. In many cases, simply merging the two edges into one makes perfect sense. For example, if I have two roads of capacity x and y to go from A to B - for many analyses this is comparable to having just one rode, with the combined capacity.
Related
I know that there are many techniques to represent graphs.
Suppose I have a directed massive 3D graph with 100,000 nodes at maximum.
Suppose the graph looks somewhat like the following:
Suppose each node of the graph has three pieces of information:
A 30-character string as a label
floating point values as coordinates
three integer values
The graph is dynamic. I.e., connections frequently change, and the nodes frequently change their coordinates.
What would be the most efficient way to represent this graph in computer memory so that I can apply mathematical operations on each node?
Should I use data structures, or should I use big-data analytics or ML?
I have found a partitioning algorithm that works on hypergraphs and its name is hMETIS, but my input is in the form of a simple weighted graph. Is there any technique that maps a graph to a hypergraph?
In general: No.
A graph contains information on binary interactions between two vertices, and there is no way to extract the information about the higher order interactions.
In short, if I give you a hypergraph I can use (multiple methods) to turn it into a graph, but that graph could be the result of multiple hypergraphs.
There are a few exceptions to this, notably if you have more information about the vertices outside of the graph, or if the graph is bipartite.
My problem is a generalization of a task solved by [Blossom algorithm] by Edmonds. The original task is the following: given a complete graph with weighted undirected edges, find a set of edges such that
1) every vertex of the graph is adjacent to only one edge from this set (i.e. vertices are grouped into pairs)
2) sum over weights of edges in this set is minimal.
Now, I would like to modify the first goal into
1') vertices are grouped into sets of 3 vertices (or in general, d vertices), and leave condition 2) unchanged.
My questions:
Do you know if this 'generalised' problem has a name?
Do you know about an algorithm solving it in number of steps being polynomial of number of vertices (like Blossom algorithm for an original problem)? I don't see a straightforward generalisation of Blossom algorithm, as it is based on looking for augmenting paths on a graph compressed to a bipartite graph (and uses here Hungarian algorithm). But augmenting paths do not seem to point to groups of vertices different than pairs.
Best regards,
Paweł
I want to know what will be an efficient way to implement an undirected weighted graph. I want to perform Prims and Kruskal algorithms on it. I know about adjacency lists but wouldn't that waste memory; for eg. lets suppose I have two vertexes A and B connected by an edge with weight 'x', so I'll need to add two entries in the adjacency list:
A,B,x
B,A,x
Am I missing something?
Adjacency lists are the memory-efficient way of implementing graphs, rather than adjacency matrices.
Actually, you have two options here.
If you want less time and more memory, you should do what you've written.
If you want more time and less memory, you could implement your edges A,B,x where A>B. But then, you would spend a lot of time while getting the adjacent vertices of any vertex.
It's your call. But second bullet is not preferred if you're dealing with less than millions of nodes.
since the graph is undirected I guess you will need only one edge between the nodes A and B
I'm trying to test some models of graph partitioning (these come from the real world, where a graph slowly self-partitions). To do this, I need to be able to uniformly randomly partition this graph into contiguous components (we are given the graph is initially connected, as well). Were the contiguity criterion not required I believe this would be the problem of randomly partitioning a set, which can be combinatorially analyzed. Does anyone know of any way to randomly partition graphs into subgraphs (i.e. randomly sample one partition), or, if no such method is known, to randomly sample a set of elements? The method of randomizing the number of partitions and then randomizing membership won't work because there are different numbers of possible partitions for each partition size.
You have to differentiate edge-cut partitioning and vertex-cut partitioning, where you divide the graph along the edges or vertices. This significantly impacts your problem as the number of different vertex-cuts is much larger than the number of edge-cuts. The reason is that you exclusively assign edges to partitions in vertex-cut - as opposed to edge-cut where you assign vertices to partitions - and there are much more edges than vertices (e.g. O(n^2) edges for n vertices). Hence, the combinatorially larger vertex-cut leads to a larger number of subgraphs that have to be checked for connectivity. A naive method for randomization is to enumerate all partitionings, iteratively select one partitioning, and check connectivity of all subgraphs in the selected partitioning. Then you just take the first one. In this case, all solutions have equal probability (uniformly random).
I have come across the same problem in work I am doing. I have two solutions to randomly partition a graph into m contiguous components:
Spanning Tree Approach. Randomly choose a spanning tree of your graph (e.g. Using Wilson's algorithm which chooses uniformly amongst all spanning trees). Then randomly select m-1 edges (without replacements) and remove them from the spanning tree. This will give m components which are each connected in the original graph.
Edge contraction approach. Randomly choose an edge and contract it, renaming the (new) vertex as the union of the two previous vertices. Repeat until you have only m vertices left. Identify each vertex with the subset of (original) vertices that were contracted into it.