Abstract
Because of the complex activities involved in IoT networks of a smart city, an important question arises: What are the core activities of the networks as a whole and its basic information flow structure? Identifying and discovering core activities and information flow is a crucial step that can facilitate the analysis. This is the question we are addressing—that is, to identify the core services as a common core substructure despite the probabilistic nature and the diversity of its activities. If this common substructure can be discovered, a systemic analysis and planning can then be performed and key policies related to the community can be developed. Here, a local IoT network can be represented as an attributed graph. From an ensemble of attributed graphs, identifying the common subgraph pattern is then critical in understanding the complexity. We introduce this as the common random subgraph (CRSG) modeling problem, aiming at identifying a subgraph pattern that is the structural “core” that conveys the probabilistically distributed graph characteristics. Given an ensemble of network samples represented as attributed graphs, the method generates a CRSG model that encompasses both structural and statistical characteristics from the related samples while excluding unrelated networks. In generating a CRSG model, our method using a multiple instance learning algorithm transforms an attributed graph (composed of structural elements as edges and their two endpoints) into a “bag” of instances in a vector space. Common structural components across positively labeled graphs are then identified as the common instance patterns among instances across different bags. The structure of the CRSG arises through the combining of common patterns. The probability distribution of the CRSG can then be estimated based on the connections and distributions from the common elements. Experimental results demonstrate that CRSG models are highly expressive in describing typical network characteristics.
- Les E. Atlas, Toshiteru Homma, and Robert J. Marks. 1988. An artificial neural network for spatio-temporal bipolar patterns: Application to phoneme classification. In Neural Information Processing Systems, D. Z. Anderson (Ed.). American Institute of Physics, 31–40. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- James Atwood and Don Towsley. 2015. Search-convolutional neural networks. CoRR abs/1511.02136 (2015). arxiv:1511.02136 http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.02136Google Scholar
- Andrew D. Bagdanov and Marcel Worring. 2003. First order gaussian graphs for efficient structure classification. Pattern Recognition 36, 6 (2003), 1311–1324.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Ehsan Zare Borzeshi, Massimo Piccardi, Kaspar Riesen, and Horst Bunke. 2013. Discriminative prototype selection methods for graph embedding. Pattern Recognition 46, 6 (June 2013), 1648–1657. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Joan Bruna, Wojciech Zaremba, Arthur Szlam, and Yann LeCun. 2014. Spectral networks and locally connected networks on graphs. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR’14).Google Scholar
- Horst Bunke. 1998. Error-tolerant graph matching: A formal framework and algorithms. In Proceedings of the Joint IAPR International Workshops on Advances in Pattern Recognition (SSPR’98/SPR’98). Springer-Verlag, London, UK, 1–14. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Horst Bunke and G. Allermann. 1983. Inexact graph matching for structural pattern recognition. Pattern Recognition Letters 1, 4 (May 1983), 245–253. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Qi Chen, Wei Wang, Fangyu Wu, Suparna De, Ruili Wang, Bailing Zhang, and Xing Huang. 2019. A survey on an emerging area: Deep learning for smart city data. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence 3, 5 (2019), 392–410.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- David K. Y. Chiu and Andrew K. C. Wong. 1986. Synthesizing knowledge: A cluster analysis approach using event covering. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 16, 2 (1986), 251–259. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Stephen A. Cook. 1971. The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’71). ACM, New York, NY, 151–158. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Debora Donato, Stefano Leonardi, Stefano Millozzi, and Panayiotis Tsaparas. 2008. Mining the inner structure of the web graph. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 41, 22 (2008), 224017. Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Günes Erkan and Dragomir R. Radev. 2004. LexRank: Graph-based lexical centrality as salience in text summarization. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 22, 1 (Dec. 2004), 457–479. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Pedro F. Felzenszwalb and Daniel P. Huttenlocher. 2004. Efficient graph-based image segmentation. International Journal of Computer Vision 59, 2 (2004), 167–181. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Pasquale Foggia, Roberto Genna, and Mario Vento. 2000. Prototype learning with attributed relational graphs. In Proceedings of the Joint IAPR International Workshops on Advances in Pattern Recognition. Springer-Verlag, London, UK, 447–456. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Simon Günter and Horst Bunke. 2002. Self-organizing map for clustering in the graph domain. Pattern Recognition Letters 23, 4 (2002), 405–417. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Markus Hagenbuchner, Shujia Zhang, Ah Chung Tsoi, and Alessandro Sperduti. 2009. Projection of undirected and non-positional graphs using self organizing maps. In Proceedings of 17th European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, Computational Intelligence and Machine Learning. D-Side Publications, 559–564.Google Scholar
- Jonathan Hayman and Tobias Heindel. 2013. Pattern graphs and rule-based models: The semantics of kappa. In Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Frank Pfenning (Ed.), Vol. 7794. Springer, 1–16. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Adel Hlaoui and Shengrui Wang. 2002. A new algorithm for inexact graph matching. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR’02). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 180–183. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Brijnesh J. Jain and Klaus Obermayer. 2010. Elkan’s K-means algorithm for graphs. In Proceedings of the 9th Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (MICAI’10), Vol. 6438. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 22–32. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Xiaoyi Jiang, Andreas Müunger, and Horst Bunke. 2001. On median graphs: Properties, algorithms, and applications. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 23, 10 (2001), 1144–1151. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Myunghwan Kim and Jure Leskovec. 2012. Latent multi-group membership graph model. CoRR abs/1205.4546 (2012). http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4546 Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Yann Lecun, Leon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. 1998. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE 86 (1998), 2278–2324.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Mathias Niepert, Mohamed Ahmed, and Konstantin Kutzkov. 2016. Learning convolutional neural networks for graphs. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings), Vol. 48. JMLR.org, 2014–2023. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Darwin Saire Pilco and Adín Ramírez Rivera. 2019. Graph Learning Network: A Structure Learning Algorithm. http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.12665Google Scholar
- K. Riesen and H. Bunke. 2008. IAM graph database repository for graph based pattern recognition and machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2008 Joint IAPR International Workshop on Structural, Syntactic, and Statistical Pattern Recognition. 287–297. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Alberto Sanfeliu and King-Sun Fu. 1983. A distance measure between attributed relational graphs for pattern recognition. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 13, 3 (May 1983), 353–362.Google Scholar
- Alberto Sanfeliu, Francesc Serratosa, and René Alquézar. 2004. Second-order random graphs for modeling sets of attributed graphs and their application to object learning and recognition. International Journal on Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence 18, 3 (2004), 375–396.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Venu Satuluri, Srinivasan Parthasarathy, and Duygu Ucar. 2010. Markov clustering of protein interaction networks with improved balance and scalability. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics and Computational Biology. ACM, 247–256. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Franco Scarselli, Marco Gori, Ah Chung Tsoi, Marcus Hagenbuchner, and Gabriele Monfardini. 2009. The graph neural network model. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 20, 1 (2009), 61–80. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Francesc Serratosa, René Alquézar, and Alberto Sanfeliu. 2003. Function-described graphs for modelling objects represented by sets of attributed graphs. Pattern Recognition 36, 3 (2003), 781–798.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Andrea Torsello and David L. Dowe. 2008. Learning a generative model for structural representations. In Proceedings of AI 2008: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, 21st Australasian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 573–583. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Wen-Hsiang Tsai and King-Sun Fu. 1979. Error-correcting isomorphisms of attributed relational graphs for pattern analysis. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 9, 12 (1979), 757–768.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Andrew K. C. Wong and Manlai You. 1985. Entropy and distance of random graphs with application to structural pattern recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 7, 5 (1985), 599–609. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Bingbing Xu, Huawei Shen, Qi Cao, Yunqi Qiu, and Xueqi Cheng. 2019. Graph wavelet neural network. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=H1ewdiR5tQGoogle Scholar
- Qian Xu, Derek Hao Hu, Hong Xue, and Qiang Yang. 2010. Predicting chemical activities from structures by attributed molecular graph classification. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology. IEEE, 1–8.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- T. Xu, D. Chiu, and I. Gondra. 2012. Constructing target concept in multiple instance learning using maximum partial entropy. In Proceedings of the 8th international Conference on Machine Learning and Data Mining in Pattern Recognition. 169–182. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Tao Xu, David K. Y. Chiu, and Iker Gondra. 2018. Common random subgraph modeling using multiple instance learning. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR’18). 1205–1210.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
Index Terms
Random Graph-based Multiple Instance Learning for Structured IoT Smart City Applications
Recommendations
The acyclic edge chromatic number of a random d-regular graph is d + 1
We prove the theorem from the title: the acyclic edge chromatic number of a random d-regular graph is asymptotically almost surely equal to d + 1. This improves a result of Alon, Sudakov, and Zaks and presents further support for a conjecture that Δ(G) +...
Equitable coloring of random graphs
An equitable coloring of a graph is a proper vertex coloring such that the sizes of any two color classes differ by at most one. The least positive integer k for which there exists an equitable coloring of a graph G with k colors is said to be the ...
Universality of Random Graphs for Graphs of Maximum Degree Two
For a family $\mathcal{F}$ of graphs, a graph $G$ is called $\mathcal{F}$-universal if $G$ contains every graph in $\mathcal{F}$ as a subgraph. Let $\mathcal{F}_n(d)$ be the family of all graphs on $n$ vertices with maximum degree at most $d$. Dellamonica, ...






Comments