skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

The Power of D-hops in Matching Power-Law Graphs

Published:04 June 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This paper studies seeded graph matching for power-law graphs. Assume that two edge-correlated graphs are independently edge-sampled from a common parent graph with a power-law degree distribution. A set of correctly matched vertex-pairs is chosen at random and revealed as initial seeds. Our goal is to use the seeds to recover the remaining latent vertex correspondence between the two graphs. Departing from the existing approaches that focus on the use of high-degree seeds in $1$-hop neighborhoods, we develop an efficient algorithm that exploits the low-degree seeds in suitably-defined D-hop neighborhoods. Specifically, we first match a set of vertex-pairs with appropriate degrees (which we refer to as the first slice) based on the number of low-degree seeds in their D-hop neighborhoods. This approach significantly reduces the number of initial seeds needed to trigger a cascading process to match the rest of graphs. Under the Chung-Lu random graph model with n vertices, max degree Θ(√n), and the power-law exponent 2<β<3, we show that as soon as D> 4-β/3-β, by optimally choosing the first slice, with high probability our algorithm can correctly match a constant fraction of the true pairs without any error, provided with only Ω((log n)4-β) initial seeds. Our result achieves an exponential reduction in the seed size requirement, as the best previously known result requires n1/2+ε seeds (for any small constant ε>0). Performance evaluation with synthetic and real data further corroborates the improved performance of our algorithm.

References

  1. David Avis. 1983. A Survey of Heuristics for the Weighted Matching Problem. Networks, Vol. 13, 4 (1983), 475--493.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Albert-László Barabási and Réka Albert. 1999. Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. Science, Vol. 286, 5439 (1999), 509--512.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Albert-László Barabási. 2016. Network Science .Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://barabasi.com/networksciencebook/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexander C Berg, Tamara L Berg, and Jitendra Malik. 2005. Shape Matching and Object Recognition Using Low Distortion Correspondences. In 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05), Vol. 2. IEEE Computer Society, 26--33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Karl Bringmann, Tobias Friedrich, and Anton Krohmer. 2014. De-anonymization of Heterogeneous Random Graphs in Quasilinear Time. In European Symposium on Algorithms. Springer, 197--208.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. T. Caelli and S. Kosinov. 2004. An Eigenspace Projection Clustering Method for Inexact Graph Matching. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 26, 4 (2004), 515--519.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Carla-Fabiana Chiasserini, Michele Garetto, and Emilio Leonardi. 2016. Social Network De-Anonymization Under Scale-Free User Relations. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Vol. 24, 6 (2016), 3756--3769.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Fan Chung and Linyuan Lu. 2004. The Average Distance in a Random Graph with Given Expected Degrees. Internet Mathematics, Vol. 1, 1 (2004), 91--113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Aaron Clauset, Cosma Rohilla Shalizi, and Mark EJ Newman. 2009. Power-law Distributions in Empirical Data. SIAM review, Vol. 51, 4 (2009), 661--703.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Donatello Conte, Pasquale Foggia, Carlo Sansone, and Mario Vento. 2004. Thirty years of graph matching in pattern recognition. International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 18, 03 (2004), 265--298.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Timothee Cour, Praveen Srinivasan, and Jianbo Shi. 2006. Balanced Graph Matching. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19. 313--320.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Devdatt P. Dubhashi and Alessandro Panconesi. 2009. Concentration of Measure for the Analysis of Randomized Algorithms .Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581274Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Zhou Fan, Cheng Mao, Yihong Wu, and Jiaming Xu. 2020. Spectral Graph Matching and Regularized Quadratic Relaxations: Algorithm and Theory. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2985--2995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Marcelo Fiori, Pablo Sprechmann, Joshua Vogelstein, Pablo Muse, and Guillermo Sapiro. 2013. Robust Multimodal Graph Matching: Sparse Coding Meets Graph Matching. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26. 127--135.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Donniell E. Fishkind, Sancar Adali, Heather G. Patsolic, Lingyao Meng, Digvijay Singh, Vince Lyzinski, and Carey E. Priebe. 2018. Seeded Graph Matching. arxiv: 1209.0367 [stat.ML]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Aria Haghighi, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher D Manning. 2005. Robust Textual Inference via Graph Matching. In Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 387--394.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Ehsan Kazemi, Hamed Hassani, Matthias Grossglauser, and Hassan Pezeshgi Modarres. 2016. PROPER: Global Protein Interaction Network Alignment Through Percolation Matching. BMC bioinformatics, Vol. 17, 1 (2016), 527.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ehsan Kazemi, S Hamed Hassani, and Matthias Grossglauser. 2015. Growing a Graph Matching from a Handful of Seeds. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, Vol. 8, 10 (2015), 1010--1021.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Nitish Korula and Silvio Lattanzi. 2014. An efficient reconciliation algorithm for social networks. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, Vol. 7, 5 (2014), 377--388.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Jure Leskovec and Andrej Krevl. 2014. SNAP Datasets: Stanford Large Network Dataset Collection. http://snap.stanford.edu/data .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Joseph Lubars and R Srikant. 2018. Correcting the Output of Approximate Graph Matching Algorithms. In IEEE INFOCOM 2018-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. IEEE, 1745--1753.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Vince Lyzinski, Donniell E. Fishkind, and Carey E. Priebe. 2013. Seeded Graph Matching for Correlated ErdHos-Rényi Graphs. Journal of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 15 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Elchanan Mossel and Jiaming Xu. 2019. Seeded Graph Matching via Large Neighborhood Statistics. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. SIAM, 1005--1014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov. 2008. Robust De-anonymization of Large Sparse Datasets. In 2008 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, 111--125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov. 2009. De-anonymizing Social Networks. In 2009 30th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, 173--187.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Mark EJ Newman. 2003. The Structure and Function of Complex Networks. SIAM review, Vol. 45, 2 (2003), 167--256.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Pedram Pedarsani and Matthias Grossglauser. 2011. On the Privacy of Anonymized Networks. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 1235--1243.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Ali Pinar, C. Seshadhri, and Tamara G. Kolda. 2011. The Similarity between Stochastic Kronecker and Chung-Lu Graph Models. arxiv: 1110.4925 [cs.SI]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Christian Schellewald and Christoph Schnörr. 2005. Probabilistic Subgraph Matching Based on Convex Relaxation. In International Workshop on Energy Minimization Methods in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Springer, 171--186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Farhad Shirani, Siddharth Garg, and Elza Erkip. 2017. Seeded Graph Matching: Efficient Algorithms and Theoretical Guarantees. In 2017 51st Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers. IEEE, 253--257.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Rohit Singh, Jinbo Xu, and Bonnie Berger. 2008. Global Alignment of Multiple Protein Interaction Networks With Application to Functional Orthology Detection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 105, 35 (2008), 12763--12768.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Amanda L Traud, Peter J Mucha, and Mason A Porter. 2012. Social Structure of Facebook Networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Vol. 16, 391 (2012), 4165--4180.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Lyudmila Yartseva and Matthias Grossglauser. 2013. On the Performance of Percolation Graph Matching. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Online Social Networks. ACM, 119--130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Liren Yu, Jiaming Xu, and Xiaojun Lin. 2021. Graph Matching with Partially-Correct Seeds. arxiv: 2004.03816 [cs.DS]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. The Power of D-hops in Matching Power-Law Graphs

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)43
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!