Advertisement

The Review of Socionetwork Strategies

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 123–141 | Cite as

Hyperfiniteness of Real-World Networks

  • Yutaro Honda
  • Yoshitaka Inoue
  • Hiro Ito
  • Munehiko Sasajima
  • Junichi TeruyamaEmail author
  • Yushi Uno
Article
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

In addition to being rich material for successful deep learning, recent rapidly exploding big data needs more sophisticated direct approaches such algorithms that are expected to run in sublinear or even constant time. In view of this situation, property testing, which has been extensively studied in recent theoretical computer science areas, has become a promising approach. The basic framework of property testing is to decide with some inaccuracy if the input data have a certain property or not by reading only some fraction of the input. Especially, for the property testing of graphs, the hyperfiniteness of graphs plays an important role, which guarantees that any graph property can be testable. This hyperfiniteness requires graphs to have a partition that satisfies some conditions, and a property testing on algorithms that are run on those partitioned graphs. In this paper, we try to obtain such ideal partitions that satisfy hyperfiniteness by implementing an efficient partition algorithm recently proposed by Levi and Ron [ACM TALG, 2015]. Our experiments are performed mainly on real-world networks with the aim of bringing the theoretical results of property testing into practical use for big data analyses. As a result, we observed what would be effective for some classes of networks, which suggests great prospects of property testing in practice.

Keywords

Graph algorithms Global partition Property testing Hyperfinite 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by JST CREST JPMJR1402.

References

  1. 1.
    Albert, R., & Barabási, A. L. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev. Mod. Phys., 74, 47–97.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alon, N., Fischer, E., Krivelevich, M., & Szegedy, M. (2000). Efficient testing of large graphs. Combinatorica, 20, 451–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alon, N., Fischer, E., Newman, I., & Shapira, A. (2009). A combinatorial characterization of the testable graph properties: It’s all about regularity. SIAM J. Comput., 39(1), 143–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alon, N., Seymour, P., & Thomas, R. (1990). A separator theorem for graphs with an excluded minor and its applications. In: Proceedings of the twenty-second annual ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC), pp. 293–299.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benjamini, I., Schramm, O., & Shapira, A. (2008). Every minor-closed property of sparse graphs is testable. In: Proceedings of the fortieth annual ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC), pp. 393–402.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blum, M., Luby, M., & Rubinfeld, R. (1993). Self-testing/correcting with applications to numerical problems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 47(3), 549–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen-Steiner, D., Kong, W., Sohler, C., & Valiant, G. (2018). Approximating the spectrum of a graph. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, KDD ’18, pp. 1263–1271. ACM, New York, NY, USA.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3219819.3220119.
  8. 8.
    Czumaj, A., Monemizadeh, M., Onak, K., & Sohler, C. (2011). Planar graphs: random walks and bipartiteness testing. In: IEEE 52nd annual symposium on foundations of computer science (FOCS), pp. 423–432.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elek, G. (2008). L2-spectral invariants and convergent sequences of finite graphs. Journal of Functional Analysis, 254(10), 2667–2689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldreich, O. (Ed.). (2010). Property testing: current research and surveys. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6390). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldreich, O. (2017). Introduction to property testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldreich, O., Goldwasser, S., & Ron, D. (1998). Property testing and its connection to learning and approximation. Journal of the ACM, 45(4), 653–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldreich, O., & Ron, D. (1997). Property testing in bounded degree graphs. In: Proceedings of the twenty-ninth annual ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC), pp. 406–415. ACM.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hassidim, A., Kelner, J.A., Nguyen, H.N., & Onak, K. (2009). Local graph partitions for approximation and testing. In: 50th annual IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science (FOCS), pp. 22–31.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ito, H. (2016). Every property is testable on a natural class of scale-free multigraphs. In: P. Sankowski, C. Zaroliagis (eds.) 24th annual European symposium on algorithms (ESA), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), vol. 57, pp. 51:1–51:12.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kusumoto, M., & Yoshida, Y. (2014). Testing forest-isomorphism in the adjacency list model. In J. Esparza, P. Fraigniaud, T. Husfeldt, & E. Koutsoupias (Eds.), Automata, languages, and programming (ICALP) (pp. 763–774). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levi, R., & Ron, D. (2015). A quasi-polynomial time partition oracle for graphs with an excluded minor. ACM Trans Algorithms, 11(3), 24:1–24:13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lipton, R.J., & Tarjan, R.E. (1977). Applications of a planar separator theorem. In: Foundations of computer science, 1977., 18th annual symposium on, pp. 162–170. IEEE.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marko, S., & Ron, D. (2009). Approximating the distance to properties in bounded-degree and general sparse graphs. ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 5(2), 22:1–22:28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Newman, I., & Sohler, C. (2011). Every property of hyperfinite graphs is testable. In: Proceedings of the forty-third annual ACM symposium on theory of computing (STOC), pp. 675–684.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sanders, P., & Schulz, C. (2013). Think Locally, Act Globally: Highly Balanced Graph Partitioning. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Experimental Algorithms (SEA’13), LNCS, vol. 7933, pp. 164–175. SpringerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yutaro Honda
    • 1
  • Yoshitaka Inoue
    • 1
  • Hiro Ito
    • 2
  • Munehiko Sasajima
    • 3
  • Junichi Teruyama
    • 3
    Email author
  • Yushi Uno
    • 1
  1. 1.Osaka Prefecture UniversityOsakaJapan
  2. 2.The University of Electro-CommunicationsTokyoJapan
  3. 3.University of HyogoKobeJapan

Personalised recommendations