Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning the Graph Edit Costs Based on a Learning Model Applied to Sub-optimal Graph Matching

  • Published:
Neural Processing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Attributed graphs are used to represent patterns composed of several parts in pattern recognition. The nature of these patterns can be diverse, from images, to handwritten characters, maps or fingerprints. Graph edit distance has become an important tool in structural pattern recognition since it allows us to measure the dissimilarity of attributed graphs. It is based on transforming one graph into another through some edit operations such as substitution, deletion and insertion of nodes and edges. It has two main constraints: it requires an adequate definition of the costs of these operations and its computation cost is exponential with regard to the number of nodes. In this paper, we first present a general framework to automatically learn these edit costs considering graph edit distance is computed in a sub-optima way. Then, we specify this framework in two different models based on neural networks and probability density functions. An exhaustive practical validation on 14 public databases, which have different features such as the size of the graphs, the number of attributes or the number of graphs per class have been performed. This validation shows that with the learned edit costs, the accuracy is higher than with some manually imposed costs or other costs automatically learned by previous methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Abu-Aisheh Z, Raveaux R, Ramel J (2016) Anytime graph matching. Pattern Recognit Lett 84:215–224

    Google Scholar 

  2. Algabli S, Serratosa F (2018) Embedding the node-to-node mappings to learn the graph edit distance parameters. Pattern Recognit Lett 112:353–360

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bongini M, Rigutini L, Trentin E (2018) Recursive neural networks for density estimation over generalized random graphs. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 29(11):5441–5458. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2018.2803523

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bougleux S, Brun L, Carletti V, Foggia P, Gaüzère B, Vento M (2017) Graph edit distance as a quadratic assignment problem. Pattern Recognit Lett 87:38–46

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bunke H, Allermann G (1983) Inexact graph matching for structural pattern recognition. Pattern Recognit Lett 1(4):245–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8655(83)90033-8

    Google Scholar 

  6. Caelli T, Kosinov S (2004) An eigenspace projection clustering method for inexact graph matching. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 26(4):515–519

    Google Scholar 

  7. Caetano TS, McAuley JJ, Cheng L, Le QV, Smola AJ (2009) Learning graph matching. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 31(6):1048–1058

    Google Scholar 

  8. Conte D, Foggia P, Sansone C, Vento M (2004) Thirty years of graph matching in pattern recognition. Int J Pattern Recognit Artif Intell 18(03):265–298

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cortés X, Serratosa F (2015) An interactive method for the image alignment problem based on partially supervised correspondence. Expert Syst Appl 42(1):179–192

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cortés X, Serratosa F (2015) Learning graph-matching edit-costs based on the optimality of the oracle’s node correspondences. Pattern Recognit Lett 56:22–29

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cortés X, Serratosa F (2016) Cooperative pose estimation of a fleet of robots based on interactive points alignment. Expert Syst Appl 45:150–160

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cortés X, Serratosa F (2016) Learning graph matching substitution weights based on the ground truth node correspondence. Int J Pattern Recognit Artif Intell 30(02):1650005

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cortés X, Serratosa F, Riesen K (2016) On the relevance of local neighbourhoods for greedy graph edit distance. In: S+SSPR, lecture notes in computer science, vol 10029, pp 121–131

  14. Defferrard M, Bresson X, Vandergheynst P (2016) Convolutional neural networks on graphs with fast localized spectral filtering. In: NIPS, pp 3837–3845

  15. Duin RPW, Pekalska E (2011) The dissimilarity representation for structural pattern recognition. In: CIARP, lecture notes in computer science, vol 7042. Springer, pp 1–24

  16. Dunn JC (1974) Well-separated clusters and optimal fuzzy partitions. J Cybern 4(1):95–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/01969727408546059

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ferrer M, Serratosa F, Riesen K (2015) Improving bipartite graph matching by assessing the assignment confidence. Pattern Recognit Lett 65:29–36

    Google Scholar 

  18. Foggia P, Percannella G, Vento M (2014) Graph matching and learning in pattern recognition in the last 10 years. Int J Pattern Recognit Artif Intell 28(01):1450001

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gao X, Xiao B, Tao D, Li X (2010) A survey of graph edit distance. Pattern Anal Appl 13(1):113–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10044-008-0141-y

    Google Scholar 

  20. Garey MR, Johnson DS (1990) Computers and intractability; a guide to the theory of NP-completeness. W. H. Freeman & Co., New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gibert J, Valveny E, Bunke H (2012) Graph embedding in vector spaces by node attribute statistics. Pattern Recognit 45(9):3072–3083

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gold S, Rangarajan A (1996) A graduated assignment algorithm for graph matching. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 18(4):377–388. https://doi.org/10.1109/34.491619

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hart PE, Nilsson NJ, Raphael B (1968) A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths. IEEE Trans Syst Sci Cybern 4(2):100–107. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSSC.1968.300136

    Google Scholar 

  24. Leordeanu M, Sukthankar R, Hebert M (2012) Unsupervised learning for graph matching. Int J Comput Vis 96(1):28–45

    Google Scholar 

  25. Livi L, Rizzi A (2013) The graph matching problem. Pattern Anal Appl 16(3):253–283

    Google Scholar 

  26. Luqman MM, Ramel JY, Lladós J, Brouard T (2013) Fuzzy multilevel graph embedding. Pattern Recognit 46(2):551–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2012.07.029

    Google Scholar 

  27. Moreno-García Carlos Francisco CX, Serratosa F (2016) A graph repository for learning error-tolerant graph matching. In: Syntactic and structural pattern recognition

  28. Myers R, Wilson RC, Hancock ER (2000) Bayesian graph edit distance. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 22(6):628–635. https://doi.org/10.1109/34.862201

    Google Scholar 

  29. Neuhaus M, Bunke H (2005) Self-organizing maps for learning the edit costs in graph matching. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B (Cybern) 35(3):503–514

    Google Scholar 

  30. Neuhaus M, Bunke H (2007) Automatic learning of cost functions for graph edit distance. Inf Sci 177(1):239–247

    Google Scholar 

  31. Riesen K (2015) Structural pattern recognition with graph edit distance. Advances in computer vision and pattern recognition. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  32. Riesen K, Bunke H (2009) Approximate graph edit distance computation by means of bipartite graph matching. Image Vis Comput 27(7):950–959

    Google Scholar 

  33. Riesen K, Ferrer M, Dornberger R, Bunke H (2015) Greedy graph edit distance. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on machine learning and data mining in pattern recognition—vol 9166, MLDM 2015. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21024-7_1

  34. Riesen K, Fischer A, Bunke H (2018) On the impact of using utilities rather than costs for graph matching. Neural Process Lett 48(2):691–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11063-017-9739-7

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sanfeliu A, Alquézar R, Andrade J, Climent J, Serratosa F, Vergés-Llahí J (2002) Graph-based representations and techniques for image processing and image analysis. Pattern Recognit 35:639–650

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sanfeliu A, Fu KS (1983) A distance measure between attributed relational graphs for pattern recognition. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1983.6313167

    Google Scholar 

  37. Santacruz P, Serratosa F (2018) Error-tolerant graph matching in linear computational cost using an initial small partial matching. Pattern Recognit Lett. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2018.04.003

    Google Scholar 

  38. Santacruz P, Serratosa F (2018) Learning the sub-optimal graph edit distance edit costs based on an embedded model. In: S+SSPR, lecture notes in computer science, vol 11004. Springer, pp 282–292

  39. Serratosa F (2014) Fast computation of bipartite graph matching. Pattern Recognit Lett 45:244–250

    Google Scholar 

  40. Serratosa F (2014) Speeding up fast bipartite graph matching through a new cost matrix. Int J Pattern Recognit Artif Intell 29:1550010. https://doi.org/10.1142/S021800141550010X

    Google Scholar 

  41. Serratosa F (2015) Computation of graph edit distance: reasoning about optimality and speed-up. Image Vis Comput 40:38–48

    Google Scholar 

  42. Serratosa F (2015) Graph databases. http://deim.urv.cat/~francesc.serratosa/databases/

  43. Serratosa F (2018) A methodology to generate attributed graphs with a bounded graph edit distance for graph-matching testing. IJPRAI 32(11):1850038

    Google Scholar 

  44. Serratosa F (2019) Graph edit distance: restrictions to be a metric. Pattern Recognit 90:250–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2019.01.043

    Google Scholar 

  45. Serratosa F, Cortés X (2015) Graph edit distance: moving from global to local structure to solve the graph-matching problem. Pattern Recognit Lett 65:204–210

    Google Scholar 

  46. Solé-Ribalta A, Serratosa F, Sanfeliu A (2012) On the graph edit distance cost: properties and applications. IJPRAI 26(5):1260004

    Google Scholar 

  47. Trentin E, Di Iorio E (2018) Nonparametric small random networks for graph-structured pattern recognition. Neurocomputing 313:14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2018.05.095

    Google Scholar 

  48. Vento M (2015) A long trip in the charming world of graphs for pattern recognition. Pattern Recognit 48(2):291–301

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the Spanish projects TIN2016-77836-C2-1-R and ColRobTransp MINECO DPI2016-78957-R AEI/FEDER EU; and also the European project AEROARMS, H2020-ICT-2014-1-644271.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Avinguda dels Països Catalans 26, 43005, Tarragona, Catalonia, Spain

    Pep Santacruz & Francesc Serratosa

Authors
  1. Pep Santacruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesc Serratosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesc Serratosa.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Santacruz, P., Serratosa, F. Learning the Graph Edit Costs Based on a Learning Model Applied to Sub-optimal Graph Matching. Neural Process Lett 51, 881–904 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11063-019-10121-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11063-019-10121-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation