# String Edit Distance, Random Walks and Graph Matching

Conference paper

First Online:

## Abstract

This paper shows how the eigenstructure of the adjacency matrix can be used for the purposes of robust graph-matching. We commence from the observation that the leading eigenvector of a transition probability matrix is the steady state of the associated Markov chain. When the transition matrix is the normalised adjacency matrix of a graph, then the leading eigenvector gives the sequence of nodes of the steady state random walk on the graph. We use this property to convert the nodes in a graph into a string where the node-order is given by the sequence of nodes visited in the random walk. We match graphs represented in this way, by finding the sequence of string edit operations which minimise edit distance.

## Keywords

Random Walk Edit Distance Transition Probability Matrix Graph Match Graph Edit Distance
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Download
to read the full conference paper text

## References

- 1.R. C. Wilson A. M. Finch and E. R. Hancock. An energy function and continuous edit process for graph matching.
*Neural Computation*, 10(7):1873–1894, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 2.K. Siddiqi A. Shokoufandeh, S. J. Dickinson and S. W. Zucker. Indexing using a spectral encoding of topological structure. In
*Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*, 1998.Google Scholar - 3.Luo Bin and E. R. Hancock. Procrustes alignment with the em algorithm. In
*8th International Conference on Computer Analysis of Images and Image Patterns*, pages 623–631, 1999.Google Scholar - 4.H. Buke. On a relation between graph edit distance and maximum common subgraph.
*Pattern Recognition Letters*, 18, 1997.Google Scholar - 5.Fan R. K. Chung.
*Spectral Graph Theory*. American Mathematical Society, 1997.Google Scholar - 6.M. A. Eshera and K. S. Fu. A graph distance measure for image analysis.
*SMC*, 14(3):398–408, May 1984.Google Scholar - 7.S. Gold and A. Rangarajan. A graduated assignment algorithm for graph matching.
*PAMI*, 18(4):377–388, April 1996.Google Scholar - 8.R. Horaud and H. Sossa. Polyhedral object recognition by indexing.
*Pattern Recognition*, 1995.Google Scholar - 9.L. Lovász. Random walks on graphs: a survey.
*Bolyai Society Mathematical Studies*, 2(2):1–46, 1993.Google Scholar - 10.V. I. Levenshtein. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals.
*Sov. Phys. Dokl.*, 6:707–710, 1966.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 11.Bin Luo and E. R. Hancock. Structural graph matching using the EM algorithm and singular value decomposition.
*To appear in IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence*, 2001.Google Scholar - 12.B. J. Oommen and K. Zhang. The normalized string editing problem revisited.
*PAMI*, 18(6):669–672, June 1996.Google Scholar - 13.A. Sanfeliu and K. S. Fu. A distance measure between attributed relational graphs for pattern recognition.
*IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics*, 13:353–362, 1983.MATHGoogle Scholar - 14.G. Scott and H. Longuet-Higgins. An algorithm for associating the features of two images. In
*Proceedings of the Royal Society of London*, number 244 in B, 1991.Google Scholar - 15.L. G. Shapiro and R. M. Haralick. Relational models for scene analysis.
*IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence*, 4:595–602, 82.Google Scholar - 16.L. S. Shapiro and J. M. Brady. A modal approach to feature-based correspondence. In
*British Machine Vision Conference*, 1991.Google Scholar - 17.S. Ullman. Filling in the gaps.
*Biological Cybernetics*, 25:1–6, 76.Google Scholar - 18.S. Umeyama. An eigen decomposition approach to weighted graph matching problems.
*PAMI*, 10(5):695–703, September 1988.Google Scholar - 19.R. S. Varga.
*Matrix Iterative Analysis*. Springer, second edition, 2000.Google Scholar - 20.R. A. Wagner. The string-to-string correction problem.
*Journal of the ACM*, 21(1), 1974.Google Scholar - 21.J. T. L. Wang, B. A. Shapiro, D. Shasha, K. Zhang, and K. M. Currey. An algorithm for finding the largest approximatelycommon substructures of two trees.
*PAMI*, 20(8):889–895, August 1998.Google Scholar - 22.R. C. Wilson and E. R. Hancock. Structural matching by discrete relaxation.
*PAMI*, 19(6):634–648, June 1997.Google Scholar

## Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002