Advertisement

Canonical Forms for Frequent Graph Mining

  • Christian Borgelt
Part of the Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization book series (STUDIES CLASS)

Abstract

A core problem of approaches to frequent graph mining, which are based on growing subgraphs into a set of graphs, is how to avoid redundant search. A powerful technique for this is a canonical description of a graph, which uniquely identifies it, and a corresponding test. I introduce a family of canonical forms based on systematic ways to construct spanning trees. I show that the canonical form used in gSpan ([Yan and Han (2002)]) is a member of this family, and that MoSS/MoFa ([Borgelt and Berthold (2002), Borgelt et al. (2005)]) is implicitly based on a different member, which I make explicit and exploit in the same way.

Keywords

Span Tree Destination Node Canonical Form Search Tree Code Word 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BORGELT, C. and BERTHOLD, M.R. (2002): Mining Molecular Fragments: Finding Relevant Substructures of Molecules. Proc. 2nd IEEE Int. Conf. on Data Mining. IEEE Press, Piscataway, 51–58.Google Scholar
  2. BORGELT, C., MEINL, T. and BERTHOLD, M.R. (2004): Advanced Pruning Strategies to Speed Up Mining Closed Molecular Fragments. Proc. IEEE Conf. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, CD-ROM. IEEE Press, Piscataway.Google Scholar
  3. BORGELT, C., MEINL, T. and BERTHOLD, M.R. (2005): MoSS: A Program for Molecular Substructure Mining. Proc. Open Source Data Mining Workshop. ACM Press, New York, 6–15.Google Scholar
  4. COOK, D.J. and HOLDER, L.B. (2000): Graph-based Data Mining. IEEE Trans. on Intelligent Systems 15,2, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. FINN, P.W., MUGGLETON, S., PAGE, D. and SRINIVASAN, A. (1998): Pharmacore Discovery Using the Inductive Logic Programming System PROGOL. Machine Learning 30,2–3, 241–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. GOETHALS, B. and ZAKI, M. (2003/2004): Proc. 1st and 2nd IEEE ICDM Workshop on Frequent Itemset Mining Implementations. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 90 and 126. Sun SITE Central Europe and RWTH Aachen http://www.ceur-ws.org/Vol-90/, http://www.ceur-ws.org/Vol-126/.Google Scholar
  7. HUAN, J., WANG, W. and PRINS, J. (2003): Efficient Mining of Frequent Subgraphs in the Presence of Isomorphism. Proc. 3rd IEEE Int. Conf. on Data Mining. IEEE Press, Piscataway, 549–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. INDEX CHEMICUS — Subset from 1993. Institute of Scientific Information, Inc. (ISI). Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  9. KRAMER, S., DE RAEDT, L. and HELMA, C. (2001): Molecular Feature Mining in HIV Data. Proc. 7th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM Press, New York, 136–143.Google Scholar
  10. KURAMOCHI, M. and KARYPIS, G. (2001): Frequent Subgraph Discovery. Proc. 1st IEEE Int. Conf. on Data Mining. IEEE Press, Piscataway, 313–320.Google Scholar
  11. NIJSSEN, S. and KOK, J.N. (2004): A Quickstart in Frequent Structure Mining can Make a Difference. Proc. 10th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM Press, New York, 647–652.Google Scholar
  12. WASHIO, T. and MOTODA, H. (2003): State of the Art of Graph-based Data Mining. SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 5,1, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. YAN, X. and HAN, J. (2002): gSpan: Graph-based Substructure Pattern Mining. Proc. 2nd IEEE Int. Conf. on Data Mining. IEEE Press, Piscataway, 721–724.Google Scholar
  14. YAN, X. and HAN, J. (2003): CloseGraph: Mining Closed Frequent Graph Patterns. Proc. 9th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM Press, New York, 286–295.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Borgelt
    • 1
  1. 1.European Center for Soft ComputingMieresSpain

Personalised recommendations