Advertisement

Subgraphs as a Measure of Similarity

Chapter

Abstract

How similar can two graphs be? The ultimate positive answer to this question is, of course, when the two graphs are isomorphic. However, how much internal structure can two nonisomorphic graphs share? We show what the answer can look like if the measure of similarity between the two graphs is taken to be the number of isomorphic subgraphs which they share. We see how this notion is related to the internal symmetries of a graph and that therefore, for most graphs, their internal structure forces them to be very dissimilar to other graphs. We also indicate some attempts to find nonisomorphic graphs which are very similar in terms of the common subgraphs which they share. We also point out some issues of computational complexity and some possible applications associated with this measure of graph similarity.

Keywords

Graph similarity Isomorphic subgraphs Graph reconstruction Reconstruction numbers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alon U (2007) An introduction to systems biology: design principles of biological circuits. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alon N, Spencer JH (1992) The probabilistic method. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asciak KJ (1998) On certain classes of graphs with large reconstruction number. Master’s thesis, University of MaltaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asciak KJ, Francalanza MA, Lauri J, Myrvold W (2006) A survey of some open questions in reconstruction numbers. Ars Combinatoria (to appear)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Asciak KJ, Lauri J (2002) On disconnected graphs with large reconstruction number. Ars Combinatoria 62:173–181MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bollobás B (1990) Almost every graph has reconstruction number 3. J Graph Theory 14:1–4MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bowler A, Brown P, Fenner T. Families of pairs of graphs with a large number of common cards. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bunke H (2000) Recent developments in graph matching. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on pattern recognition, Spain, vol 2Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dehmer M, Mehler A (2007) A new method of measuring similarity for a special class of directed graphs. Tatra Mt Math Publ 36:39–59MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Francalanza MA (1999) The adversary reconstruction of trees: the case of caterpillars and sunshine graphs. Master’s thesis, University of MaltaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hemaspaandra E, Hemaspaandra LA, Radziszowski SP, Tripathi R (2007) Complexity results in graph reconstruction. Discrete Appl Math 155:103–118MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kelly PJ (1957) A congruence theorem for trees. Pac J Math 7:961–968MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Köbler J, Schöning U, Torán J (1993) The graph isomorphism problem: its structural complexity. Birkhäuser, SwitzerlandMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Korshunov AD (1971) Number of nonisomorphic graphs in an n-point graph. Math Notes Acad Sci USSR 9:155–160MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lauri J (1981) The reconstruction of maximal planar graphs, II: reconstruction. J Combin Theory B 30:196–214MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lauri J (2004) The reconstruction problem. In Gross JL, Yellen J (eds) Handbook of graph theory. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 79–98Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lauri J, Scapellato R (2003) Topics in graph automorphisms and reconstruction. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McMullen B, Radziszowski SP (2005) Graph reconstruction numbers. J Combin Math Combin Comput 62:85–96MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mifflin T, Boner C, Godfrey G, Greenblatt M (2006) Detecting terrorist activities in the twenty-first century: a theory of detection for transactional networks. In Popp RL, Yen J (eds) Emergent information technologies and enabling policies for counter-terrorism. Series on computational intelligence. IEEE Press, New York, pp 349–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Molina R (1995) Correction of a proof on the ally-reconstruction number of a disconnected graph. Ars Combinatoria 40:59–64MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Müller V (1977) The edge reconstruction hypothesis is true for graphs with more than nlog2 n edges. J Combin Theory B 22:281–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Myrvold W (1988) Ally and adversary reconstruction problems. PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, ON, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Myrvold W (1989) The ally-reconstruction number of a disconnected graph. Ars Combinatoria 28:123–127MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Read RC, Corneil DG (1977) The graph ismorphism disease. J Graph Theory 1:339–363MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zelinka B (1975) On a certain distance between isomorphism classes of graphs. Časopis pro p̆est Mathematiky 100:371–373Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of MaltaTal-QroqqMalta

Personalised recommendations