Advertisement

Degree of Similarity of Root Trees

  • Jiri SebekEmail author
  • Petr Vondrus
  • Tomas Cerny
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 514)

Abstract

Adaptive User Interfaces (UI) provide better user experience as users a receive personalized presentation. These UIs heavily rely on contextual data. Context helps the application to recognize user needs and thus adjust the UI. First time user receives a generalized experience; however, as the user uses the application more often it gathers lots of contextual data, such as the history of actions. This allows to statistically classify user in a user cluster and based on that adapt the UI presentation. This paper considers methods to find a measure of similarity of graphs to support adaptive UIs. To achieve this, it considers rooted trees. It states known approaches, which could be used for calculation of this measure. It focuses on the Simhash algorithm and describes its implementation in the SimCom experimental comparative application. Its results show that Simhash can be used for comparing the rooted trees. The main aim of this paper is to show novel view on how to use graph algorithms and clustering of trees into adaptive application structure.

Keywords

Graph algorithms Digraph Rooted tree Similarity Simhash Context-aware user interface 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research described in the paper was supervised by doc. Ing. Karel Richta, CSc., FEE CTU in Prague and supported by the Czech Student Grant Agency under grant No. SGS18/185/OHK3/3T/13.

References

  1. 1.
    Bookstein A, Kulyukin VA, Raita T (2002) Generalized hamming distance. Inf Retr 5(4):353–375.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020499411651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cerny J (2010) Zakladni grafove algoritmy. http://kam.mff.cuni.cz/~kuba/ka/ka.pdf
  3. 3.
    Charikar MS (2002) Similarity estimation techniques from rounding algorithms. In: Proceedings of the thiry-fourth annual ACM symposium on theory of computing, STOC ’02. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 380–388.  https://doi.org/10.1145/509907.509965
  4. 4.
    Chawathe SS (1999) Comparing hierarchical data in external memory. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on very large data bases VLDB ’99. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 90–101. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=645925.671669
  5. 5.
    Dehmer M, Mehler A (2007) A new method of measuring similarity for a special class of directed graphs. Tatra Mt Math Publ 36:1–22MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Demel J (2002) Grafy a jejich aplikace, 1 edn. Academia, Praha (kveten)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fr ́echet MR (1906) Sur quelques points du calcul fonctionnel. Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo (1884--1940) 22(1): 1–72Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gary CHARTRAND, Ping ZHANG, L.L (2016) Graphs & digraphs, 6th edn . Chapman & Hal-l/CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jaccard P (1901) Etude de la distribution florale dans une portion des alpes et du jura 37:547–579.  https://doi.org/10.5169/seals-266450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Katz J, Lindell Y (2014) Introduction to modern cryptography, 2 edn. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rivest R (1992) The md5 message-digest algorithm. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1321.txt
  12. 12.
    Sebek J, Cerny T (2016) Aop-based approach for local data management in adaptive interfaces. In: 2016 6th international conference on IT convergence and security (ICITCS). pp 1–5Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sebek J, Cerny T, Richta K (2016) Adaptive application structure design for java ee applications. In: Proceedings of the international conference on research in adaptive and convergent systems. RACS ’16, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 159–164. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2987386.2987417
  14. 14.
    Sebek J, Richta K (2016) Impact of users emotion on software adaptation1. Databases, Texts p. 1Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sebek J, Richta K (2016) Usage of aspect-oriented programming in adaptive application structure. New Trends Databases Inf Syst 217–222Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sedlacek J (1981) Uvod do teorie grafu, 3rd edn. Academia, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Selkow SM (1977) The tree-to-tree editing problem. Inf Process Lett 6:184–186.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0190(77)90064-3MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tarjan R (1972) Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. SIAM J Com- put 1(2):146–160.  https://doi.org/10.1137/0201010MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tekli J, Chbeir R, Y ́etongnon K (2007) Efficient xml structural similarity detection using sub-tree commonalities. In: SBBD. BrazilGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yang R, Kalnis P, Tung AKH (2005) Similarity evaluation on tree-structured data. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data, SIGMOD ’05. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 754–765 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1066157.1066243
  21. 21.
    Zhen-kun W, Wei-zong Z, Ouyang-Jie, Peng-fei L, Yi-hua D, Meng Z, Jin-hua G (2010) A robust and discriminative image perceptual hash algorithm. In: 2010 fourth internationalGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceCzech Technical UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceBaylor UniversityWacoUSA

Personalised recommendations