4.6 Article

MANIACS: Approximate Mining of Frequent Subgraph Patterns through Sampling

出版社

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/3587254

关键词

Minimum Node Image; pattern mining; VC-dimension

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We propose a sampling-based randomized algorithm called MANIACS for computing high-quality approximations of frequent subgraph patterns in large vertex-labeled graphs. MANIACS provides strong probabilistic guarantees by using the empirical VC dimension and probabilistic tail bounds. It leverages the MNI frequency properties to aggressively prune the pattern search space, resulting in faster exploration of subspaces without frequent patterns. Experimental evaluation shows that MANIACS returns high-quality collections of frequent patterns in large graphs up to two orders of magnitude faster than the exact algorithm.
We present MANIACS, a sampling-based randomized algorithm for computing high-quality approximations of the collection of the subgraph patterns that are frequent in a single, large, vertex-labeled graph, according to the Minimum Node Image-based (MNI) frequency measure. The output of MANIACS comes with strong probabilistic guarantees, obtained by using the empirical Vapnik-Chervonenkis (VC) dimension, a key concept from statistical learning theory, together with strong probabilistic tail bounds on the difference between the frequency of a pattern in the sample and its exact frequency. MANIACS leverages properties of the MNI-frequency to aggressively prune the pattern search space, and thus to reduce the time spent in exploring subspaces that contain no frequent patterns. In turn, this pruning leads to better bounds to the maximum frequency estimation error, which leads to increased pruning, resulting in a beneficial feedback effect. The results of our experimental evaluation of MANIACS on real graphs show that it returns high-quality collections of frequent patterns in large graphs up to two orders of magnitude faster than the exact algorithm.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据