MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111157038 · doi:10.1109/icpr.2002.1047427

A new algorithm for inexact graph matching

2003· article· en· W2111157038 on OpenAlexaff
Adel Hlaoui, Shengrui Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGraph Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubgraph isomorphism problemMatching (statistics)Factor-critical graphBlossom algorithmAlgorithmGraph isomorphism3-dimensional matchingComputer scienceGraphDistance-hereditary graphOptimal matchingMathematicsLine graphTheoretical computer scienceVoltage graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The graph is an essential data structure for representing relational information. When graphs are used to represent objects, comparing objects amounts to graph matching. Inexact graph matching is the process of finding the best possible matching between two graphs when exact matching is impossible. We propose a new algorithm for the inexact matching problem. The new algorithm decomposes the matching process into K phases, where the value of K ranges from 1 to the minimum of the numbers of nodes in the two graphs to be matched. The efficiency of the new algorithm results from the use of small values of K, significantly reducing the search space while still producing very good matchings (most of them optimal) between graphs. The algorithm is compared with the error-correcting subgraph isomorphism algorithm based on A*.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGraph Theory and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207