Paper detail

Graph Matching with Partially-Correct Seeds

Graph matching aims to find the latent vertex correspondence between two edge-correlated graphs and has found numerous applications across different fields. In this paper, we study a seeded graph matching problem, which assumes that a set of seeds, i.e., pre-mapped vertex-pairs, is given in advance. While most previous work requires all seeds to be correct, we focus on the setting where the seeds are partially correct. Specifically, consider two correlated graphs whose edges are sampled independently from a parent \ER graph $\mathcal{G}(n,p)$. A mapping between the vertices of the two graphs is provided as seeds, of which an unknown $β$ fraction is correct. We first analyze a simple algorithm that matches vertices based on the number of common seeds in the $1$-hop neighborhoods, and then further propose a new algorithm that uses seeds in the $2$-hop neighborhoods. We establish non-asymptotic performance guarantees of perfect matching for both $1$-hop and $2$-hop algorithms, showing that our new $2$-hop algorithm requires substantially fewer correct seeds than the $1$-hop algorithm when graphs are sparse. Moreover, by combining our new performance guarantees for the $1$-hop and $2$-hop algorithms, we attain the best-known results (in terms of the required fraction of correct seeds) across the entire range of graph sparsity and significantly improve the previous results in \cite{10.14778/2794367.2794371,lubars2018correcting} when $p\ge n^{-5/6}$. For instance, when $p$ is a constant or $p=n^{-3/4}$, we show that only $Ω(\sqrt{n\log n})$ correct seeds suffice for perfect matching, while the previously best-known results demand $Ω(n)$ and $Ω(n^{3/4}\log n)$ correct seeds, respectively. Numerical experiments corroborate our theoretical findings, demonstrating the superiority of our $2$-hop algorithm on a variety of synthetic and real graphs.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.