2013
DOI: 10.1590/s0101-74382013000200002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

QAPV: a polynomial invariant for graph isomorphism testing

Abstract: ABSTRACT.To each instance of the Quadratic Assignment Problem (QAP) a relaxed instance can be associated. Both variances of their solution values can be calculated in polynomial time. The graph isomorphism problem (GIP) can be modeled as a QAP, associating its pair of data matrices with a pair of graphs of the same order and size. We look for invariant edge weight functions for the graphs composing the instances in order to try to find quantitative differences between variances that could be associated with th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 16 publications
(10 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The pseudo-linear behavior of our new algorithm as shown in Figure 9 is stable for values of m up to 150 and remains sufficiently fast for large values of m during functional group searching, making CASS tractable for systematic functional group searches in KEGG and HMDB. Furthermore, the demonstrated polynomial behavior of our algorithm (Figure 9E ) is the best expected performance, given the debate on whether the common subgraph isomorphism problem has polynomial or NP-complete behavior (de Melo et al, 2013 ). Also, Figure 10 further highlights the relative differences between the Ullmann algorithm and CASS on a log scale.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 67%
“…The pseudo-linear behavior of our new algorithm as shown in Figure 9 is stable for values of m up to 150 and remains sufficiently fast for large values of m during functional group searching, making CASS tractable for systematic functional group searches in KEGG and HMDB. Furthermore, the demonstrated polynomial behavior of our algorithm (Figure 9E ) is the best expected performance, given the debate on whether the common subgraph isomorphism problem has polynomial or NP-complete behavior (de Melo et al, 2013 ). Also, Figure 10 further highlights the relative differences between the Ullmann algorithm and CASS on a log scale.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 67%