2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.02.050
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficient graph pattern matching framework for network-based in-vehicle fault detection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Even though each block is represented by a multigraph G(V,E), we can easily reduce the multigraph to the simple graph.). There are many types of graph pattern queries such as subgraph query (with/without labels), supergraph query, similar query [17][18][19][22][23][24][25]. In this paper, we use the subgraph query without labels since there is no standard graph similarity measure and the subgraph query without labels includes at least the pattern structure which the user wants to find.…”
Section: Queries For Devs Model Retrievalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even though each block is represented by a multigraph G(V,E), we can easily reduce the multigraph to the simple graph.). There are many types of graph pattern queries such as subgraph query (with/without labels), supergraph query, similar query [17][18][19][22][23][24][25]. In this paper, we use the subgraph query without labels since there is no standard graph similarity measure and the subgraph query without labels includes at least the pattern structure which the user wants to find.…”
Section: Queries For Devs Model Retrievalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Obviously, the in‐vehicular communication requires a more holistic diagnosis. A recent modelling approach has focused on characterising the message‐induced sequences instead of message content since the creation of message series is usually triggered by a particular event [99]. It is worth mentioning that the authors in [95–98] provide interesting comparison between stochastically estimated temporal distribution of error records and experimentally derived results.…”
Section: Can System‐level Diagnosismentioning
confidence: 99%