arxiv: v1 [cs.db] 30 May 2012

Transcription

1 Efficient Sugrph Similrity Serch on Lrge Proilistic Grph Dtses Ye Yun Guoren Wng Lei Chen Hixun Wng College of Informtion Science nd Engineering, Northestern University, Chin Hong Kong University of Science nd Technology, Hong Kong, Chin Microsoft Reserch Asi, Beijing, Chin rxiv: v [cs.db] 30 My 202 ABSTRACT Mny studies hve een conducted on seeking the efficient solution for sugrph similrity serch over certin (deterministic) grphs due to its wide ppliction in mny fields, including ioinformtics, socil network nlysis, nd Resource Description Frmework (RDF) dt mngement. All these works ssume tht the underlying dt re certin. However, in relity, grphs re often noisy nd uncertin due to vrious fctors, such s errors in dt extrction, inconsistencies in dt integrtion, nd privcy preserving purposes. Therefore, in this pper, we study sugrph similrity serch on lrge proilistic grph dtses. Different from previous works ssuming tht edges in n uncertin grph re independent of ech other, we study the uncertin grphs where edges occurrences re correlted. We formlly prove tht sugrph similrity serch over proilistic grphs is #P-complete, thus, we employ filter-nd-verify frmework to speed up the serch. In the filtering phse, we develop tight lower nd upper ounds of sugrph similrity proility sed on proilistic mtrix index, PMI. PMI is composed of discrimintive sugrph fetures ssocited with tight lower nd upper ounds of sugrph isomorphism proility. Bsed on PMI, we cn sort out lrge numer of proilistic grphs nd mximize the pruning cpility. During the verifiction phse, we develop n efficient smpling lgorithm to vlidte the remining cndidtes. The efficiency of our proposed solutions hs een verified through extensive experiments.. INTRODUCTION Grphs hve een used to model vrious dt in wide rnge of pplictions, such s ioinformtics, socil network nlysis, nd RDF dt mngement. Furthermore, in these rel pplictions, due to noisy mesurements, inference models, miguities of dt integrtion, nd privcy-preserving mechnisms, uncertinties re often introduced in the grph dt. For exmple, in proteinprotein interction (PPI) network, the pirwise interction is derived from sttisticl models [5, 6, 20], nd the STRING dtse ( is such pulic dt source tht contins PPIs with uncertin edges provided y sttisticl predictions. In socil network, proilities cn e ssigned to edges to model the Permission to mke digitl or hrd copies of ll or prt of this work for personl or clssroom use is grnted without fee provided tht copies re not mde or distriuted for profit or commercil dvntge nd tht copies er this notice nd the full cittion on the first pge. To copy otherwise, to repulish, to post on servers or to redistriute to lists, requires prior specific permission nd/or fee. Articles from this volume were invited to present their results t Th8th Interntionl Conference on Very Lrge Dt Bses, August 27th - 3st 202, Istnul, Turkey. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, Vol. 5, No. 9 Copyright 202 VLDB Endowment /2/05... $ degree of influence or trust etween two socil entities [2, 25, 4]. In RDF grph, uncertinties/ inconsistencies re introduced in dt integrtion where vrious dt sources re integrted into RDF grphs [8, 24]. To model the uncertin grph dt, proilistic grph model is introduced [27, 43, 2, 8, 24]. In this model, ech edge is ssocited with n edge existence proility to quntify the likelihood tht this edge exists in the grph, nd edge proilities re independent of ech other. However, the proposed proilistic grph model is invlid in mny rel scenrios. For exmple, for uncertin protein-protein interction (PPI) networks, uthors in [9, 28] first estlish elementry interctions with proilities etween proteins, then use mchine lerning tools to predict other possile interctions sed on the elementry links. The predictive results show tht interctions re correlted, especilly with high dependence of interctions t the sme proteins. Given nother exmple, in communiction networks or rod networks, n edge proility is used to quntify the reliility of link [8] or the degree of trffic jm [6]. Oviously, there re correltions for the routing pths in these networks [6], i.e., usy trffic pth often locking trffics in nery pths. Therefore, it is necessry for proilistic grph model to consider correltions existed mong edges or nodes. Clerly, it is unrelistic to model the joint distriution for the entire set of nodes in lrge grph, i.e., rod nd socil networks. Thus, in this pper, we introduce joint distriutions for locl nodes. For exmple, in grph 00 of Figure, we give joint distriution to mesure interctions (neighor edges ) of th nodes in locl neighorhood. The joint proility tle (JPT) shows the joint distriution, nd proility in JPT (the second row) is given s P r(e =, e 2 =, = 0) = 0.2, where denotes existence while 0 denotes nonexistence. For lrger grphs, we hve multiple joint distriutions of nodes in smll neighorhoods (in fct, these re mrginl distriutions). In rel pplictions, these mrginl distriutions cn e esily otined. For exmple, uthors in [6] use smpling methods to estimte trffic joint proility of nery rods, nd point out tht the trffic joint proility follows multi-gussin distriution. For PPI networks, uthors in [9, 28] estlish mrginl distriutions using Byesin prediction. In this pper, we study sugrph similrity serch over proilistic grphs due to wide usge of sugrph similrity serch in mny ppliction fields, such s nswering SPARQL query (grph) in RDF grph dt [8, ], predicting complex iologicl interctions (grphs) [33, 9], nd identifying vehicle routings (grphs) in rod networks [8, 6]. In the following, we give the detils out sugrph similrity serch, our solutions nd contriutions. Neighor edges re the edges tht re incident to the sme vertex or the edges of tringle. 800

2 JPT e e2 e3 Pro e2 e e3 d 00 e e2 e e2 e3 Pro e3 e4 JPT2 c e3 e4 e5 Pro e5 q c e e () e (3) e e 2 e 5 c (2) e (4) c e 5 Figure : Proilistic grph dtse & Query grph. Proilistic Sugrph Mtching In this pper, we focus on threshold-sed proilistic sugrph similrity mtching (T-PS) over lrge set of proilistic grphs. Specificlly, let D = {g, g 2,..., g n} e set of proilistic grphs where edges existences re not independent, ut re given explicitly y joint distriutions, q e query grph, nd ϵ e proility threshold, T-PS query retrieves ll grphs g D such tht the sugrph similrity proility (SSP) etween q nd g is t lest ϵ. We will formlly define SSP lter (Def 9). We employ the possile world semntics [3, ], which hs een widely used for modeling proilistic dtses, to explin the mening of returned results for sugrph similrity serch. A possile world grph (PWG) of proilistic grph is possile instnce of the proilistic grph. It contins ll vertices nd suset of edges of the proilistic grph, nd it hs weight which is otined y joining joint proility tles of ll neighor edges. Then, for query grph q nd proilistic grph g, the proility tht q sugrph similrly mtches g is the summtion of the weights of those PWGs, of g, to which q is sugrph similr. If q is sugrph similr to PWG g, g must contin sugrph of q, sy q, such tht the difference etween q nd q must e less thn the user specified error tolernce threshold δ. In other words, q is sugrph isomorphic to g fter q is relxed with δ edges. Exmple. Consider grph 002 in Figure. JP T nd JP T 2 give joint distriutions of neighor edges {e, e 2, } nd {,, e 5 } respectively. Figure 2 lists prtil PWGs of proilistic grph 002 nd their weights. The weight of PWG () is otined y joining t of JP T nd t 2 of JP T 2, i.e., P r(e =, e 2 =, =, =, e 5 = 0) = P r(e =, e 2 =, = ) P r( =, =, e 5 = 0) = = Suppose the distnce threshold is. To decide if q sugrph similrly mtches proilistic grph 002, we first find ll of 002 s PWGs tht contin sugrph whose difference etween q is less thn. The results re PWGs (), (2), (3) nd (4), s shown in Figure 2, since we cn delete edge, or c of q. Next, we dd up the proilities of these PWGs: = If the query specifies proility threshold of 0.4, then grph 002 is returned since 0.45 > 0.4. The ove exmple gives nive solution, to T-PS query processing, tht needs to enumerte ll PWGs of proilistic grph. This solution is very inefficient due to the exponentil numer of PWGs. Therefore, in this pper, we propose filter-nd-verify method to reduce the serch spce..2 Overview of Our Approch Given set of proilistic grphs D = {g,..., g n} nd query grph q, our solution performs T-PS query processing in three steps, nmely, structurl pruning, proilistic pruning, nd verifiction. Figure 2: Prtil possile world grphs of proilistic grph 002 Structurl Pruning The ide of structurl pruning is strightforwrd. If we remove ll the uncertinty in proilistic grph, nd q is still not sugrph similr to the resulting grph, then q cnnot sugrph similrly mtch the originl proilistic grph. Formlly, for g D, let g c denote the corresponding deterministic grph fter we remove ll the uncertin informtion from g. We hve Theorem. If q sim g c, P r(q sim g) = 0. where sim denotes sugrph similr reltionship (Def 8), nd P r(q sim g) denotes the sugrph similrity proility of q to g. Bsed on this oservtion, given D nd q, we cn prune the dtse D c = {g, c..., gn} c using conventionl deterministic grph similr mtching methods. In this pper, we dopt the method in [38] to quickly compute results. [38] uses multi-filter composition strtegy to prune lrge numer of grphs directly without performing pirwise similrity computtion, which mkes [38] more efficient compred to other grph similr serch lgorithms [5, 4]. Assume the result is SCq c = {g c q sim g c, g c D c }. Then, its corresponding proilistic grph set, SC q = {g g c SCq}, c is the input for uncertin sugrph similr mtching in the next step. Proilistic Pruning To further prune the results, we propose Proilistic Mtrix Index (PMI) tht will e introduced lter, for proilistic pruning. For given set of proilistic grphs D nd its corresponding set of deterministic grphs D c, we crete feture set F from D c, where ech feture is deterministic grph, i.e., F D c. In PMI, for ech g SC q, we cn locte set D g = { LowerB(f j), UpperB(f j) f j iso g c, j F } where LowerB(f) nd UpperB(f) re the lower nd upper ounds of the sugrph isomorphism proility of f to g (Def 6), denoted y P r(f iso g). In this pper, iso is used to denote sugrphisomorphism. If f is not sugrph isomorphic to g c, we hve 0. In the proilistic filtering, we first determine the remining grphs fter q is relxed with δ edges, where δ is the sugrph distnce threshold. Suppose the remining grphs re {rq,...rq i,... rq }. For ech rq i, we compute two fetures fi nd fi 2 in D g such tht rq i iso fi nd rq i iso fi 2. Let P r(q sim g) denote the sugrph similrity proility of q to g (Def 9). Then, we cn clculte upper nd lower ounds of P r(q sim g) sed on the vlues of UpperB(fi ) nd LowerB(fi 2 ) for i respectively. If the upper ound of P r(q sim g) is smller thn proility threshold ϵ, g is pruned. If the lower ound of P r(q sim g) is not smller thn ϵ, g is in the finl nswers. 80

3 Verifiction In this step, we clculte P r(q sim g) for query q nd cndidte nswer g, fter proilistic pruning, to mke sure g is relly n nswer, i.e. P r(q sim g) ϵ..3 Contriutions nd Pper Orgniztion The min ide (contriution) of our pproch is to use the proilistic checking of feture-sed index to discriminte most grphs. To chieve this, severl chllenges need to e ddressed. Chllenge : Determine est ounds of P r(q sim g) For ech rq i, we cn find mny f i s nd f 2 i s in PMI, thus, lrge numer of ounds of P r(q sim g) sed on the comintion of UpperB(f i ) nd LowerB(f 2 i ) for i cn e computed. In this pper, we convert the prolem of computing the est upper ound into set cover prolem. Our contriution is to develop n efficient rndomized lgorithm to otin the est upper ound using integer qudrtic progrmming, which is presented in Section 3. Chllenge 2: Compute n effective D g An effective D g should consist of tight UpperB(f) nd LowerB( f) whose vlues cn e computed efficiently. As we will show lter tht clculting P r(f iso g) is #P-complete, which increses the difficulty of computing n effective D f. To ddress this chllenge, we mke contriution to derive tight UpperB(f) nd LowerB(f) y converting the prolem of computing ounds into mximum clique prolem nd propose n efficient solution y comining the properties of proility conditionl independence nd grph theory, which is discussed in Section 4.. Chlleng: Find the fetures tht mximize pruning Frequent sugrphs (mined from D c ) re commonly used s fetures in grph mtching. However, it would e imprcticl to index ll of them. Our gol is to mximize the pruning cpility with smll numer of fetures. To chieve this gol, we consider two criteri in selecting fetures, the size of the feture nd the numer of disjoint emeddings tht feture hs. A feture of smll size nd mny emeddings is preferred. The detils out feture selection re given in Section 4.2. Chlleng: Compute SSP efficiently Though we re le to filter out lrge numer of proilistic grphs, computing the exct SSP in the verifiction phse my still tke quite some time nd ecome the ottleneck in query processing. To ddress this issue, we develop n efficient smpling lgorithm, sed on the Monte Crlo theory, to estimte SSP with high qulity, which is presented in Section 5. In ddition, in Section 2, we formlly define T-PS queries over proilistic grphs nd give the complexity of the prolem in Section 2. We discuss the results of performnce tests on rel dt sets in Section 6 nd the relted works in Section 7. We conclude our work in Section PROBLEM DEFINITION In this section, we define some necessry concepts nd show the complexity of our prolem. Tle summrizes the nottions used in this pper. 2. Prolem Definition Definition. (Deterministic Grph) An undirected deterministic grph 2 g c, is denoted s (V, E, Σ, L), where V is set of vertices, E is set of edges, Σ is set of lels, nd L : V E Σ is 2 In this pper, we consider undirected grphs, lthough it is strightforwrd to extend our methods to directed grphs. Symol Description D, SC q, A q the proilistic dtse set D c, SC c q the deterministic dtse g the proilistic grph ϵ the user-specified proility threshold δ the sugrph distnce threshold f, q, g g c the deterministic grph U = {rq,.., rq } the remining grph set fter q is relxed with δ edges LowerB(f), the lower nd upper ounds of SIP UpperB(f) L sim(q), U simq the lower nd upper ounds of SSP Brq i, Bf i, Bc i the Boolen vriles of query, emedding nd cut Ef, Ec the set of emeddings nd cuts IN the set of disjoint emeddings F the feture set P r(x ne ) the joint proility distriution of neighor edges P r(q iso g) the isomorphism etween q nd g P r(q sim g) the sugrph similrity proility etween q nd g Tle : Nottions function tht ssigns lels to vertices nd edges. A set of edges re neighor edges, denoted y ne, if they re incident to the sme vertex or the edges form tringle in g c. For exmple, consider grph 00 in Figure. Edges e, e 2 nd re neighor edges, since they form tringle. Consider grph 002 in Figure. Edges,, nd e 5 re lso neighor edges, since they re incident to the sme vertex. Definition 2. (Proilistic Grph) A proilistic grph is defined s g = (g c, X E), where g c is deterministic grph, nd X E is inry rndom vrile set indexed y E. An element x e X E tkes vlues 0 nd, nd denotes the existence possiility of edge e. A joint proility density function P r(x ne ) is ssigned to ech neighor edge set, where x ne denotes the ssignments restricted to the rndom vriles of neighor edge set, ne. A proilistic grph hs uncertin edges ut deterministic vertices. The proility function P r(x ne ) is given s joint proility tle of rndom vriles of ne. For exmple, the proilistic grph 002 in Figure hs 2 joint proility tles ssocited with 2 neighor edge sets, respectively. Definition 3. (Possile World Grph) A possile world grph g = (V, E, Σ, L ) is n instntition of proilistic grph g = ((V, E, Σ, L), X E ), where V = V, E E, Σ Σ. We denote the instntition from g to g s g g. Both g nd g c re deterministic grphs. But proilistic grph g corresponds to one g c nd multiple possile world grphs. We use P W G(g) to denote the set of ll possile world grphs derived from g. For exmple, Figure 2 lists 4 possile world grphs of the proilistic grph 002 in Figure. Definition 4. (Conditionl Independence) Let X, Y, nd Z e sets of rndom vriles. X is conditionlly independent of Y given Z (denoted y X Y Z) in distriution Pr if: P r(x = x; Y = y Z = z) = P r(x = x Z = z) P r(y = y Z = z) for ll vlues x dom(x), y dom(y ) nd z dom(z). Following rel pplictions [9, 28, 8, 6], we ssume tht ny two disjoint susets of Boolen vriles, X A nd X B of X E, re 802

4 conditionlly independent given suset X C (X A X B X C ), if there is pth from vertex in A to vertex in B pssing through C. Then, the proility of possile world grph g is given y: P r(g g ) = P r(x ne) () ne NS where NS is ll the sets of neighor edges of g. For exmple, in proilistic grph 002 of Figure, {e, e 2 } {, e 5 }. Clerly, for ny possile world grph g, we hve P r(g g ) > 0 nd g P W G(g) P r(g g ) =, tht is, ech possile world grph hs n existence proility, nd the sum of these proilities is. Definition 5. (Sugrph Isomorphism) Given two deterministic grphs g = (V, E, Σ, L ) nd g 2 = (V 2, E 2, Σ 2, L 2 ), we sy g is sugrph isomorphic to g 2 (denoted y g iso g 2 ), if nd only if there is n injective function f : V V 2 such tht: for ny (u, v) E, there is n edge (f(u), f(v)) E 2 ; for ny u V, L (u) = L 2(f(u)); for ny (u, v) E, L (u, v) = L 2 (f(u), f(v)). The sugrph (V 3, E 3 ) of g 2 with V 3 = {f(v) v V } nd E 3 = {(f(u), f(v)) (u, v) E } is clled the emedding of g in g 2. When g is sugrph isomorphic to g 2, we lso sy tht g is sugrph of g 2 nd g 2 is super-grph of g. Definition 6. (Sugrph Isomorphism Proility) For deterministic grph f nd proilistic grph g, we define their sugrph isomorphism proility (SIP) s, P r(f iso g) = g SUB(f,g) P r(g g ) (2) where SUB(f, g) is g s possile world grphs tht re super-grphs of f, tht is, SUB(f, g) = {g P W G(g) f iso g }. Definition 7. (Mximum Common Sugrph-MCS) Given two deterministic grphs g nd g 2, the mximum common sugrph of g nd g 2 is the lrgest sugrph of g 2 tht is sugrph isomorphic to g, denoted y mcs(g, g 2 ). Definition 8. (Sugrph Distnce) Given two deterministic grphs g nd g 2, the sugrph distnce is, dis(g, g 2 ) = g mcs(g, g 2 ). Here, g nd mcs(g, g 2 ) denote the numer of edges in g nd mcs(g, g 2 ), respectively. For distnce threshold δ, if dis(g, g 2 ) δ, we cll g is sugrph similr to g 2. Note tht, in this definition, sugrph distnce only depends on the edge set difference, which is consistent with pervious works on similrity serch over deterministic grphs [38, 5, 30]. The opertions on n edge consist of edge deletion, releling nd insertion. Definition 9. (Sugrph Similrity Proility) For given query grph q, proilistic grph g 3 nd sugrph distnce threshold δ, we define their sugrph similrity proility s, P r(q sim g) = g SIM(q,g) P r(g g ) (3) where SIM(q, g) is g s possile world grphs tht hve sugrph distnce to q no lrger thn δ, tht is, SIM(q, g) = {g P W G(g ) dis(q, g ) δ}. 3 Without loss of the generlity, in this pper, we ssume query grph is connected deterministic grph, nd proilistic grph is connected. Pr(y) u u 2 u 3 Pr(y) Pr(y2) Pr(y2) Pr(y2) Pr(y3) v v 2 v 3 g Pr(y3) w u v v 2 v 3 Figur: The proilistic grph g nd query grph q constructed for (y y 2 ) (y y 2 y 3 ) (y 2 y 3 ). grph feture f f 2 f 3 00 (0.55, 0.64) (0.3, 0.48) 0 PMI 002 (0.42, 0.5) (0.26, 0.58) (0.08, 0.5) f f 2 f 3 fetures Figur: Proilistic Mtrix Index (PMI) & fetures of proilistic grph dtse Prolem Sttement. Given set of proilistic grphs D = {g,..., g n }, query grph q, nd proility threshold ϵ (0 < ϵ ), sugrph similr query returns set of proilistic grphs {g P r(q sim g) ϵ, g D}. 2.2 Prolem Complexity From the prolem sttement, we know tht in order to nswer proilistic sugrph similr queries efficiently, we need to clculte SSP (sugrph similrity proility) efficiently. We now show the time complexity of clculting SSP. Theorem 2. It is #P-complete to clculte the sugrph similrity proility. Proof. Due to spce limit, we do not give the full proof nd just highlight the mjor steps here. We consider proilistic grph whose edge proilities re independent from ech other. This proilistic grph model is specil cse of the proilistic grph defined in Definition 2. We prove the theorem y reducing n ritrry instnce of the #P-complete DNF counting prolem [3] to n instnce of the prolem of computing P r(q sim g) in polynomil time. Figur illustrtes n reduction for the DNF formul F = (y y 2 ) (y y 2 y 3 ) (y 2 y 3 ). In the figure, the grph distnce etween q nd ech possile world grph g is (delete vertex w from q). Ech truth ssignment to the vriles in F corresponds to possile world grph g derived from g. The proility of ech truth ssignment equls to the proility of g tht the truth ssignment corresponds to. A truth ssignment stisfies F if nd only if g, the truth ssignment corresponds to, is sugrph similr to q (suppose grph distnce is ). Thus, P r(f ) is equl to the proility, P r(q sim g). 3. PROBABILISTIC PRUNING As mentioned in Section.2, we first conduct structurl pruning to remove proilistic grphs tht do not pproximtely contin the query grph q, nd then we use proilistic pruning techniques to further filter the remining proilistic grph set, nmed SC q. q c 803

5 3. Pruning Conditions We first introduce n index structure, Proilistic Mtrix Index (PMI), to fcilitte proilistic filtering. Ech column of the mtrix corresponds to proilistic grph in the dtse D, nd ech row corresponds to n indexed feture. Ech entry records {LowerB(f), UpperB(f)}, where UpperB(f) nd LowerB(f) re the upper nd lower ounds of the sugrph isomorphism proility of f to g, respectively. Exmple 2. Figur shows the PMI of proilistic grphs in Figure. Given query q, proilistic grph g nd sugrph distnce δ, we generte grph set, U = {rq,.., rq }, y relxing q with δ edge deletions or relelings 4. Here, we use the solution proposed in [38] to generte {rq,.., rq }. Suppose we hve uilt the PMI. For ech g SC q, in PMI, we locte D g = { LowerB(f j), UpperB(f j) f j iso g c, j F } For ech rq i, we find two grph fetures in D g, {fi, fi 2 }, such tht rq i iso fi nd rq i iso fi 2, where i. Then we hve proilistic pruning conditions s follows. Pruning.(sugrph pruning) Given proility threshold ϵ nd D g, if UpperB(f i ) < ϵ, then g cn e sfely pruned from SC q. Pruning 2.(super grph pruning) Given proility threshold ϵ nd D g, if LowerB(f 2 i ) i,j UpperB(f 2 i )Upper- B(f 2 j ) ϵ, then g is in the finl nswers, i.e., g A q, where A q is the finl nswer set. Before proving the correctness of the ove two pruning conditions, we first introduce lemm out P r(q sim g), which will e used for the proof. Let Brq i e Boolen vrile where i, Brq i is true when rq i is sugrph isomorphic to g c, nd P r(brq i) is the proility tht Brq i is true. We hve Lemm. P r(q sim g) = P r(brq... Brq ). (4) Proof. From Definition 9, we hve P r(q sim g) = g SIM(q,g) P r(g g ) (5) where SMI(q, g) is set of possile world grphs tht hve sugrph distnce to q no lrger thn δ Let d e the sugrph distnce etween q nd g c. We divide SIM(q, g) into δ d + susets 5, {SM 0,..., SM δ d }, such tht possile world grph in SM i hs sugrph distnce d + i with q. Thus, from Eqution 5, we get P r(q iso g) = P r(g g ) g SM... SM δ d = P r(g g ) P r( 0 j δ d g SM j 0 j <j 2 δ d g SM j SM j2 g g ) + + ( ) i P r(g g ) 0 j <...<j i δ d g SM j... SM ji + + ( ) δ d P r(g g ). g SM j... SM jδ d 4 According to the sugrph similrity serch, insertion does not chnge the query grph. 5 For g SC q, we hve d δ, since the proilistic grphs with d > δ hve een filtered out in the deterministic pruning. (6) Let L i, 0 i δ d, e the grph set fter q is relxed with d + i edges, nd BL i e Boolen vrile, when BL i is true, it indictes t lest one grph in L i is sugrph of g c. Consider the ith item on the RHS in Eqution 6, let A e the set composed of ll grphs in i grph sets, nd B = BL j... BL ji e the corresponding Boolen vrile of A. The set g SM j... SM ji contins ll PWGs tht hve ll grphs in A. Then, for the ith item, we get, ( ) i P r(g g ) 0 j <...<j i δ d g SM j... SM ji = ( ) i P r(bl j... BL ji ). 0 j <...<j i δ d Similrly, we cn get the results for other items. By replcing the corresponding items with these results in Eqution 6, we get P r(q iso g) = P r(bl j) 0 j δ d 0 j <j 2 δ d + + ( ) i P r(bl j... BL ji ) 0 j <...<j i δ d (7) P r(bl j BL j2 ) + + ( ) δ d P r(bl j... BL jδ d ). (8) Bsed on the Inclusion-Exclusion Principle [26], the RHS of Eqution 8 is P r(bl 0... BL δ d ). Clerly, BL 0... BL δ d, then P r(bl 0... BL δ d ) = P r(bl δ d ) = P r(brq... Brq ) Lemm gives method to compute SSP. Intuitively, the proility of q eing sugrph similr to g equls to the proility tht t lest one grph of the grph set U = {rq,..., rq } is sugrph of g, where U is remnning grph set fter q is relxed with δ edges. With Lemm, we cn formlly prove the two pruning conditions. Theorem 3. Given proility threshold ϵ nd D g, if UpperB(f i ) < ϵ, then g cn e sfely pruned from SC q. Proof. Since rq i iso fi, we hve Brq... Brq Bf... Bf, where Bfi is Boolen vrile denoting the proility of fi eing sugrph of g for i. Bsed on Lemm, we otin P r(q sim g) = P r(brq... Brq ) Then g cn e pruned. P r(bf... Bf ) P r(bf ) P r(bf ) UpperB(f ) UpperB(f ) < ϵ. Theorem 4. Given proility threshold ϵ nd D g, if L- owerb(f 2 i ) i,j UpperB(f 2 i )UpperB(f 2 j ) ϵ, then g A q, where A q is the finl nswer set. Proof. Since Brq i Bf 2 i, we cn show tht P r(q sim g) = P r(brq... Brq ) P r(bf 2... Bf 2 ) P r(bf 2 i ) i,j LowerB(f 2 i ) ϵ. i,j P r(bf 2 i )P r(bf 2 j ) UpperB(f 2 i )UpperB(f 2 j ) 804

6 rq rq2 c rq3 f S :{rq,rq 2 } W(S )=0.4 f 2 c S 2 :{rq 2,rq 3 } W(S 2 )=0. f 3 S 3 :{rq,rq 3 } W(S 3 )=0.5 Then g A q. Figure 5: Otin tightest U sim (q) Note tht the pruning process needs to ddress the trditionl sugrph isomorphism prolem (rq iso f or rq iso f). In our work, we implement the stte-of-the-rt method VF2 [0]. 3.2 Otin Tightest Bounds of sugrph similrity proility In pruning conditions, for ech rq i ( i ), we find only one pir feture {f i, f 2 i }, mong F fetures, such tht rq i iso f i nd rq i iso f 2 i. Then we compute the upper ound, U sim(q) = UpperB(f i ) nd the lower ound L sim(q) = LowerB(f 2 i ) i,j UpperB(f 2 i )UpperB(f 2 j ). However, there re mny f i s nd f 2 i s stisfying conditions mong F fetures, therefore, we cn compute lrge numer of U sim (q)s nd L sim (q) -s. For ech rq i, if we find x fetures meeting the needs mong F fetures, we cn derive x U sim(q)s. Let x = 0 nd = 0, then there re 0 0 upper ounds. The sme holds for L sim(q). Clerly, it is unrelistic to determine the est ounds y enumerting ll the possile ones, thus, in this section, we give efficient lgorithms to otin the tightest U sim(q) nd L sim(q) Otin Tightest U sim (q) For ech f j ( j F ) in PMI, we determine grph set, s j, tht is suset of U = {rq,..., rq }, such tht rq i s j s.t. rq i iso f j. We lso ssocite s j weight, UpperB(f j). Then we otin F sets {s,.., s F } with ech set hving weight w(s j) = UpperB(f j) for j F. With this mpping, we trnsform the prolem of computing tightest U sim (q) into weighted set cover prolem defined s follows. Definition 0. (Tightest U sim (q)) Given finite set U = {rq,..., rq } nd collection S = {s,.., s j,.., s F } of susets of U with ech s j ttched weight w sj, we wnt to compute susect C S to minimize s j C w(sj) s.t. s j C sj = U. It is well-known tht the set cover prolem is NP-complete [3], we use greedy pproch to pproximte the tightest U sim (q). Algorithm gives detiled steps. Assume the optiml vlue is OPT, the pproximte vlue is within OP T ln U [2]. Algorithm OtinTightestU sim (q)(u, S) : A ϕ, U sim(q) = 0; 2: while A is not cover of U do 3: for ech s S, compute γ(s) = w(s) s A ; 4: choose n s with miniml γ(s); 5: A A s; 6: U sim(q)+ = w(s); 7: end while 8: return U sim(q); Exmpl. In Figure, suppose we use q to query proilistic grph 002, nd the sugrph distnce is. The relxed grph c set of q is U = {rq, rq 2, rq 3 } s shown in Figure 5. Given indexed fetures {f, f 2, f 3 }, we first determine s = {rq, rq 2 }, s 2 = {rq 2, rq 3 } nd s 3 = {rq, rq 3 }. We use the UpperB(f j ), j 3, s weight for three sets, nd thus we hve w(s ) = 0.4, w(s 2 ) = 0. nd w(s 3 ) = 0.5. Bsed on Definition 0, we otin three U sim (q)s, which re =0.5, =0.9 nd =0.6. Finlly the smllest (tightest) vlue, 0.5, is used s the upper ound, i.e., U sim(q) = Otin Tightest L sim (q) For lower ound L sim (q), the lrger (tighter) L sim (q) is, the etter the proilistic pruning power is. Here we formlize the prolem of computing lrgest L sim (q) s n integer qudrtic progrmming prolem, nd develop n efficient rndomized lgorithm to solve it. For ech f i ( i F ) in PMI, we determine grph set, s i, tht is suset of U = {rq,..., rq }, such tht rq j s i s.t. rq j iso f i. We ssocite s i pir weight of {LowerB(f i), Upper B(f i )}. Then we otin F sets {s,.., s F } with ech set hving pir weight {w L (s i ), w U (s i )} for i F. Thus the prolem of computing tightest L sim (q) cn e formlized s follows. Definition. (Tightest L sim(q)) Given finite set U = {rq,..., rq } nd collection S = {s,..., s F } of susets of U with ech s i ttched pir weight {w L(s i), w U (s i)}, we wnt to compute susect C {s,..., s F } to mximize w L (s i ) w U (s i )w U (s j ) s i C s.t. s i C si = U. s i,s j C Associte n indictor vrile, x si, with ech set s i S, which tkes vlue if set s i is selected, 0 otherwise. Then we wnt to: Mximize x si w L(s i) s.t. s i C s i,s j C rq s i x si rq U, x s {0, }. x si x sj w U (s i)w U (s j) Eqution 9 is n integer qudrtic progrmming which is hrd prolem [3]. We relx x si to tke vlues within [0, ], i.e., x si [0, ]. Then the eqution ecomes stndrd qudrtic progrmming (QP). Clerly, this QP is convex, nd there is n efficient solution to solve the progrmming [23]. Since ll fesile solutions for Eqution 9 re lso fesile solutions for the relxed qudrtic progrmming, the mximum vlue QP (I) computed y the relxed QP provides n upper ound for the vlue computed in Eqution 9. Thus the vlue of QP (I) cn e used s the tightest lower ound. However, the proposed relxtion technique cnnot give ny theoreticl gurntee on how tight QP (I) is to Eqution 9 [2]. Now following the relxed QP, we propose rndomized rounding lgorithm tht yields n pproximtion ound for Eqution 9. Algorithm 2 shows the detiled steps. According to Eqution 9, it is not difficult to see tht more elements in U re covered, the tighter L sim (q) is. The following theorem sttes tht the numer of covered elements of U hs theoreticl gurntee. Theorem 5. When Algorithm 2 termintes, the proility tht ll elements re covered is t lest U. (9) 805

7 Algorithm 2 OtinTightestL sim(q)(u, S) : C ϕ, L sim(q) = 0; 2: Let x s e n optiml solution to the relxed QP; 3: for k = to 2ln U do 4: Pick ech s S independently with proility x s ; 5: if s is picked then 6: C s; C 7: L sim (q) = L sim (q) + w L (s) w U (s) w U (s l ); 8: end if 9: end for 0: return L sim (q); rq rq2 c rq3 c l= f S :{rq,rq 2 } W(S )=0.4 f 2 c S 2 :{rq 2,rq 3 } W(S 2 )=0. f 3 S 3 :{rq,rq 3 } W(S 3 )=0.5 Figure 6: Otin tightest L sim (q) Proof. For n element rq U, the proility of rq is not covered in n itertion is ( x s) e x s e rq s x s e. rq s rq s Then rq is not covered t the end of the lgorithm is t most e 2log U. Thus, the proility tht there is some rq tht U 2 is not covered is t most U / U 2 = / U. Exmpl. In Figure, suppose we use q to query proilistic grph 002, nd the sugrph distnce is. The relxed grph set of q is U = {rq, rq 2, rq 3} shown in Figure 6. Given indexed fetures {f, f 2}, we first determine s = {rq } nd s 2 = {rq, rq 2, rq 3}. Then we use {LowerB(f i), UpperB(f i)}, i 2, s weights, nd thus we hve {w L (s ) = 0.28, w U (s ) = 0.36}, {w L (s 2 ) = 0.08, w U (s 2 ) = 0.5}. Bsed on Definition, we ssign L sim (q) = PROBABILISTIC MATRIX INDEX In this section, we discuss how to otin tight {LowerB(f), UpperB(f)} nd generte fetures used in proilistic mtrix index (PMI). 4. Bounds of Sugrph Isomorphism Proility 4.. LowerB(f) Let Ef = {f,.., f Ef } e the set of ll emeddings 6 of feture f in the deterministic grph g c, Bf i e Boolen vrile for i Ef, which indictes whether f i exists in g c or not, nd P r(bf i ) e the proility of the emedding f i exists in g. Similr to Lemm, we hve P r(f iso g) = P r(bf... Bf Ef ). (0) According to Theorem 2, it is not difficult to see tht clculting the exct P r(f iso g) is NP-complete. Thus we rewrite Eqution 0 s follows 6 In this pper, we use the lgorithm in [36] to compute emeddings of feture in g c P r(f iso g) = P r(bf... Bf Ef ) = P r(bf... Bf Ef ) P r(bf... Bf IN Bf IN +... Bf Ef ). where IN = {Bf,..., Bf IN } Ef. Let the corresponding emeddings of Bf i, i IN, do not hve common prts (edges). Since g c is connected, these IN Boolen vriles re conditionlly independent given ny rndom vrile of g. Then Eqution is written s P r(f iso g) P r(bf... Bf IN Bf IN +... Bf Ef ) IN = [ P r(bf i Bf IN +... Bf Ef )]. For vriles Bf x, Bf y {Bf IN +,..., Bf Ef }, we hve P r(bf i Bf x Bf y) = P r(bf i Bf x Bf y ) P r(bf x Bf y ) = P r(bf i Bf x Bf y )/P r(bf y ) P r(bf x Bf y )/P r(bf y ) = P r(bf i Bf x Bf y ). P r(bf x Bf y ) If Bf i nd Bf x re conditionlly independent given Bf y, then () (2) (3) P r(bf i Bf x Bf y) = P r(bf i Bf y)p r(bf x Bf y). (4) By comining Equtions 3 nd 4, we otin P r(bf i Bf x Bf y ) = P r(bf i Bf y ). (5) Bsed on this property, Eqution 2 is reduced to IN P r(f iso g) [ P r(bf i Bf IN +... Bf Ef )] IN = [ P r(bf i Bf... Bf C )] IN = [ P r(bf i COR)] where COR = Bf... Bf C, nd the corresponding emedding of Bf j C = {Bf,..., Bf C } overlps with the corresponding emedding of Bf i. For given Bf i, P r(bf i COR) is constnt, since the numer of emeddings overlpping with f i in g c is constnt. Now we otin the lower ound of P r(f iso g) s (6) IN LowerB(f) = [ P r(bf i COR)], (7) which is only dependent on the selected IN emeddings tht do not hve common prts with ech other. To compute P r(bf i COR), strightforwrd pproch is the following. We first join ll the joint proility tles (JPT), nd menwhile multiply joint proilities of joining tuples in JPTs. 806

8 e e 2 e 2 EM EM 3 Emeddings of f 2 in 002 EM 2 EM EM 2 EM 3 Grph fg of emeddings Figure 7: Emeddings & fg of feture f 2 in proilistic grph 002 Then, in the join result, we project on edge lels involved in Bf i nd COR, nd eliminte duplictes y summing up their existence proilities. The summriztion is the finl result. However, this solution is clerly time inefficient for the ske of join, duplicte elimintion, nd proility multipliction. In order to clculte P r(bf i COR) efficiently, we use smpling lgorithm to estimte its vlue. Algorithm 3 shows the detiled steps. The min ide of the lgorithm is s follows. We first smple possile world g. Then we check the condition, in Line 4, tht is used to estimte P r(bf i COR), nd the condition, in Line 7, tht is used to estimte P r(cor). Finlly we return n /n 2 which is n estimtion of P r(bf i COR)/P r(cor) = P r(bf i COR). The cycling numer m is set to (4ln 2 ξ )/τ 2 (0 < ξ <, τ > 0) used in Monte Crlo theory [26]. Algorithm 3 ClculteP r(bf i COR) (g, Bf i, COR) : n = 0, n 2 = 0; 2: for i = to m do 3: Smple ech neighor edge set ne of g ccording to P r(x ne), nd then otin n instnce g ; 4: if g hs emedding f i & no emeddings involved in COR then 5: n + = ; 6: end if 7: if g hs no emeddings involved in COR then 8: n 2+ = ; 9: end if 0: end for : return n /n 2; Exmple 5. In Figur, consider f 2, feture of proilistic grph 002 shown in Figure. f 2 hs three emeddings in 002, nmely EM, EM2 nd EM3 s shown in Figure 7. In corresponding Bf is, Bf nd Bf 3 re conditionlly independent given Bf 2. Then sed on Eqution 7, we hve LowerB(f) = [ P r(bf Bf 2 )][ P r(bf 3 Bf 2 )] = As stted erly, LowerB(f) depends on emeddings tht do not hve common prts. However, mong ll Ef emeddings, there re mny groups which contin disjoint emeddings nd leds to different lower ounds. We wnt to get tight lower ound in order to increse the pruning power. Next, we introduce how to otin tightest LowerB(f). Otin Tightest Lower Bound We construct n undirected grph, fg, with ech node representing n emedding f i, i Ef, nd link connecting two disjoint emeddings (nodes). Note tht, to void confusions, nodes nd links re used for fg, while vertices nd edges re for grphs. We lso ssign ech node weight, ln[ P r(bf i COR)]. In fg, clique is set of nodes such tht ny two nodes of the set re djcent. We define the weight of clique s the sum of node weights in the clique. Clerly, given clique in fg with weight v, LowerB(f) is e v. Thus, the lrger the weight, the tighter (lrger) the lower ound. To otin tight lower ound, we should find clique whose weight is lrgest, which is exctly the mximum weight clique prolem. Here we use the efficient solution in [7] to solve the mximum clique prolem, nd the lgorithm returns the lrgest weight z. Therefore, we use e z s the tightest vlue for LowerB(f). Exmple 6. Following Exmple 5, s shown in Figure 7, EM is disjoint with EM3. Bsed on the ove discussion, we construct fg, for the three emeddings, shown in Figure 7. There re two mximum cliques nmely, {EM, EM3} nd EM2. According to Eqution 7, the lower ounds derived from the 2 mximum cliques re 0.26 nd 0. respectively. Therefore we select the lrger (tighter) vlue 0.26 to e the lower ound of f 2 in UpperB(f) Firstly, we define Emedding Cut: For feture f, n emedding cut is set of edges in g c whose removl will cuse the sence of ll f s emeddings in g c. An emedding cut is miniml if no proper suset of the emedding cut is n emedding cut. In this pper, we use miniml emedding cut. Denote n emedding cut y c nd its corresponding Boolen vrile (sme s Bf) y Bc, where Bc is true indicting tht the emedding cut c exists in g c. Similr to Eqution 0, it is not difficult to otin, P r(f iso g) = P r(bc... Bc Ec ) = P r(bc... Bc Ec ) where Ec = {c,..., c Ec } is the set of ll emedding cuts of f in g c. Eqution 8 shows tht the sugrph isomorphism proility of f to g equls the proility of ll f s emedding cuts disppering in g. Similr to the deduction from Eqution 0 to 7 for LowerB(f), we cn rewrite Eqution 8 s follows P r(f iso g) = P r(bc... Bc Ec ) P r(bc... Bc IN Bc IN +... Bc Ec ) IN = [ P r(bc i Bc IN +... Bc Ec )] IN = [ P r(bc i Bc... Bc D )] IN = [ P r(bc i COM)] where IN = {Bc,..., Bc IN } is set of Boolen vriles whose corresponding cuts re disjoint, COM = Bc... Bc D, nd the corresponding cut of Bc j D = {Bc,..., Bc D } hs common prts with the corresponding cut of Bc i. Finlly we otin the upper ound s UpperB(f) = IN (8) (9) [ P r(bc i COM)]. (20) The upper ound only relies on the picked emedding cut set in which ny two cuts re disjoint. The vlue of P r(bc i COM) is estimted using Algorithm 3 y replcing emeddings with cuts. Similr to lower ound, computing tightest UpperB(f) cn e converted into mximum weight clique prolem. However, different from lower ound, ech node of the constructed grph fg represents cut nd hs weight of ln[ P r(bc i COM)] insted. Thus, for the mximum weight clique with weight v, the tightest vlue of UpperB(f) is e v. Now we discuss how to determine emedding cuts in g c. Clcultion of Emedding Cuts We uild connection etween emedding cuts in g c nd cuts for two vertices in deterministic grph. 807

9 e e 2 e 2 EM EM3 Emeddings of f2 EM2 s e e 2 e 2 Prllel grph cg Figure 8: Trnsformtion from emeddings of f 2 to prllel grph cg Suppose f hs Ef emeddings in g c, nd ech emedding hs k edges. Assign k lels, {e,..., e k }, for edges of ech emedding (the order is rndom.). We crete corresponding line grph for ech emedding y () creting k + isolted nodes, nd (2) connecting these k + nodes to e line y ssociting k edges (with corresponding lels) of the emedding. Bsed on these line grphs, we construct prllel grph, cg. The node set of cg consists of ll nodes of the Ef line grphs nd two new nodes, s nd t. The edge set of cg consists of ll edges (with lels) of the Ef line grphs. In ddition, one edge (without lel) is plced etween n end node of ech line grph nd s. Similrly, there is n edge etween t nd the other end node of ech line grph. As result, Ef emeddings re trnsformed into deterministic grph cg. Bsed on this trnsformtion, we hve Theorem 6. The emedding cut set of g c is lso the cut set (without edges incident to s nd t) from s to t in cg. In this work, we determine emedding cuts using the method in [22]. Exmple 7. Figure 8 shows the trnsformtion for feture f 2 in grph 002 in Figure. In cg, we cn find cuts {e 2, }, {e,, } nd {e 2, } which re clerly the emedding cuts of f 2 in Feture Genertion We would like to select frequent nd discrimintive fetures to construct proilistic mtrix index (PMI). To chieve this, we consider UpperB(f) given in Eqution 20, since upper ound plys most importnt role in the pruning cpility. According to Eqution 20, to get tight upper ound, we need lrge disjoint cut set nd lrge P r(bc i COM). Suppose the cut set is IN. Note tht IN = IN, since cut in IN hs corresponding Boolen vrile Bc i in IN. From the clcultion of emedding cuts, it is not difficult to see tht lrge numer of disjoint emeddings leds to lrge IN. Thus we would like feture tht hs lrge numer of disjoint emeddings. Since COM is smll, smll size feture results in lrge P r(bc i COM). In summry, we should index feture, which complies with following rules: Rule. Select fetures tht hve lrge numer of disjoint emeddings. Rule 2. Select smll size fetures. To chieve rule, we define the frequency of feture f s frq(f) = {g f isog c, IN / Ef α,g D}, where α is threshold of the D rtio of disjoint emeddings mong ll emeddings. Given frequency threshold β, feture f is frequent iff frq(f) β. Thus we would like to index frequent feture. To chieve rule 2, we control feture size used in Algorithm 4. To control feture numer [37, 29], we lso define the discrimintive mesure s: dis(f) = {D f f iso f} D f, where D f is the list proilistic grphs g s.t. f iso g c. Given discrimintive threshold γ, feture f is discrimintive, iff dis(f) > γ. Thus we should lso select discrimintive feture. t Bsed on the ove discussion, we select frequent nd discrimintive fetures, which is implemented in Algorithm 4. In this lgorithm, we first initil feture set F with single edge or vertex (line -4). Then we increse feture size (numer of vertices) from, nd pick out desirle fetures (line 6-9). mxl is used to control the feture size, nd gurntees picking out smll size feture stisfying rule 2. frq(f) nd dis(f) re used to mesure the frequency nd discrimintion of feture. The controlling prmeters α, β nd γ gurntee picking out feture stisfying rule. The defult vlues of the prmeters re usully set to 0. [37, 38]. Algorithm 4 FetureSelection(D, α, β, γ, mxl) : F ϕ; 2: Initil feture set F with single edge or vertex; 3: D f {g f iso g c }; 4: F F {f}; 5: for i = to mxl do 6: for ech feture f with i vertices do 7: if frq(f) β & dis(f) > γ then 8: D f {g f iso g c }; 9: F F {f}; 0: end if : end for 2: end for 3: return F ; 5. VERIFICATION In this section, we present the lgorithms to compute sugrph similrity proility (SSP) of cndidte proilistic grph g to q. Eqution 4 is the formul to compute SSP. By simplifying this eqution, we hve P r(q sim g) = ( ) i J {,...,}, J =i P r( J j=brqj). (2) Clerly, we need exponentil numer of steps to perform the exct clcultion. Therefore, we develop n efficient smpling lgorithm to estimte P r(q sim g). By Eqution 4, we know there re totlly Brqs tht re used to compute SSP. By Eqution 0, we know Brq = Bf... Bf Ef. Then, we hve, P r(q sim g) = P r(bf... Bf m) (22) where m is the numer of Bfs contined in these Brqs. Assume m Bfs hve x,..., x k Boolen vriles for uncertin edges. Algorithm 5 gives detiled steps of the smpling lgorithm. In this lgorithm, we use junction tree lgorithm to clculte P r(bf i) [7]. Algorithm 5 Clculte P r(q sim g) : Cnt = 0, V = m P r(bfi); 2: N = (4ln2/ξ)/τ 2 ; 3: for to N do 4: rndomly choose i {,..., m} with proility P r(bf i )/V ; 5: rndomly choose x,.., x k (ccording to proility P r(x ne )) with {0, } s.t. Bf i = ; 6: if Bf = 0... Bf i = 0 then 7: Cnt = Cnt + ; 8: end if 9: end for 0: return Cnt/N; 6. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION In this section, we report the effectiveness nd efficiency test results of our new proposed techniques. Our methods re implemented on Windows XP mchine with Core 2 Duo CPU (

10 GHz nd 2.8 GHz) nd 4GB min memory. Progrms re compiled y Microsoft Visul C In the experiments, we use rel proilistic grph dte set. Rel Proilistic Grph Dtset. The rel proilistic grph dtset is otined from the STRING dtse 7 tht contins the protein-protein interction (PPI) networks of orgnisms in the BioGRID dtse 8. A PPI network is proilistic grph where vertices represent proteins, edges represent interctions etween proteins, the lels of vertices re the COG functionl nnottions of proteins 9 provided y the STRING dtse, nd the existence proilities of edges re provided y the STRING dtse. We extrct 5K proilistic grphs from the dtse. The proilistic grphs hve n verge numer of 385 vertices nd 62 edges. Ech edge hs n verge vlue of existence proility. According to [9], the neighor PPIs (edges) re dominted y the strongest interctions of the neighor PPIs. Thus, for ech neighor edge set ne, we set its proilities s: P r(x ne ) = mx i ne P r(x i ), where x i is inry ssignment to ech edge in ne. Then, for ech ne, we otin 2 ne proilities. We normlize those proilities to construct the proility distriution, of ne, tht is input into lgorithms. Ech query set qi hs connected query grphs nd query grphs in qi re size-i grphs (the edge numer in ech query is i), which re extrcted from corresponding deterministic grphs of proilistic grphs rndomly, such s q50, q, q50, q200 nd q250. In sclility test, we rndomly generte 2k, 4K, 6K, 8K nd 0K dt grphs. The setting of experimentl prmeters is set s follows: the proility threshold is , nd the defult vlue is 0.5; the sugrph distnce is 2 6, nd the defult vlue is 4; the query size is , nd the defult vlue is 50. In feture genertion, the vlue of mxl is , nd the defult vlue is 50; the vlues of {α, β, γ} re , nd the defult vlue is 0.5. As introduced in Section.2, we implement the method in [38] to do structurl pruning. This method is clled Structure in experiments. In proilistic pruning, the method using ounds of sugrph similrity proility is clled SSPBound, nd the pproch using the est ounds is clled OPT-SSPBound. To implement SSPBound, for ech rq i, we rndomly find two fetures stisfying conditions in proilistic mtrix index (PMI). The method using ounds of sugrph isomorphism proility is clled SIP- Bound, nd the method using the tightest ound pproch is clled OPT-SIPBound. In verifiction, the smpling lgorithm is clled SMP, nd the method given y Eqution 2 is clled Exct. Since there re no pervious works on the topic studied in this pper, we lso compre the proposed lgorithms with Exct tht scns the proilistic grph dtses one y one. The complete proposed lgorithm of this pper is clled PMI. We report verge results in following experiments. In the first experiment, we demonstrte the efficiency of SMP ginst Exct in verifiction step. We first run structurl nd proilistic filtering lgorithms ginst the defult dtset to crete cndidte sets. The cndidte sets re then verified for clculting SSP using proposed lgorithms. Figure 9() reports the result, from which we know SMP is efficient with verge time less thn 3 seconds, while the curve of Exct decreses in exponentil. The pproximtion qulity of SMP is mesured y the precision nd recll metrics with respect to query size shown in Figure 9(). Precision is the percentge of true proilistic grphs in the output proilistic grphs. Recll is the percentge of returned proilistic grphs in ll true proilistic grphs. The experimentl results verify tht SMP hs very high pproximtion qulity with precision nd recll oth lrger thn 90%. We use SMP for verifiction in following experiments. Figure 0 reports cndidte sizes nd pruning time of SSPBound, OPT-SSPBound nd Structure with respect to proility thresholds. Recll tht SSPBound nd OPT-SSPBound re derived from upper nd lower ounds of SIP. Here, we feed them with OPT- SIPBound. From the results, we know tht the rs of SSPBound nd OPT-SSPBound decrese with the increse of proility threshold, since lrger thresholds cn remove more flse grphs with low confidences. As shown in Figure 0(), the cndidte size of OPT- SSPBound is very smll (i.e., 5 on verge), nd is smller thn tht of SSPBound, which indictes tht our derived est ounds re tight enough to hve gret pruning power. As shown in Figure 0(), OPT-SSPBound hs short pruning time (i.e., smller thn s on verge) ut tkes more time thn SSPBound due to more sugrph isomorphic tests during the clcultion of OPT-SSPBound. Oviously, proilities do not hve impcts on Structure, nd thus oth rs of Structure hold constnt. Figure shows cndidte sizes nd pruning time of SIPBound, OPT-SIPBound nd Structure with respect to sugrph distnce thresholds. To exmine the two metrics, we feed SIPBound nd OPT-SIPBound to OPT-SSPBound. From the results, we know tht ll rs increse with the increse of sugrph distnce threshold, since lrger thresholds led to lrge remining grph set which is input into the proposed lgorithms. Both OPT-SIPBound nd SIPBound hve smll numer of cndidte grphs, ut OPT- SIPBound tkes more time due to dditionl time for computing tightest ounds. From Figures 0() nd (), we elieve tht though Structure remins lrge numer of cndidtes, the proilistic pruning lgorithms cn further remove most flse grphs with efficient runtime. This oservtion verifies our lgorithmic frmework (i.e., structure pruning proilistic pruning verifiction) is effective to process queries on lrge proilistic grph dtse. Figure 2 exmines the impct of prmeters {mxl, α, β, γ} for feture genertion. Structure holds constnt in th results, since the feture genertion lgorithm is used for proilistic pruning. From Figure 2(), we know the lrger mxl is, the more cndidtes SSPBound nd OPT-SSPBound hve. The reson is tht the lrge mxl genertes lrge sized fetures, which leds to loose proilistic ounds. From Figure 2(), we see tht ll rs of proilistic pruning first decrese nd then increse, nd rech lowest t the vlues 0. nd 0.5 of α. As shown in Figures 2(c) nd 2(d), oth rs of OPT-SIPBound decrese s the vlues of prmeters increse, since either lrge β or lrge γ results in fewer fetures. Figure 3 reports totl query processing time with respect to different grph dtse sizes. PMI denotes the complete lgorithm, tht is, comintion of Structure, OPT-SSPBound (feed OPT-SIPBound) nd SMP. From the result, we know PMI hs quite efficient runtime nd voids the huge cost of computing SSP (#Pcomplete). PMI cn process queries within 0 seconds on verge. But the runtime of Exct grows in exponentil, nd hs gone eyond 0 seconds t the dtse size of 6k. The result of this experiment vlidtes the designs of this pper. Figur exmines the qulity of query nswers sed on proility correlted nd independent models. The query returns proilistic grphs if the proilistic grphs nd the query (sugrph) elong to the sme orgnism. We sy the query nd proilistic grph elong to the sme orgnism if the sugrph similrity proility is not less thn the threshold. In fct the STRING 809