Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 73 references

TIMEST: Temporal Information Motif Estimator Using Sampling Trees

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read TIMEST estimates temporal motif counts of arbitrary size by sampling spanning trees, and can count in minutes what exact methods take days to count.

desk verdict Real generalization of path sampling with a sound core estimator; accuracy claims need to be reined in. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20441 v1 pith:UVU3O3PR submitted 2025-07-27 cs.DB cs.DScs.IR

Yunjie Pan , Omkar Bhalerao , C. Seshadhri , Nishil Talati This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DBcs.DScs.IR
keywords temporalmotifsmotifcountingsamplingspanningtreesnetworksapproximationalgorithmsgraphminingrandomizedestimation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that temporal motif counting, long limited to motifs with at most four vertices, can be done for arbitrary motif sizes by sampling spanning trees of the motif from the input graph. This would matter because financial fraud detection and other applications rely on 5- and 6-vertex temporal patterns that exact enumeration cannot handle on large graphs. TIMEST relaxes some temporal constraints to make sampling efficient, then rescales the observed extension counts to get an unbiased estimate. The authors report under 5% error in most tested cases, with a 4-minute count of a money-laundering motif for which an exact GPU method takes over two days.

What carries the argument

The central object is the temporal spanning tree S of the motif M: a spanning tree of the motif's edges with an ordering and dependency list. TIMEST forms a partial match to S by enforcing only three relaxed constraints — temporal order and delta-window on adjacent edges, distinct endpoints on adjacent edges, and a global 2-delta sliding-window partition — then computes edge sampling weights bottom-up with dynamic programming, samples a partial match from the graph proportionally to these weights, validates it against the full motif constraints, and counts how many full motif matches extend from the sampled tree using binary-search-based list counting. The total sampling weight W, which counts all partial matches to S, is what the sample complexity and runtime estimate depend on, so the heuristic choice of which spanning tree to use is the practical linchpin.

What would settle it

Take a large temporal graph, pick a 6-vertex motif such as M6-4, and run TIMEST with both the heuristic-chosen spanning tree and the tree S2 shown in Figure 6, using the same sample budget; the paper's Figure 6 predicts a difference between under 1% and over 350% error. If the heuristic-chosen tree's error exceeds the claimed approximation bound while another tree stays under it, the central accuracy claim fails for that input.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

TIMEST is a general-purpose randomized algorithm that estimates the number of instances of any temporal motif in a temporal multigraph. The central claim is that by selecting a spanning tree of the motif, relaxing some of the motif's temporal constraints so that the tree can be sampled efficiently via weighted dynamic-programming preprocessing, and then validating and extending each sampled tree to full motif matches, one obtains an unbiased, concentrated estimate whose sample complexity depends on the ratio of the total sampling weight to the true count. The paper proves unbiasedness and a Chernoff-based sample bound, gives preprocessing and sampling complexity, and empirically shows an average 28x speedup over the GPU exact solver and 6x speedup over the approximate baseline, with consistently lower error; for the hardest 6-vertex motifs that exact methods cannot finish in a day, TIMEST returns estimates in minutes.

Load-bearing premise

The low-error guarantee rests on a heuristic that chooses which spanning-tree structure of the motif to sample from, and there is no proof that this choice will be a good one on a new graph or motif; a poor choice can inflate the error from under 1% to over 350%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Temporal motif counting can be extended beyond 4-vertex motifs: TIMEST handles 5- and 6-vertex motifs on graphs with hundreds of millions of edges, where exact methods time out or run out of memory.
  • The unbiased estimator plus sample-complexity bound means users can trade accuracy against runtime by setting the number of samples k, with the theory saying error scales roughly as the square root of the sampling weight over the true count divided by k.
  • Because the estimate is unbiased and the weight preprocessing dominates memory, peak memory use does not grow with motif complexity or sample count.
  • Counting a given money-laundering cycle motif on the Wiki-talk graph takes about four minutes at 0.6% error, versus two days for the fastest exact GPU system, so previously impractical fraud-pattern counts become routine.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the spanning-tree heuristic were replaced by a principled oracle or an adaptive tree-selection mechanism, the same framework might achieve the theoretical error bound uniformly, avoiding the observed errors above 20% on dense clique motifs.
  • The 2-delta sliding-window boundary correction suggests a general technique for handling over-counting in any sliding-window temporal sampling scheme, which could transfer to other temporal pattern counting problems.
  • The same sampling-tree machinery could be extended to partial-order temporal constraints, which the paper lists as future work; motifs whose constraints factor through a tree might be countable without the full validation step.
  • For very dense motifs such as cliques, the number of valid samples that contribute to the final count is tiny, so accuracy on such motifs would likely improve only if the sampler can exploit motif-specific structure beyond a single spanning tree.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. TIMEST is a randomized estimation algorithm for counting occurrences of a user-specified temporal motif in a temporal multigraph. The algorithm first selects a spanning tree of the motif (Section 4.5), relaxes three groups of temporal constraints (adjacent-edge ordering and δ-window, distinct adjacent endpoints, and a 2δ sliding-window partition), and preprocesses the graph to compute per-edge sampling weights by a bottom-up dynamic program (Claims 4.8–4.10). In the sampling phase it draws partial matches to the spanning tree with probabilities proportional to these weights (Section 4.2), validates them against the full motif definition, counts extending motif instances with a ListCount routine (Section 4.3), and rescales the average by the total sampling weight W. Lemma 4.12 proves unbiasedness; Theorem 4.14 gives a Chernoff-style relative-error bound with sample count k = (3B/ε²)(W/C) ln(2/γ). The paper claims TIMEST is general for arbitrary motif sizes, always faster than prior exact and approximate algorithms (28× average speedup over the Everest GPU exact code, 6× over PRESTO), and accurate with 'less than 5% error in most cases,' illustrated by a money-laundering motif counted in four minutes with 0.6% error where the exact method needed two days. Experiments cover 4-, 5-, and 6-vertex motifs on four datasets.

Significance. If the results hold, TIMEST is a meaningful advance for temporal motif counting: it is the first general-purpose estimator I am aware of that is demonstrated on 5- and 6-vertex temporal motifs, it delivers consistent order-of-magnitude speedups over both exact GPU enumeration and the strongest prior approximate method, and the estimator is derived from first principles. Strengths I want to credit explicitly: the unbiasedness proof (Lemma 4.12) is a genuine from-first-principles argument with no fitted parameters and no circularity; the concentration analysis (Theorem 4.14) is standard and, modulo notation, correct; the 2δ-window correction is sound for true motif matches (any match with span ≤ δ lies in at least one sliding window); and the artifact with source code and reproduction scripts is linked. The accuracy claim, however, is not uniform: several motif/dataset pairs have large errors (M6-4 on SO at 33.1%; M6-5 on WT/SO at 72.3%/100%), and the end-to-end accuracy depends on a spanning-tree selection heuristic without guarantees. These issues qualify the significance but do not erase the algorithmic contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [§1.3, Table 3, Abstract] The accuracy claims in the abstract and in Section 1.3 are contradicted by the paper's own Table 3. Section 1.3 states that 'the only hard motifs for TIMEST are M5−4 and M5−5, which have more than 20% error,' but Table 3 reports M6-4 on SO at 33.1% error and M6-5 at 72.3% (WT) and 100% (SO), and the abstract's 'consistently showcasing less than 5% error in most cases' therefore does not hold for a whole class of 6-vertex motifs — precisely the motifs emphasized as money-laundering patterns in the introduction. Moreover, for BI and RE the M6-4/M6-5 error entries are labeled 'No Exact' because Everest timed out, so no accuracy can be claimed for those cells at all. Because accuracy is a headline contribution, the authors need to (i) restate the error regimes per motif class honestly in the abstract and conclusion, (ii) reconcile Section 1.3's 'only hard motifs' sentence with Table 3, and (iii) either show that additional samples or a different spanning tree bring the M6-4/M6-5 errors below 5% on WT/SO, or explicitly exclude such motifs from the accuracy claim.
  2. [§4.5 and Theorem 4.14] The end-to-end approximation guarantee is not supported: Theorem 4.14 bounds the relative error for a fixed spanning tree with k = (3B/ε²)(W/C) ln(2/γ), where W and B are properties of the chosen tree, but the tree selection in Section 4.5 (Algorithms 7–8) is a heuristic — a constraint-looseness proxy computed from the motif alone, followed by exact W computation for only the top n_c candidates — with no proven relation between the selected tree's W (or B·W) and the optimum. Figure 6 demonstrates that the choice is load-bearing: for M6-4, errors across 54 valid spanning trees range from below 1% to above 350%. Note also that the theorem's sample complexity depends on the product B·W/C, whereas the heuristic minimizes W alone and ignores B, so the informal statement in Section 1.3 that 'the temporal spanning tree with the fewest matches is the best choice' does not follow from Theorem 4.14. I recommend that the authors (i) provide an empirical robustness study comparing the heuristic-selected tree with the best and worst spanning trees (exhaustive enumeration is feasible for the 4- and 5-vertex motifs) across all datasets, reporting how close the selected tree comes to the best; (ii) adopt an adaptive sample budget that estimates W and C from pilot samples and sets k according to Theorem 4.14; or (iii) explicitly reword 'approximation guarantee' so that it refers to the estimation step conditional on a given tree.
  3. [Claim 4.15] The running-time guarantee in Claim 4.15 is not justified as stated. The DP sums in Claim 4.9 run over the sets L_{e,s,s′}, which are δ-window temporal in/out-lists and hence are bounded by the maximum temporal degree in a δ-window (including parallel-edge multiplicity σ_δ), not by d_max as defined in Claim 4.15 ('the maximum number of simple edges incident on any vertex'). If these sums are computed by iterating over the lists, the preprocessing cost should grow with σ_δ; if instead they are evaluated with prefix sums over time-sorted adjacency lists, the proof's assertion of 'O(1) time to fetch those weights' needs to be spelled out and the d_max term should be replaced by an O(log m) binary-search factor. As written, neither the statement nor the proof of Claim 4.15 supports the claimed O(|E(S)|² m d_max) bound.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Claim 4.9] In the displayed formula for w_{s,e}, the second product factor should be (Σ_{e∈L_{e,s,s2}} w_{s2,e}), with the summation set matching the edge subscript; as printed the factor uses L_{e,s,s1} with w_{s2,e}. The proof states the correct form, so this is a typo, but the displayed identity is wrong as written.
  2. [Theorem 4.14 proof] The letter M is used for the true motif count that Lemma 4.12 calls C (e.g., 'E[Y_i]/B = Mk/WB' and 'the event |WY/k − C| ≥ εC' within the same paragraph). Unify the notation.
  3. [Lemma 4.11 and Algorithm 4] The claim 'N_φ ≤ 2 for every partial match φ to S' is not strictly true at sliding-window boundaries: a partial match all of whose edges carry the same timestamp exactly iδ is contained in three windows [(i−2)δ, iδ], [(i−1)δ, (i+1)δ], and [iδ, (i+2)δ]. Unbiasedness survives because ValidateAndDeriveCnt divides by the actual N_φ, but the bound should be corrected to N_φ ≤ 3 (or restricted to non-degenerate matches), and Algorithm 4 should state how N_φ is computed at runtime.
  4. [Algorithm 3] Line 5 iterates 'for s ∈ O[H]' while the surrounding loop variable is h; this should be O[h]. The loop header 'for h ∈ [H, 0]' is also non-standard notation.
  5. [§5.2, Table 4, title, abstract] There are several typographical issues: 'we alsoTIMEST and Everest (GPU) on the bipartite money laundering pattern' is missing a verb; Table 4's header contains 'erative error' instead of 'relative error'; and the title and abstract contain artifacts ('Using S ampling Trees', 'Temporal motifs have used to analyze').
  6. [Table 5] The RE rows list motifs labeled M4-5 and M4-7, which do not correspond to any motif in Figure 3 (which defines only M4-1 through M4-4); either the labels or the figure need updating.
  7. [Table 3] The reported Everest runtime for SO, M6-5 is 1.5E5 s (≈41.7 hours), which exceeds the stated 1-day timeout limit; the table note says timed-out cases are marked 'No Exact,' so this entry needs reconciliation.
  8. [§1.3] The sentence 'We do not give results for the motifs M6−4 and M6−5 since previous methods timeout even after running for a day' is contradicted by Tables 3 and 4, which report M6-4 and M6-5 results for Everest and PRESTO on WT and SO; please clarify which comparison the sentence refers to.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: TIMEST's estimator is a standard importance-sampling derivation, and its W-based tree selection is a heuristic accuracy risk, not a definitional loop.

full rationale

The core estimator is derived from first principles. The sampling weights w_{s,e} (Definition 4.7) count partial matches to subtrees of the chosen spanning tree, and they are computed from the input graph by the dynamic program of Claim 4.9; they are not defined in terms of the target motif count C. Lemma 4.12 establishes unbiasedness through the identity sum_phi M_phi = C, which is a bijective decomposition of motif embeddings by their unique restriction to the chosen spanning tree. No equation in this chain defines an output in terms of a fitted parameter or imports the conclusion. Theorem 4.14 applies a standard Chernoff bound with k proportional to (B/epsilon^2)(W/C) ln(2/gamma); W, B, and C are population quantities to be bounded, not fitted values. The self-citations to Pan et al. [40, 41] supply the ListCount subroutine and path-sampling background; ListCount is a parameter-free combinatorial counting routine used inside DeriveCnt, and the unbiasedness proof does not rely on any load-bearing claim from those papers being true. There is no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work and no ansatz smuggled in by citation. The genuine weakness is empirical robustness: Section 4.5 shows that the choice of spanning tree can change error from under 1% to over 350% (Figure 6), and Table 3 reports errors of 33.1% for M6-4 on SO and 72.3%/100% for M6-5, contradicting the text's statement that only M5-4 and M5-5 exceed 20% error. Section 5.2 itself admits that both TIMEST and PRESTO struggle on the 6-clique M6-5. These are accuracy and heuristic-guarantee concerns, not circularity: the heuristic tree selection minimizes a computed sampling weight W, which is a property of the graph and tree, not a calibration to the ground-truth count. The paper is therefore not circular, but its general low-error claim is not fully supported for all tested motifs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The estimator's correctness rests on the recurrence for tree weights (Claim 4.9), the 2-delta window containment argument, and the external ListCount routine. No fitted constants are used in the derivation; the only user-chosen values are sampling budget K and candidate-tree count n_c.

free parameters (2)
  • number of samples K = 10 million to 1 trillion (per case in reproduce.py)
    User-specified sampling budget; not fitted to data, but errors reported in Tables 3-5 depend on the chosen K per dataset and motif.
  • number of candidate spanning trees n_c = not reported
    Controls how many trees are evaluated by PreprocessSubgraph in getBestSPTree; affects heuristic quality and runtime; value not stated in the paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Input is a temporal multigraph with unique (u,v,t) edges and total order timestamps
    Follows Paranjape et al. [42] and prior exact work; excludes simultaneous-edge semantics and self-loops.
  • standard math Every true motif match lies entirely in at least one 2-delta sliding window, and in at most two
    Follows because all edges of a match span at most delta; the paper asserts N_phi <= 2 without proof, and this is load-bearing for Lemma 4.11 and the correction factor in Lemma 4.12.
  • domain assumption The recurrence in Claim 4.9, after fixing the index typo, correctly counts partial matches of the relaxed spanning tree
    The correctness of weights w_{s,e} and hence uniform sampling rests on this product decomposition; the proof is sketched but the printed formula has a typo in the second sum's index set.
  • domain assumption ListCount from [40] correctly counts combinations across time-ordered edge lists
    Used in DeriveCnt (Algorithm 5) without proof in this paper; correctness is inherited from the authors' prior work, which is not machine-checked.
  • standard math Chernoff bound as in Theorem 4.13 [13]
    Standard concentration inequality used for Theorem 4.14.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TIMEST: Temporal Information Motif Estimator Using Sampling Trees." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UVU3O3PR

@misc{pith2026250720441,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TIMEST: Temporal Information Motif Estimator Using Sampling Trees},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UVU3O3PR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20441}
}
read the original abstract

The mining of pattern subgraphs, known as motifs, is a core task in the field of graph mining. Edges in real-world networks often have timestamps, so there is a need for temporal motif mining. A temporal motif is a richer structure that imposes timing constraints on the edges of the motif. Temporal motifs have been used to analyze social networks, financial transactions, and biological networks. Motif counting in temporal graphs is particularly challenging. A graph with millions of edges can have trillions of temporal motifs, since the same edge can occur with multiple timestamps. There is a combinatorial explosion of possibilities, and state-of-the-art algorithms cannot manage motifs with more than four vertices. In this work, we present TIMEST: a general, fast, and accurate estimation algorithm to count temporal motifs of arbitrary sizes in temporal networks. Our approach introduces a temporal spanning tree sampler that leverages weighted sampling to generate substructures of target temporal motifs. This method carefully takes a subset of temporal constraints of the motif that can be jointly and efficiently sampled. TIMEST uses randomized estimation techniques to obtain accurate estimates of motif counts. We give theoretical guarantees on the running time and approximation guarantees of TIMEST. We perform an extensive experimental evaluation and show that TIMEST is both faster and more accurate than previous algorithms. Our CPU implementation exhibits an average speedup of 28x over state-of-the-art GPU implementation of the exact algorithm, and 6x speedup over SOTA approximate algorithms while consistently showcasing less than 5% error in most cases. For example, TIMEST can count the number of instances of a financial fraud temporal motif in four minutes with 0.6% error, while exact methods take more than two days.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20441 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) An example of financial transactions with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We show the runtime improvement and estimation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Connected 4-, 5- and 6-vertex temporal motifs used for evaluation. A C B 0 1 2 𝛿 = 100 D E 3 4 5 Temporal Motif (M) A C B 0 1 D E 3 4 1. Choose the best spanning tree 2. Determine relaxed constraints 3. Preprocess sampling weights w1 … w3 |E(G)| 0 4 10 1 20 3 2 40 50 4. Sample a spanning tree from G 6. Derive counts from the sample 0 4 10 1 20 35 3 2 40 50 60,90 5. Validate the sample … Local count = 2 Inputs Prepro… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overall process of estimating temporal motif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An example of mining motif 𝑀5-3. (a) The standard approach strictly enforces all constraints for a temporal motif match. (b) Multiple spanning trees of the motif exist, and we use a heuristic to select the optimal one that has the lowest estimated sampling cost (Est co…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histogram of estimation errors (%) across different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ES Code Repository

    2021. ES Code Repository. https://github.com/jingjing-cs/Temporal-Motif- Counting

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Everest Code Repository

    2023. Everest Code Repository. https://github.com/yichao-yuan-99/Everest

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Nesreen K Ahmed, Nick Duffield, Jennifer Neville, and Ramana Kompella. 2014. Graph sample and hold: A framework for big-graph analytics. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 1446–1455

    2014

  4. [4]

    Nesreen K Ahmed, Nick Duffield, and Ryan A Rossi. 2021. Online sampling of temporal networks. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) 15, 4 (2021), 1–27

    2021

  5. [5]

    Uri Alon. 2007. Network motifs: theory and experimental approaches. Nature Reviews Genetics 8, 6 (2007), 450–461

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Erik Altman, Jovan Blanuša, Luc Von Niederhäusern, Béni Egressy, Andreea Anghel, and Kubilay Atasu. 2024. Realistic synthetic financial transactions for anti-money laundering models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Hanjo D Boekhout, Walter A Kosters, and Frank W Takes. 2019. Efficiently count- ing complex multilayer temporal motifs in large-scale networks. Computational Social Networks 6, 1 (2019), 8

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Giorgos Bouritsas, Fabrizio Frasca, Stefanos P Zafeiriou, and Michael Bronstein

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Marco Bressan, Flavio Chierichetti, Ravi Kumar, Stefano Leucci, and Alessandro Panconesi. 2018. Motif counting beyond five nodes. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) 12, 4 (2018), 1–25

    2018

  2. [10]

    Marco Bressan, Stefano Leucci, and Alessandro Panconesi. 2019. Motivo: fast motif counting via succinct color coding and adaptive sampling. 12, 11 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Xinwei Cai, Xiangyu Ke, Kai Wang, Lu Chen, Tianming Zhang, Qing Liu, and Yunjun Gao. 2024. Efficient Temporal Butterfly Counting and Enumeration on Temporal Bipartite Graphs. Proc. VLDB Endow. 17, 4 (mar 2024), 657–670. https://doi.org/10.14778/3636218.3636223

    2024

  4. [12]

    Xuhao Chen et al. 2022. Efficient and Scalable Graph Pattern Mining on{GPUs}. In 16th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 22). 857–877

    2022

  5. [13]

    Devdatt Dubhashi and Alessandro Panconesi. 2009. Concentration of measure for the analysis of randomized algorithms . Cambridge

    2009

  6. [14]

    Zhongqiang Gao, Chuanqi Cheng, Yanwei Yu, Lei Cao, Chao Huang, and Junyu Dong. 2022. Scalable motif counting for large-scale temporal graphs. In 2022 IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 2656–2668

    2022

  7. [15]

    Aris Gionis, Lutz Oettershagen, and Ilie Sarpe. 2024. Mining Temporal Networks. https://miningtemporalnetworks.github.io/

    2024

  8. [16]

    László Hajdu and Miklós Krész. 2020. Temporal network analytics for fraud detection in the banking sector. InInternational Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries. Springer, 145–157

    2020

  9. [17]

    Jack Hessel, Chenhao Tan, and Lillian Lee. 2016. Science, askscience, and bad- science: On the coexistence of highly related communities. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media , Vol. 10. 171–180

    2016

  10. [18]

    Yuriy Hulovatyy, Huili Chen, and Tijana Milenković. 2015. Exploring the struc- ture and function of temporal networks with dynamic graphlets. Bioinformatics 31, 12 (2015), i171–i180

    2015

  11. [19]

    Shweta Jain and C Seshadhri. 2017. A fast and provable method for estimating clique counts using turán’s theorem. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web . 441–449

    2017

  12. [20]

    Kasra Jamshidi, Rakesh Mahadasa, and Keval Vora. 2020. Peregrine: a pattern- aware graph mining system. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth European Conference on Computer Systems. 1–16

    2020

  13. [21]

    Kasra Jamshidi and Keval Vora. 2021. A deeper dive into pattern-aware subgraph exploration with peregrine. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 55, 1 (2021), 1–10

    2021

  14. [22]

    Madhav Jha, C Seshadhri, and Ali Pinar. 2015. Path sampling: A fast and provable method for estimating 4-vertex subgraph counts. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on world wide web . 495–505

    2015

  15. [23]

    Dániel Kondor, István Csabai, János Szüle, Márton Pósfai, and Gábor Vattay. 2014. Inferring the interplay between network structure and market effects in Bitcoin. New Journal of Physics 16, 12 (2014), 125003

    2014

  16. [24]

    Lauri Kovanen, Márton Karsai, Kimmo Kaski, János Kertész, and Jari Saramäki

  17. [25]

    Lauri Kovanen, Kimmo Kaski, János Kertész, and Jari Saramäki. 2013. Tempo- ral motifs reveal homophily, gender-specific patterns, and group talk in call sequences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 45 (2013), 18070– 18075

    2013

  18. [26]

    Rohit Kumar and Toon Calders. 2018. 2scent: An efficient algorithm to enumerate all simple temporal cycles. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 11, 11 (2018), 1441–1453

    2018

  19. [27]

    Mayank Lahiri and Tanya Y Berger-Wolf. 2007. Structure prediction in temporal networks using frequent subgraphs. In 2007 IEEE Symposium on computational intelligence and data mining . IEEE, 35–42

    2007

  20. [28]

    Jure Leskovec and Andrej Krevl. 2014. SNAP Datasets: Stanford Large Network Dataset Collection. http://snap.stanford.edu/data

    2014

  21. [29]

    Penghang Liu, Rupam Acharyya, Robert E Tillman, Shunya Kimura, Naoki Ma- suda, and Ahmet Erdem Sarıyüce. 2023. Temporal Motifs for Financial Networks: A Study on Mercari, JPMC, and Venmo Platforms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.07791 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Paul Liu, Austin R Benson, and Moses Charikar. 2019. Sampling methods for counting temporal motifs. In Proceedings of the twelfth ACM international confer- ence on web search and data mining . 294–302

    2019

  23. [31]

    Patrick Mackey, Katherine Porterfield, Erin Fitzhenry, Sutanay Choudhury, and George Chin. 2018. A chronological edge-driven approach to temporal subgraph isomorphism. In 2018 IEEE international conference on big data (big data) . IEEE, 3972–3979

    2018

  24. [32]

    Daniel Mawhirter, Sam Reinehr, Connor Holmes, Tongping Liu, and Bo Wu

  25. [33]

    Daniel Mawhirter and Bo Wu. 2019. Automine: harmonizing high-level abstrac- tion and high performance for graph mining. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles . 509–523

    2019

  26. [34]

    Ron Milo, Shai Shen-Orr, Shalev Itzkovitz, Nadav Kashtan, Dmitri Chklovskii, and Uri Alon. 2002. Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. Science 298, 5594 (2002), 824–827

    2002

  27. [35]

    Seunghwan Min, Jihoon Jang, Kunsoo Park, Dora Giammarresi, Giuseppe F Italiano, and Wook-Shin Han. 2023. Time-Constrained Continuous Subgraph Matching Using Temporal Information for Filtering and Backtracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10486 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    What Is Data Mining. 2006. Data mining: Concepts and techniques. Morgan Kaufinann 10, 559-569 (2006), 4

    2006

  29. [37]

    Mark EJ Newman. 2003. The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM review 45, 2 (2003), 167–256

    2003

  30. [38]

    Kriege, Claude Jordan, and Petra Mutze

    Lutz Oettershagen, Nils M. Kriege, Claude Jordan, and Petra Mutze. 2023. A Temporal Graphlet Kernel For Classifying Dissemination in Evolving Networks . 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611977653.ch3

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    Raj Kumar Pan and Jari Saramäki. 2011. Path lengths, correlations, and centrality in temporal networks. Physical Review E 84, 1 (2011), 016105

    2011

  32. [40]

    Yunjie Pan, Omkar Bhalerao, C Seshadhri, and Nishil Talati. 2024. Accurate and Fast Estimation of Temporal Motifs using Path Sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08975 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Seshadhri, and Nishil Talati

    Yunjie Pan, Omkar Bhalerao, C. Seshadhri, and Nishil Talati. 2024. Accurate and Fast Estimation of Temporal Motifs Using Path Sampling. In International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) . 809–814

    2024

  34. [42]

    Ashwin Paranjape, Austin R Benson, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Motifs in temporal networks. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining. 601–610

    2017

  35. [43]

    Noujan Pashanasangi and C Seshadhri. 2021. Faster and generalized temporal triangle counting, via degeneracy ordering. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining . 1319–1328

    2021

  36. [44]

    Aduri Pavan, Kanat Tangwongsan, Srikanta Tirthapura, and Kun-Lung Wu. 2013. Counting and sampling triangles from a graph stream. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 6, 14 (2013), 1870–1881

    2013

  37. [45]

    Ali Pinar, Comandur Seshadhri, and Vaidyanathan Vishal. 2017. Escape: Effi- ciently counting all 5-vertex subgraphs. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web . 1431–1440

    2017

  38. [46]

    Jiaxi Pu, Yanhao Wang, Yuchen Li, and Xuan Zhou. 2023. Sampling Algorithms for Butterfly Counting on Temporal Bipartite Graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11886 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ilie Sarpe and Fabio Vandin. 2021. OdeN: simultaneous approximation of mul- tiple motif counts in large temporal networks. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management . 1568–1577

    2021

  40. [48]

    Ilie Sarpe and Fabio Vandin. 2021. Presto: Simple and scalable sampling tech- niques for the rigorous approximation of temporal motif counts. In Proceedings of the 2021 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM) . SIAM, 145–153

    2021

  41. [49]

    Schank and D

    T. Schank and D. Wagner. 2005. Finding, Counting and Listing All Triangles in Large Graphs, an Experimental Study. In Experimental and Efficient Algorithms . Springer, 606–609

    2005

  42. [50]

    C Seshadhri, Ali Pinar, and Tamara G Kolda. 2014. Wedge sampling for computing clustering coefficients and triangle counts on large graphs. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal 7, 4 (2014), 294–307

    2014

  43. [51]

    C Seshadhri and Srikanta Tirthapura. 2019. Scalable subgraph counting: The methods behind the madness: WWW 2019 tutorial. In Proceedings of the Web Conference (WWW), Vol. 2. 75

    2019

  44. [52]

    Shiva Shadrooh and Kjetil Nørvåg. 2024. SMoTeF: Smurf money laundering detection using temporal order and flow analysis. Applied Intelligence (2024), 1–18. 13

    2024

  45. [53]

    Shai S Shen-Orr, Ron Milo, Shmoolik Mangan, and Uri Alon. 2002. Network motifs in the transcriptional regulation network of Escherichia coli. Nature genetics 31, 1 (2002), 64–68

    2002

  46. [54]

    Tianhui Shi, Mingshu Zhai, Yi Xu, and Jidong Zhai. 2020. Graphpi: High per- formance graph pattern matching through effective redundancy elimination. In SC20: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis. IEEE, 1–14

    2020

  47. [55]

    Xiaoli Sun, Yusong Tan, Qingbo Wu, Baozi Chen, and Changxiang Shen. 2019. Tm-miner: Tfs-based algorithm for mining temporal motifs in large temporal network. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 49778–49789

    2019

  48. [56]

    Toyotaro Suzumura and Hiroki Kanezashi. 2021. Anti-Money Laundering Datasets: InPlusLab Anti-Money Laundering DataDatasets

    2021

  49. [57]

    Carlos HC Teixeira, Alexandre J Fonseca, Marco Serafini, Georgos Siganos, Mo- hammed J Zaki, and Ashraf Aboulnaga. 2015. Arabesque: a system for distributed graph mining. In Proceedings of the 25th Symposium on Operating Systems Princi- ples. 425–440

    2015

  50. [58]

    Charalampos E Tsourakakis, U Kang, Gary L Miller, and Christos Faloutsos. 2009. Doulion: counting triangles in massive graphs with a coin. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 837–846

    2009

  51. [59]

    Ata Turk and Duru Turkoglu. 2019. Revisiting wedge sampling for triangle counting. In The World Wide Web Conference. 1875–1885

    2019

  52. [60]

    Jingjing Wang, Yanhao Wang, Wenjun Jiang, Yuchen Li, and Kian-Lee Tan

  53. [61]

    Pinghui Wang, Junzhou Zhao, Xiangliang Zhang, Zhenguo Li, Jiefeng Cheng, John CS Lui, Don Towsley, Jing Tao, and Xiaohong Guan. 2017. MOSS-5: A fast method of approximating counts of 5-node graphlets in large graphs. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 30, 1 (2...

    2017

  54. [62]

    Yihua Wei and Peng Jiang. 2022. STMatch: accelerating graph pattern matching on GPU with stack-based loop optimizations. In SC22: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis . IEEE, 1–13

    2022

  55. [63]

    Yixing Yang, Yixiang Fang, Maria E Orlowska, Wenjie Zhang, and Xuemin Lin

  56. [64]

    Xiaowei Ye, Rong-Hua Li, Qiangqiang Dai, Hongzhi Chen, and Guoren Wang

  57. [65]

    Xiaowei Ye, Rong-Hua Li, Qiangqiang Dai, Hongchao Qin, and Guoren Wang

  58. [66]

    Yichao Yuan, Haojie Ye, Sanketh Vedula, Wynn Kaza, and Nishil Talati. 2024. Ever- est: GPU-Accelerated System For Mining Temporal Motifs. In 50th International Conference on Very Large Databases (VLDB 2024) . ACM. 14

    2024

  59. [70]

    In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022

    Lightning Fast and Space Efficient k-clique Counting. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022. 1191–1202

    2022

  60. [2011]

    Journal of Statistical Me- chanics: Theory and Experiment 2011, 11 (2011), P11005

    Temporal motifs in time-dependent networks. Journal of Statistical Me- chanics: Theory and Experiment 2011, 11 (2011), P11005

    2011

  61. [2019]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.12877 (2019)

    Graphzero: Breaking symmetry for efficient graph mining. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.12877 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  62. [2020]

    In Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on information & knowledge management

    Efficient sampling algorithms for approximate temporal motif counting. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on information & knowledge management. 1505–1514

  63. [2021]

    Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 14, 6 (2021), 984–996

    Efficient bi-triangle counting for large bipartite networks. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 14, 6 (2021), 984–996

    2021

  64. [2022]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2022)

    Improving graph neural network expressivity via subgraph isomorphism counting. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2022)

    2022

  65. [2023]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data 1, 1 (2023), 1–26

    Efficient Biclique Counting in Large Bipartite Graphs. Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data 1, 1 (2023), 1–26

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.