Cover Edge-Based Novel Triangle Counting

For triangle counting, the obvious algorithm is brute-force search (see Alg. 1), enumerating over all $\Theta$$\left(n^{3}\right)$ triples of distinct vertices, and checking how many of these triples are triangles. There are faster algorithms that require an adjacency matrix for the input graph representation and use fast matrix multiplication, such as the work of Alon, Yuster, and Zwick (Alon et al., 1997). Indeed, if $A$ is the adjacency matrix of $G$, for any vertex $v$, the value $A_{vv}^{3}$ on the diagonal of $A^{3}$ is twice the number of triangles to which $v$ belongs. So the number of trianlges is $\frac{1}{6}\sum tr(A^{3})$. Triangle counting problems can therefore be solved in $\mathcal{O}\left(n^{1.5}\right)$, where $\omega<2.732$ is the fast matrix product exponent (Alman and Williams, 2021) (Williams et al., 2023). Alon et al. (Alon et al., 1997) also show that it is possible to solve triangle counting problem in $\mathcal{O}\left(m^{\frac{2\omega}{\omega+1}}\right)$ $\subset$ $\mathcal{O}\left(m^{1.41}\right)$ time. However, the implementation is infeasible for large, sparse graphs, and certain matrix multiplication methods fall short of listing all the triangles. For these reasons, despite their evident theoretical strength, these algorithms have limited practical impact.

Another category of fundamental problem formulation is called subgraph query, which aims to identify instances of a triangle subgraph within the input graph. It’s crucial to emphasize that determining the presence of a specific subgraph in a graph is an NP-hard problem. While various methods, including the backtracking strategy (Ullmann, 1976), have been introduced, they are not preferred choices for triangle counting problem, particularly for large-scale graphs.

Latapy (Latapy, 2008) provides a survey on triangle counting algorithms for very large, sparse graphs. One of the earliest algorithms, tree-listing, published in 1978 by Itai and Rodeh (Itai and Rodeh, 1978) first finds a rooted spanning tree of the graph. After iterating through the non-tree edges and using criteria to identify triangles, the tree edges are removed and the algorithm repeats until no edges are remaining (see Alg. 2). This approach takes $\mathcal{O}\left(m^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)$ time (or $\mathcal{O}\left(n\right)$ for planar graphs).

The most common triangle counting algorithms in the literature include vertex-iterator (Itai and Rodeh, 1978), (Latapy, 2008) and edge-iterator (Itai and Rodeh, 1978), (Latapy, 2008) approaches that run in $\mathcal{O}\left(m\cdot d_{max}\right)$.

In vertex-iterator (see Alg. 3), for each vertex $u\in V$, the algorithm examines the adjacency list $N(v)$ of each vertex $v\in N(u)$. If there is vertex $w$ in the intersection of $N(u)$ and $N(v)$, then the triplet $(u,v,w)$ forms a triangle. Arifuzzaman et al. (Arifuzzaman et al., 2019) study modifications of the vertex-iterator algorithm based on various methods for vertex ordering.

In edge-iterator (see Alg. 4), each edge $(u,v)$ in the graph is examined, and the intersection of $N(u)$ and $N(v)$ is computed to find triangles. A common optimization is to use a direction-oriented approach that only considers edges $(u,v)$ where $u<v$. The variants of edge-iterator are often based on the algorithm used to perform $Intersection(N(u),N(v))$. When the two adjacency lists are sorted, then MergePath and BinarySearch can be used. MergePath performs a linear scan through both lists counting the common elements. Makkar, Bader, and Green (Makkar et al., 2017) give an efficient MergePath algorithm for GPU. Mailthody et al. (Mailthody et al., 2018) use an optimized two-pointer intersection (MergePath) for set intersection. BinarySearch, as the name implies, uses a binary search to determine if each element of the smaller list is found in the larger list. Hash is another method for performing the intersection of two sets and it does not require the adjacency lists to be sorted. A typical implementation of Hash initializes a Boolean array of size $m$ to all false. Then, positions in Hash corresponding to the vertex values in $N(u)$ are set to true. Then $N(v)$ is scanned, looking up in $\Theta$$\left(1\right)$ time whether or not there is a match for each vertex. Chiba and Nishizeki published one of the earliest edge iterators with hashing algorithms for triangle finding in 1985 (Chiba and Nishizeki, 1985). The running time is $\mathcal{O}\left(a(G)m\right)$, where $a(G)$ is defined as the arboricity of $G$, which is upper-bounded $a(G)\leq\lceil(2m+n)^{\frac{1}{2}}/2\rceil$ (Chiba and Nishizeki, 1985). In 2018, Davis rediscovered this method, which he calls tri_simple in his comparison with SuiteSparse GraphBLAS (Davis, 2018). Mowlaei (Mowlaei, 2017) gave a variant of the edge-iterator algorithm that uses vectorized sorted set intersection and reorders the vertices using the reverse Cuthill-McKee heuristic.

In 2005, Schank and Wagner (Schank and Wagner, 2005; Schank, 2007) designed a fast triangle counting algorithm called forward (see Alg. 5) that is a refinement of the edge-iterator approach. Instead of intersections of the full adjacency lists, the forward algorithm uses a dynamic data structure $A(v)$ to store a subset of the neighborhood $N(v)$ for $v\in V$. Initially, each set $A()$ is empty, and after computing the intersection of the sets $A(u)$ and $A(v)$ for each edge $(u,v)$ (with $u<v$), $u$ is added to $A(v)$. This significantly reduces the size of the intersections needed to find triangles. The running time is $\mathcal{O}\left(m\cdot d_{\mbox{max}}\right)$. However, if one reorders the vertices in decreasing order of their degrees as a $\Theta$$\left(n\log n\right)$ time pre-processing step, the forward algorithm’s running time reduces to $\mathcal{O}\left(m^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)$. Ortmann and Brandes (Ortmann and Brandes, 2014) survey triangle counting algorithms, create a unifying framework for parsimonious implementations, and conclude that nearly every triangle listing variant is in $\mathcal{O}\left(m\cdot a(G)\right)$.

The forward-hashed algorithm (Schank and Wagner, 2005; Schank, 2007) (also called compact-forward (Latapy, 2008)) is a variant of the forward algorithm that uses the hashing described previously for the intersections of the $A()$ sets, see Algorithm 6. Low et al. (Low et al., 2017) derive a linear algebra method for triangle counting that does not use matrix multiplication. Their algorithm results in the forward-hashed algorithm.

Although most of the sequential algorithms tend to run fast on graphs that fit in main memory, the expanding size of graphs, driven by ongoing technology advancements, poses a challenge. To further accelerate, the emergence of parallel version algorithms is inevitable. Alg. 7, Alg. 8, and Alg. 9 are the parallel versions of the three most common intersection-based triangle counting methods.

Besides the intersection-based methods, there are several optimized parallel algorithms in the literature. Shun et al. (Shun and Tangwongsan, 2015) give a multi-core parallel algorithm for shared memory machines. The algorithm has two steps: in the first step each vertex is ranked based on degree and a ranked adjacency list of each vertex is generated, which contains only higher-ranked vertices than the current vertex; the second step counts triangles from the ranked adjacency list for each vertex using merge-path or hash. Parimalarangan et al. (Parimalarangan et al., 2017) present variations of triangle counting algorithms and how they relate to performance in shared-memory platforms. TriCore (Hu et al., 2018) partitions the graph held in a compressed-sparse row (CSR) data structure for multiple GPUs and uses stream buffers to load edge lists from CPU memory to GPU memory on the fly and then uses binary search to find the intersection. Hu et al. (Hu et al., 2021) employ a “copy-synchronize-search” pattern to improve the parallel threads efficiency of GPU and mix the computing and memory-intensive workloads together to improve the resource efficiency. Zeng et al. (Zeng et al., 2022) present a triangle counting algorithm that adaptively selects vertex-parallel and edge-parallel paradigm.

Based on the given definition, it is evident that the entire edge set $E$ can serve as a cover-edge set $S$ for graph $G$. However, our proposed method aims to efficiently count all triangles using a smaller subset of edges instead of $E$. Thus, the primary challenge lies in generating a compact cover-edge set, which forms the initial problem to be addressed in our approach. Our goal is to identify a cover-edge set with the smallest $c$. In this paper, we propose using breadth-first search (BFS) to generate a compact cover-edge set.

Fig. 1 gives an example of these different edge types.

Therefore, we can construct a cover-edge set, denoted as BFS-CES, by selecting all the horizontal-edges obtained during a breadth-first search (BFS). It is evident that BFS-CES is a subset of $E$ and is typically much smaller than the complete edge set $E$.

In this subsection, we provide a comprehensive description of the algorithm to identify all triangles using a cover-edge set generated through a breadth-first search.

Our sequential triangle counting approach (CETC-Seq), described in Alg. 10, efficiently counts triangles using a cover-edge set. In line 3, we initialize the counter $T$ to 0, which will store the total number of triangles. To generate the cover-edge set, we perform a breadth-first search (BFS) starting from any unvisited vertex, identifying the level $L(v)$ of each vertex $v$ in its respective component, as shown in lines 4 to 5. In lines 6 to 10 the algorithm iterates over each edge, selecting the cover-set of horizontal edges $(u,v)$ in a direction-oriented fashion in line 7. For each vertex $w$ in the intersection of $u$ and $v$’s neighborhoods (line 8), we check the following two conditions to determine if $(u,v,w)$ is a unique triangle to be counted (line 9). If $L(u)\neq L(w)$ then the edge $(u,v)$ is the only horizontal-edge in the triangle $(u,v,w)$. If $L(u)\equiv L(w)$, then the edge $(u,v)$ is one of three horizontal-edges in the triangle $(u,v,w)$. To ensure uniqueness, the algorithm then checks the added constraint that $v<w$. If the constraints are satisfied, we increment the triangle counter $T$ in line 10.

This approach effectively counts the triangles in the graph while avoiding redundant counting.

The time complexity of Alg. 10 can be analyzed as follows. The computation of breadth-first search, including determining the level of each vertex and marking horizontal edges, requires $\mathcal{O}(n+m)$ time.

Since there are at most $\mathcal{O}(m)$ horizontal edges, finding the common neighbors of each horizontal edge individually can be done in $\mathcal{O}(d_{\text{max}})$ time. Here, $d_{\text{max}}$ represents the maximal degree of a vertex in the graph.

Therefore, the overall time complexity of CETC-Seq is $\mathcal{O}(m\cdot d_{\text{max}})$.