Table 5.
Comparison between MODIT and Paranjape's algorithm.
| Network | Δ | Paranjape et al. | MODIT |
|---|---|---|---|
| CollegeMsg | 350,000 | 0.18 | 1,148.96 |
| Email-Eu-core-temporal-Dept1 | 70,000 | 0.11 | 81.01 |
| Email-Eu-core-temporal-Dept2 | 70,000 | 0.09 | 56.71 |
| Email-Eu-core-temporal-Dept3 | 70,000 | 0.04 | 3.47 |
| Email-Eu-core-temporal-Dept4 | 70,000 | 0.08 | 46.45 |
| Email-Eu-core-temporal | 70,000 | 0.66 | 281.32 |
For each network, we indicate the value of Δ used and the running time (in seconds) of both algorithms. MODIT was run with k = 3 and l = 3 because Paranjape's algorithm can only handle motifs with 2 or 3 nodes and 3 edges.