Hi! I haven't read the papers once again, but in my opinion a disconnected motif doesn't really make sense. Consider a disconnected motif that consists of a fully connected triangle and an additional isolated vertex, and then take a graph that contains one triangle and one million isolated vertices. Does that really mean that this "motif" appears one million times in the graph? Is that a significant finding? If I added an additional one million totally unrelated vertices to the graph, does that make the motif appear twice as frequently?
Anyway, if you want to search for disconnected patterns in a graph, you can still use count_subgaph_isomorphisms() with method="lad" and induced=TRUE; see: http://igraph.org/r/doc/count_subgraph_isomorphisms.html It will be much slower, though -- searching for connected motifs is much easier if the average degree of a vertex is low. T. On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Manuel Zetina-Rejon <mjzet...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Guys! > > This is probably a basic question, but I don’t find the clear criteria or > reference, why in igraph help, you mention that unconnected subgraphs (of x > isomorphic class) are not considered motifs? For that reason, motifs() is NA > for unconnected subgraphs. It is also not clear if you mean strongly or > weakly connected subgraphs > > According to Milo et al. (2002) and Shen-Orr et al. (2002) motifs are not > necessarily connected, even in directed graphs. > > Thank you for your opinions > > > Manuel > _______________________________________________ > igraph-help mailing list > igraph-help@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/igraph-help _______________________________________________ igraph-help mailing list igraph-help@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/igraph-help