Related
I am working with complex networks. I want to find group of nodes which forms a cycle of 3 nodes (or triangles) in a given graph. As my graph contains about million edges, using a simple iterative solution (multiple "for" loop) is not very efficient.
I am using python for my programming, if these is some inbuilt modules for handling these problems, please let me know.
If someone knows any algorithm which can be used for finding triangles in graphs, kindly reply back.
Assuming its an undirected graph, the answer lies in networkx library of python.
if you just need to count triangles, use:
import networkx as nx
tri=nx.triangles(g)
But if you need to know the edge list with triangle (triadic) relationship, use
all_cliques= nx.enumerate_all_cliques(g)
This will give you all cliques (k=1,2,3...max degree - 1)
So, to filter just triangles i.e k=3,
triad_cliques=[x for x in all_cliques if len(x)==3 ]
The triad_cliques will give a edge list with only triangles.
A million edges is quite small. Unless you are doing it thousands of times, just use a naive implementation.
I'll assume that you have a dictionary of node_ids, which point to a sequence of their neighbors, and that the graph is directed.
For example:
nodes = {}
nodes[0] = 1,2
nodes[1] = tuple() # empty tuple
nodes[2] = 1
My solution:
def generate_triangles(nodes):
"""Generate triangles. Weed out duplicates."""
visited_ids = set() # remember the nodes that we have tested already
for node_a_id in nodes:
for node_b_id in nodes[node_a_id]:
if nod_b_id == node_a_id:
raise ValueError # nodes shouldn't point to themselves
if node_b_id in visited_ids:
continue # we should have already found b->a->??->b
for node_c_id in nodes[node_b_id]:
if node_c_id in visited_ids:
continue # we should have already found c->a->b->c
if node_a_id in nodes[node_c_id]:
yield(node_a_id, node_b_id, node_c_id)
visited_ids.add(node_a_id) # don't search a - we already have all those cycles
Checking performance:
from random import randint
n = 1000000
node_list = range(n)
nodes = {}
for node_id in node_list:
node = tuple()
for i in range(randint(0,10)): # add up to 10 neighbors
try:
neighbor_id = node_list[node_id+randint(-5,5)] # pick a nearby node
except:
continue
if not neighbor_id in node:
node = node + (neighbor_id,)
nodes[node_id] = node
cycles = list(generate_triangles(nodes))
print len(cycles)
When I tried it, it took longer to build the random graph than to count the cycles.
You might want to test it though ;) I won't guarantee that it's correct.
You could also look into networkx, which is the big python graph library.
Pretty easy and clear way to do is to use Networkx:
With Networkx you can get the loops of an undirected graph by nx.cycle_basis(G) and then select the ones with 3 nodes
cycls_3 = [c for c in nx.cycle_basis(G) if len(c)==3]
or you can find all the cliques by find_cliques(G) and then select the ones you want (with 3 nodes). cliques are sections of the graph where all the nodes are connected to each other which happens in cycles/loops with 3 nodes.
Even though it isn't efficient, you may want to implement a solution, so use the loops. Write a test so you can get an idea as to how long it takes.
Then, as you try new approaches you can do two things:
1) Make certain that the answer remains the same.
2) See what the improvement is.
Having a faster algorithm that misses something is probably going to be worse than having a slower one.
Once you have the slow test, you can see if you can do this in parallel and see what the performance increase is.
Then, you can see if you can mark all nodes that have less than 3 vertices.
Ideally, you may want to shrink it down to just 100 or so first, so you can draw it, and see what is happening graphically.
Sometimes your brain will see a pattern that isn't as obvious when looking at algorithms.
I don't want to sound harsh, but have you tried to Google it? The first link is a pretty quick algorithm to do that:
http://www.mail-archive.com/algogeeks#googlegroups.com/msg05642.html
And then there is this article on ACM (which you may have access to):
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=244866
(and if you don't have access, I am sure if you kindly ask the lady who wrote it, you will get a copy.)
Also, I can imagine a triangle enumeration method based on clique-decomposition, but I don't know if it was described somewhere.
I am working on the same problem of counting number of triangles on undirected graph and wisty's solution works really well in my case. I have modified it a bit so only undirected triangles are counted.
#### function for counting undirected cycles
def generate_triangles(nodes):
visited_ids = set() # mark visited node
for node_a_id in nodes:
temp_visited = set() # to get undirected triangles
for node_b_id in nodes[node_a_id]:
if node_b_id == node_a_id:
raise ValueError # to prevent self-loops, if your graph allows self-loops then you don't need this condition
if node_b_id in visited_ids:
continue
for node_c_id in nodes[node_b_id]:
if node_c_id in visited_ids:
continue
if node_c_id in temp_visited:
continue
if node_a_id in nodes[node_c_id]:
yield(node_a_id, node_b_id, node_c_id)
else:
continue
temp_visited.add(node_b_id)
visited_ids.add(node_a_id)
Of course, you need to use a dictionary for example
#### Test cycles ####
nodes = {}
nodes[0] = [1, 2, 3]
nodes[1] = [0, 2]
nodes[2] = [0, 1, 3]
nodes[3] = [1]
cycles = list(generate_triangles(nodes))
print cycles
Using the code of Wisty, the triangles found will be
[(0, 1, 2), (0, 2, 1), (0, 3, 1), (1, 2, 3)]
which counted the triangle (0, 1, 2) and (0, 2, 1) as two different triangles. With the code I modified, these are counted as only one triangle.
I used this with a relatively small dictionary of under 100 keys and each key has on average 50 values.
Surprised to see no mention of the Networkx triangles function. I know it doesn't necessarily return the groups of nodes that form a triangle, but should be pretty relevant to many who find themselves on this page.
nx.triangles(G) # list of how many triangles each node is part of
sum(nx.triangles(G).values())/3 # total number of triangles
An alternative way to return clumps of nodes would be something like...
for u,v,d in G.edges(data=True):
u_array = adj_m.getrow(u).nonzero()[1] # get lists of all adjacent nodes
v_array = adj_m.getrow(v).nonzero()[1]
# find the intersection of the two sets - these are the third node of the triangle
np.intersect1d(v_array,u_array)
If you don't care about multiple copies of the same triangle in different order then a list of 3-tuples works:
from itertools import combinations as combos
[(n,nbr,nbr2) for n in G for nbr, nbr2 in combos(G[n],2) if nbr in G[nbr2]]
The logic here is to check each pair of neighbors of every node to see if they are connected. G[n] is a fast way to iterate over or look up neighbors.
If you want to get rid of reorderings, turn each triple into a frozenset and make a set of the frozensets:
set(frozenset([n,nbr,nbr2]) for n in G for nbr, nbr2 in combos(G[n]) if nbr in G[nbr2])
If you don't like frozenset and want a list of sets then:
triple_iter = ((n, nbr, nbr2) for n in G for nbr, nbr2 in combos(G[n],2) if nbr in G[nbr2])
triangles = set(frozenset(tri) for tri in triple_iter)
nice_triangles = [set(tri) for tri in triangles]
Do you need to find 'all' of the 'triangles', or just 'some'/'any'?
Or perhaps you just need to test whether a particular node is part of a triangle?
The test is simple - given a node A, are there any two connected nodes B & C that are also directly connected.
If you need to find all of the triangles - specifically, all groups of 3 nodes in which each node is joined to the other two - then you need to check every possible group in a very long running 'for each' loop.
The only optimisation is ensuring that you don't check the same 'group' twice, e.g. if you have already tested that B & C aren't in a group with A, then don't check whether A & C are in a group with B.
This is a more efficient version of Ajay M answer (I would have commented it, but I've not enough reputation).
Indeed the enumerate_all_cliques method of networkx will return all cliques in the graph, irrespectively of their length; hence looping over it may take a lot of time (especially with very dense graphs).
Moreover, once defined for triangles, it's just a matter of parametrization to generalize the method for every clique length so here's a function:
import networkx as nx
def get_cliques_by_length(G, length_clique):
""" Return the list of all cliques in an undirected graph G with length
equal to length_clique. """
cliques = []
for c in nx.enumerate_all_cliques(G) :
if len(c) <= length_clique:
if len(c) == length_clique:
cliques.append(c)
else:
return cliques
# return empty list if nothing is found
return cliques
To get triangles just use get_cliques_by_length(G, 3).
Caveat: this method works only for undirected graphs. Algorithm for cliques in directed graphs are not provided in networkx
i just found that nx.edge_disjoint_paths works to count the triangle contains certain edges. faster than nx.enumerate_all_cliques and nx.cycle_basis.
It returns the edges disjoint paths between source and target.Edge disjoint paths are paths that do not share any edge.
And result-1 is the number of triangles that contain certain edges or between source node and target node.
edge_triangle_dict = {}
for i in g.edges:
edge_triangle_dict[i] = len(list(nx.edge_disjoint_paths(g, i[0], i[1]))-1)
Straightforward question: I would like to retrieve all the nodes connected to a given node within a NetworkX graph in order to create a subgraph. In the example shown below, I just want to extract all the nodes inside the circle, given the name of one of any one of them.
I've tried the following recursive function, but hit Python's recursion limit, even though there are only 91 nodes in this network.
Regardless of whether or not the below code is buggy, what is the best way to do what I'm trying to achieve? I will be running this code on graphs of various sizes, and will not know beforehand what the maximum recursion depth will be.
def fetch_connected_nodes(node, neighbors_list):
for neighbor in assembly.neighbors(node):
print(neighbor)
if len(assembly.neighbors(neighbor)) == 1:
neighbors_list.append(neighbor)
return neighbors_list
else:
neighbors_list.append(neighbor)
fetch_connected_nodes(neighbor, neighbors_list)
neighbors = []
starting_node = 'NODE_1_length_6578_cov_450.665_ID_16281'
connected_nodes = fetch_connected_nodes(starting_node, neighbors)
Assuming the graph is undirected, there is a built-in networkx command for this:
node_connected_component(G, n)
The documentation is here. It returns all nodes in the connected component of G containing n.
It's not recursive, but I don't think you actually need or even want that.
comments on your code: You've got a bug that will often result an infinite recursion. If u and v are neighbors both with degree at least 2, then it will start with u, put v in the list and when processing v put u in the list and keep repeating. It needs to change to only process neighbors that are not in neighbors_list. It's expensive to check that, so instead use a set. There's also a small problem if the starting node has degree 1. Your test for degree 1 doesn't do what you're after. If the initial node has degree 1, but its neighbor has higher degree it won't find the neighbor's neighbors.
Here's a modification of your code:
def fetch_connected_nodes(G, node, seen = None):
if seen == None:
seen = set([node])
for neighbor in G.neighbors(node):
print(neighbor)
if neighbor not in seen:
seen.add(neighbor)
fetch_connected_nodes(G, neighbor, seen)
return seen
You call this like fetch_connected_nodes(assembly, starting_node).
You can simply use a Breadth-first search starting from your given node or any node.
In Networkx you can have the tree-graph from your starting node using the function:
bfs_tree(G, source, reverse=False)
Here is a link to the doc: Network bfs_tree.
Here is a recursive algorithm to get all nodes connected to an input node.
def create_subgraph(G,sub_G,start_node):
sub_G.add_node(start_node)
for n in G.neighbors_iter(start_node):
if n not in sub_G.neighbors(start_node):
sub_G.add_path([start_node,n])
create_subgraph(G,sub_G,n)
I believe the key thing here to prevent infinite recursive calls is the condition to check that node which is neighbor in the original graph is not already connected in the sub_G that is being created. Otherwise, you will always be going back and forth and edges between nodes that already have edges.
I tested it as follows:
G = nx.erdos_renyi_graph(20,0.08)
nx.draw(G,with_labels = True)
plt.show()
sub_G = nx.Graph()
create_subgraph(G,sub_G,17)
nx.draw(sub_G,with_labels = True)
plt.show()
You will find in the attached image, the full graph and the sub_graph that contains node 17.
I have the basic linear shortest path algorithm implemented in Python. According to various sites I've come across, this only works for directed acyclic graphs, including this, this, and this. However, I don't see why this is the case.
I've even tested the algorithm against graphs with cycles and un-directed edges, and it worked fine.
So the question is, why doesn't the linear shortest path algorithm work for non-directed cyclic graphs? Side question, what is the name of this algorithm?
For reference, here is the code I wrote for the algorithm:
def shortestPath(start, end, graph):
# First, topologically sort the graph, to determine which order to traverse it in
sorted = toplogicalSort(start, graph)
# Get ready to store the current weight of each node's path, and their predecessor
weights = [0] + [float('inf')] * (len(graph) - 1)
predecessor = [0] * len(graph)
# Next, relaxes all edges in the order of sorted nodes
for node in sorted:
for neighbour in graph[node]:
# Checks if it would be cheaper to take this path, as opposed to the last path
if weights[neighbour[0]] > weights[node] + neighbour[1]:
# If it is, then adjust the weight and predecessor
weights[neighbour[0]] = weights[node] + neighbour[1]
predecessor[neighbour[0]] = node
# Returns the shortest path to the end
path = [end]
while path[len(path) - 1] != start:
path.append(predecessor[path[len(path) - 1]])
return path[::-1]
Edit: As asked by Beta, here is the topological sort:
# Toplogically sorts the graph given, starting from the start point given.
def toplogicalSort(start, graph):
# Runs a DFS on all nodes connected to the starting node in the graph
def DFS(start):
for node in graph[start]:
if not node[0] in checked:
checked[node[0]] = True
DFS(node[0])
finish.append(start)
# Stores the finish point of all nodes in the graph, and a boolean stating if they have been checked
finish, checked = [], {}
DFS(start)
# Reverses the order of the sort, to get a proper topology; then returns
return finish[::-1]
Because you cannot topologically sort a graph with cycles (therefore undirected graphs are also out of the question as you can't tell which node should come before another).
Edit: After reading the comments, I think that's actually what #Beta meant.
When there is cycle, topological sort cannot guarantee the correct ordering of the shortest path.
For example, we have a graph:
A->C, A->B, B->C, C->B, B->D
Say the correct shortest path is:
A->C->B->D
But topological sort can generate an order:
A->B->C->D
Although it will update B to the correct order when visiting C, but B won't be visited again, thus not able to propagate correct weight to D. (Path happens to be correct though.)
I am trying to calculate shortest path between 2 points using Dijkstra and A Star algorithms (in a directed NetworkX graph).
At the moment it works fine and I can see the calculated path but I would like to find a way of restricting certain paths.
For example if we have following nodes:
nodes = [1,2,3,4]
With these edges:
edges = ( (1,2),(2,3),(3,4) )
Is there a way of blocking/restricting 1 -> 2 -> 3 but still allow 2 -> 3 & 1 -> 2.
This would mean that:
can travel from 1 to 2
can travel from 2 to 3
cannot travel from 1 to 3 .. directly or indirectly (i.e. restrict 1->2->3 path).
Can this be achieved in NetworkX.. if not is there another graph library in Python that would allow this ?
Thanks.
Interesting question, I never heard of this problem, probably because I don't have much background in this topic, nor much experience with NetworkX. However, I do have a idea for a algorithm. This may just be the most naive way to do this and I'd be glad to hear of a cleverer algorithm.
The idea is that you can use your restriction rules to transform you graph to a new graph where all edges are valid, using the following algorithm.
The restriction of path (1,2,3) can be split in two rules:
If you came over (1,2) then remove (2,3)
If you leave over (2,3) then remove (1,2)
To put this in the graph you can insert copies of node 2 for each case. I'll call the new nodes 1_2 and 2_3 after the valid edge in the respective case. For both nodes, you copy all incoming and outgoing edges minus the restricted edge.
For example:
Nodes = [1,2,3,4]
Edges = [(1,2),(2,3),(4,2)]
The valid path shall only be 4->2->3 not 1->2->3. So we expand the graph:
Nodes = [1,1_2,2_3,3,4] # insert the two states of 2
Edges = [ # first case: no (1_2,3) because of the restriction
(1,1_2), (4, 1_2)
# 2nd case, no (1,2_3)
(2_3,3), (4,2_3)]
The only valid path in this graph is 4->2_3->3. This simply maps to 4->2->3 in the original graph.
I hope this answer can at least help you if you find no existing solution. Longer restriction rules would blow up the graph with a exponentially growing number of state nodes, so either this algorithm is too simple, or the problem is hard ;-)
You could set your node data {color=['blue']} for node 1, node 2 has {color=['red','blue']} and node3 has {color=['red']}. Then use an networkx.algorithms. astar_path() approach setting the
heuristic is set to a function which returns a might_as_well_be_infinity when it encountered an node without the same color you are searching for
weight=less_than_infinity.
I am working with complex networks. I want to find group of nodes which forms a cycle of 3 nodes (or triangles) in a given graph. As my graph contains about million edges, using a simple iterative solution (multiple "for" loop) is not very efficient.
I am using python for my programming, if these is some inbuilt modules for handling these problems, please let me know.
If someone knows any algorithm which can be used for finding triangles in graphs, kindly reply back.
Assuming its an undirected graph, the answer lies in networkx library of python.
if you just need to count triangles, use:
import networkx as nx
tri=nx.triangles(g)
But if you need to know the edge list with triangle (triadic) relationship, use
all_cliques= nx.enumerate_all_cliques(g)
This will give you all cliques (k=1,2,3...max degree - 1)
So, to filter just triangles i.e k=3,
triad_cliques=[x for x in all_cliques if len(x)==3 ]
The triad_cliques will give a edge list with only triangles.
A million edges is quite small. Unless you are doing it thousands of times, just use a naive implementation.
I'll assume that you have a dictionary of node_ids, which point to a sequence of their neighbors, and that the graph is directed.
For example:
nodes = {}
nodes[0] = 1,2
nodes[1] = tuple() # empty tuple
nodes[2] = 1
My solution:
def generate_triangles(nodes):
"""Generate triangles. Weed out duplicates."""
visited_ids = set() # remember the nodes that we have tested already
for node_a_id in nodes:
for node_b_id in nodes[node_a_id]:
if nod_b_id == node_a_id:
raise ValueError # nodes shouldn't point to themselves
if node_b_id in visited_ids:
continue # we should have already found b->a->??->b
for node_c_id in nodes[node_b_id]:
if node_c_id in visited_ids:
continue # we should have already found c->a->b->c
if node_a_id in nodes[node_c_id]:
yield(node_a_id, node_b_id, node_c_id)
visited_ids.add(node_a_id) # don't search a - we already have all those cycles
Checking performance:
from random import randint
n = 1000000
node_list = range(n)
nodes = {}
for node_id in node_list:
node = tuple()
for i in range(randint(0,10)): # add up to 10 neighbors
try:
neighbor_id = node_list[node_id+randint(-5,5)] # pick a nearby node
except:
continue
if not neighbor_id in node:
node = node + (neighbor_id,)
nodes[node_id] = node
cycles = list(generate_triangles(nodes))
print len(cycles)
When I tried it, it took longer to build the random graph than to count the cycles.
You might want to test it though ;) I won't guarantee that it's correct.
You could also look into networkx, which is the big python graph library.
Pretty easy and clear way to do is to use Networkx:
With Networkx you can get the loops of an undirected graph by nx.cycle_basis(G) and then select the ones with 3 nodes
cycls_3 = [c for c in nx.cycle_basis(G) if len(c)==3]
or you can find all the cliques by find_cliques(G) and then select the ones you want (with 3 nodes). cliques are sections of the graph where all the nodes are connected to each other which happens in cycles/loops with 3 nodes.
Even though it isn't efficient, you may want to implement a solution, so use the loops. Write a test so you can get an idea as to how long it takes.
Then, as you try new approaches you can do two things:
1) Make certain that the answer remains the same.
2) See what the improvement is.
Having a faster algorithm that misses something is probably going to be worse than having a slower one.
Once you have the slow test, you can see if you can do this in parallel and see what the performance increase is.
Then, you can see if you can mark all nodes that have less than 3 vertices.
Ideally, you may want to shrink it down to just 100 or so first, so you can draw it, and see what is happening graphically.
Sometimes your brain will see a pattern that isn't as obvious when looking at algorithms.
I don't want to sound harsh, but have you tried to Google it? The first link is a pretty quick algorithm to do that:
http://www.mail-archive.com/algogeeks#googlegroups.com/msg05642.html
And then there is this article on ACM (which you may have access to):
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=244866
(and if you don't have access, I am sure if you kindly ask the lady who wrote it, you will get a copy.)
Also, I can imagine a triangle enumeration method based on clique-decomposition, but I don't know if it was described somewhere.
I am working on the same problem of counting number of triangles on undirected graph and wisty's solution works really well in my case. I have modified it a bit so only undirected triangles are counted.
#### function for counting undirected cycles
def generate_triangles(nodes):
visited_ids = set() # mark visited node
for node_a_id in nodes:
temp_visited = set() # to get undirected triangles
for node_b_id in nodes[node_a_id]:
if node_b_id == node_a_id:
raise ValueError # to prevent self-loops, if your graph allows self-loops then you don't need this condition
if node_b_id in visited_ids:
continue
for node_c_id in nodes[node_b_id]:
if node_c_id in visited_ids:
continue
if node_c_id in temp_visited:
continue
if node_a_id in nodes[node_c_id]:
yield(node_a_id, node_b_id, node_c_id)
else:
continue
temp_visited.add(node_b_id)
visited_ids.add(node_a_id)
Of course, you need to use a dictionary for example
#### Test cycles ####
nodes = {}
nodes[0] = [1, 2, 3]
nodes[1] = [0, 2]
nodes[2] = [0, 1, 3]
nodes[3] = [1]
cycles = list(generate_triangles(nodes))
print cycles
Using the code of Wisty, the triangles found will be
[(0, 1, 2), (0, 2, 1), (0, 3, 1), (1, 2, 3)]
which counted the triangle (0, 1, 2) and (0, 2, 1) as two different triangles. With the code I modified, these are counted as only one triangle.
I used this with a relatively small dictionary of under 100 keys and each key has on average 50 values.
Surprised to see no mention of the Networkx triangles function. I know it doesn't necessarily return the groups of nodes that form a triangle, but should be pretty relevant to many who find themselves on this page.
nx.triangles(G) # list of how many triangles each node is part of
sum(nx.triangles(G).values())/3 # total number of triangles
An alternative way to return clumps of nodes would be something like...
for u,v,d in G.edges(data=True):
u_array = adj_m.getrow(u).nonzero()[1] # get lists of all adjacent nodes
v_array = adj_m.getrow(v).nonzero()[1]
# find the intersection of the two sets - these are the third node of the triangle
np.intersect1d(v_array,u_array)
If you don't care about multiple copies of the same triangle in different order then a list of 3-tuples works:
from itertools import combinations as combos
[(n,nbr,nbr2) for n in G for nbr, nbr2 in combos(G[n],2) if nbr in G[nbr2]]
The logic here is to check each pair of neighbors of every node to see if they are connected. G[n] is a fast way to iterate over or look up neighbors.
If you want to get rid of reorderings, turn each triple into a frozenset and make a set of the frozensets:
set(frozenset([n,nbr,nbr2]) for n in G for nbr, nbr2 in combos(G[n]) if nbr in G[nbr2])
If you don't like frozenset and want a list of sets then:
triple_iter = ((n, nbr, nbr2) for n in G for nbr, nbr2 in combos(G[n],2) if nbr in G[nbr2])
triangles = set(frozenset(tri) for tri in triple_iter)
nice_triangles = [set(tri) for tri in triangles]
Do you need to find 'all' of the 'triangles', or just 'some'/'any'?
Or perhaps you just need to test whether a particular node is part of a triangle?
The test is simple - given a node A, are there any two connected nodes B & C that are also directly connected.
If you need to find all of the triangles - specifically, all groups of 3 nodes in which each node is joined to the other two - then you need to check every possible group in a very long running 'for each' loop.
The only optimisation is ensuring that you don't check the same 'group' twice, e.g. if you have already tested that B & C aren't in a group with A, then don't check whether A & C are in a group with B.
This is a more efficient version of Ajay M answer (I would have commented it, but I've not enough reputation).
Indeed the enumerate_all_cliques method of networkx will return all cliques in the graph, irrespectively of their length; hence looping over it may take a lot of time (especially with very dense graphs).
Moreover, once defined for triangles, it's just a matter of parametrization to generalize the method for every clique length so here's a function:
import networkx as nx
def get_cliques_by_length(G, length_clique):
""" Return the list of all cliques in an undirected graph G with length
equal to length_clique. """
cliques = []
for c in nx.enumerate_all_cliques(G) :
if len(c) <= length_clique:
if len(c) == length_clique:
cliques.append(c)
else:
return cliques
# return empty list if nothing is found
return cliques
To get triangles just use get_cliques_by_length(G, 3).
Caveat: this method works only for undirected graphs. Algorithm for cliques in directed graphs are not provided in networkx
i just found that nx.edge_disjoint_paths works to count the triangle contains certain edges. faster than nx.enumerate_all_cliques and nx.cycle_basis.
It returns the edges disjoint paths between source and target.Edge disjoint paths are paths that do not share any edge.
And result-1 is the number of triangles that contain certain edges or between source node and target node.
edge_triangle_dict = {}
for i in g.edges:
edge_triangle_dict[i] = len(list(nx.edge_disjoint_paths(g, i[0], i[1]))-1)