Different approaches to community detection

A precise definition of what constitutes a community in networks has remained elusive. Consequently, network scientists have compared community detection algorithms on benchmark networks with a particular form of community structure and classified them based on the mathematical techniques they employ. However, this comparison can be misleading because apparent similarities in their mathematical machinery can disguise different reasons for why we would want to employ community detection in the first place. Here we provide a focused review of these different motivations that underpin community detection. This problem-driven classification is useful in applied network science, where it is important to select an appropriate algorithm for the given purpose. Moreover, highlighting the different approaches to community detection also delineates the many lines of research and points out open directions and avenues for future research.Comment: 14 pages, 2 figures. Written as a chapter for forthcoming Advances in network clustering and blockmodeling, and based on an extended version of The many facets of community detection in complex networks, Appl. Netw. Sci. 2: 4 (2017) by the same author

Element-centric clustering comparison unifies overlaps and hierarchy

Clustering is one of the most universal approaches for understanding complex data. A pivotal aspect of clustering analysis is quantitatively comparing clusterings; clustering comparison is the basis for many tasks such as clustering evaluation, consensus clustering, and tracking the temporal evolution of clusters. In particular, the extrinsic evaluation of clustering methods requires comparing the uncovered clusterings to planted clusterings or known metadata. Yet, as we demonstrate, existing clustering comparison measures have critical biases which undermine their usefulness, and no measure accommodates both overlapping and hierarchical clusterings. Here we unify the comparison of disjoint, overlapping, and hierarchically structured clusterings by proposing a new element-centric framework: elements are compared based on the relationships induced by the cluster structure, as opposed to the traditional cluster-centric philosophy. We demonstrate that, in contrast to standard clustering similarity measures, our framework does not suffer from critical biases and naturally provides unique insights into how the clusterings differ. We illustrate the strengths of our framework by revealing new insights into the organization of clusters in two applications: the improved classification of schizophrenia based on the overlapping and hierarchical community structure of fMRI brain networks, and the disentanglement of various social homophily factors in Facebook social networks. The universality of clustering suggests far-reaching impact of our framework throughout all areas of science

Laplacian Mixture Modeling for Network Analysis and Unsupervised Learning on Graphs

Laplacian mixture models identify overlapping regions of influence in unlabeled graph and network data in a scalable and computationally efficient way, yielding useful low-dimensional representations. By combining Laplacian eigenspace and finite mixture modeling methods, they provide probabilistic or fuzzy dimensionality reductions or domain decompositions for a variety of input data types, including mixture distributions, feature vectors, and graphs or networks. Provable optimal recovery using the algorithm is analytically shown for a nontrivial class of cluster graphs. Heuristic approximations for scalable high-performance implementations are described and empirically tested. Connections to PageRank and community detection in network analysis demonstrate the wide applicability of this approach. The origins of fuzzy spectral methods, beginning with generalized heat or diffusion equations in physics, are reviewed and summarized. Comparisons to other dimensionality reduction and clustering methods for challenging unsupervised machine learning problems are also discussed.Comment: 13 figures, 35 reference

Multi-scale Modularity in Complex Networks

We focus on the detection of communities in multi-scale networks, namely networks made of different levels of organization and in which modules exist at different scales. It is first shown that methods based on modularity are not appropriate to uncover modules in empirical networks, mainly because modularity optimization has an intrinsic bias towards partitions having a characteristic number of modules which might not be compatible with the modular organization of the system. We argue for the use of more flexible quality functions incorporating a resolution parameter that allows us to reveal the natural scales of the system. Different types of multi-resolution quality functions are described and unified by looking at the partitioning problem from a dynamical viewpoint. Finally, significant values of the resolution parameter are selected by using complementary measures of robustness of the uncovered partitions. The methods are illustrated on a benchmark and an empirical network.Comment: 8 pages, 3 figure