Improving heuristics for network modularity maximization using an exact algorithm

International audienceHeuristics are widely applied to modularity maximization models for the identification of communities in complex networks. We present an approach to be applied as a post-processing to heuristic methods in order to improve their performances. Starting from a given partition, we test with an exact algorithm for bipartitioning if it is worthwhile to split some communities or to merge two of them. A combination of merge and split actions is also performed. Computational experiments show that the proposed approach is effective in improving heuristic results

Edge ratio and community structure in networks

International audienceA hierarchical divisive algorithm is proposed for identifying communities in complex networks. To that effect, the definition of community in the weak sense of Radicchi et al. _Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 2658 _2004__ is extended into a criterion for a bipartition to be optimal: one seeks to maximize the minimum for both classes of the bipartition of the ratio of inner edges to cut edges. A mathematical program is used within a dichotomous search to do this in an optimal way for each bipartition. This includes an exact solution of the problem of detecting indivisible communities. The resulting hierarchical divisive algorithm is compared with exact modularity maximization on both artificial and real world data sets. For two problems of the former kind optimal solutions are found; for five problems of the latter kind the edge ratio algorithm always appears to be competitive. Moreover, it provides additional information in several cases, notably through the use of the dendrogram summarizing the resolution. Finally, both algorithms are compared on reduced versions of the data sets of Girvan and Newman _Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 7821 _2002__ and of Lancichinetti et al. _Phys. Rev. E 78, 046110 _2008__. Results for these instances appear to be comparable

Column generation algorithms for exact modularity maximization in networks

International audienceFinding modules, or clusters, in networks currently attracts much attention in several domains. The most studied criterion for doing so, due to Newman and Girvan [Phys. Rev. E 69, 026113 (2004)], is modularity maximization. Many heuristics have been proposed for maximizing modularity and yield rapidly near optimal solution or sometimes optimal ones but without a guarantee of optimality. There are few exact algorithms, prominent among which is a paper by Xu et al. [Eur. Phys. J. B 60, 231 (2007)]. Modularity maximization can also be expressed as a clique partitioning problem and the row generation algorithm of Grötschel and Wakabayashi [Math. Program. 45, 59 (1989)] applied. We propose to extend both of these algorithms using the powerful column generation methods for linear and non linear integer programming. Performance of the four resulting algorithms is compared on problems from the literature. Instances with up to 512 entities are solved exactly. Moreover, the computing time of previously solved problems are reduced substantially

Efficient modularity density heuristics in graph clustering and their applications

Modularity Density Maximization is a graph clustering problem which avoids the resolution limit degeneracy of the Modularity Maximization problem. This thesis aims at solving larger instances than current Modularity Density heuristics do, and show how close the obtained solutions are to the expected clustering. Three main contributions arise from this objective. The first one is about the theoretical contributions about properties of Modularity Density based prioritizers. The second one is the development of eight Modularity Density Maximization heuristics. Our heuristics are compared with optimal results from the literature, and with GAOD, iMeme-Net, HAIN, BMD- heuristics. Our results are also compared with CNM and Louvain which are heuristics for Modularity Maximization that solve instances with thousands of nodes. The tests were carried out by using graphs from the “Stanford Large Network Dataset Collection”. The experiments have shown that our eight heuristics found solutions for graphs with hundreds of thousands of nodes. Our results have also shown that five of our heuristics surpassed the current state-of-the-art Modularity Density Maximization heuristic solvers for large graphs. A third contribution is the proposal of six column generation methods. These methods use exact and heuristic auxiliary solvers and an initial variable generator. Comparisons among our proposed column generations and state-of-the-art algorithms were also carried out. The results showed that: (i) two of our methods surpassed the state-of-the-art algorithms in terms of time, and (ii) our methods proved the optimal value for larger instances than current approaches can tackle. Our results suggest clear improvements to the state-of-the-art results for the Modularity Density Maximization problem

The performance of modularity maximization in practical contexts

Although widely used in practice, the behavior and accuracy of the popular module identification technique called modularity maximization is not well understood in practical contexts. Here, we present a broad characterization of its performance in such situations. First, we revisit and clarify the resolution limit phenomenon for modularity maximization. Second, we show that the modularity function Q exhibits extreme degeneracies: it typically admits an exponential number of distinct high-scoring solutions and typically lacks a clear global maximum. Third, we derive the limiting behavior of the maximum modularity Q_max for one model of infinitely modular networks, showing that it depends strongly both on the size of the network and on the number of modules it contains. Finally, using three real-world metabolic networks as examples, we show that the degenerate solutions can fundamentally disagree on many, but not all, partition properties such as the composition of the largest modules and the distribution of module sizes. These results imply that the output of any modularity maximization procedure should be interpreted cautiously in scientific contexts. They also explain why many heuristics are often successful at finding high-scoring partitions in practice and why different heuristics can disagree on the modular structure of the same network. We conclude by discussing avenues for mitigating some of these behaviors, such as combining information from many degenerate solutions or using generative models.Comment: 20 pages, 14 figures, 6 appendices; code available at http://www.santafe.edu/~aaronc/modularity