Relations Between Adjacency and Modularity Graph Partitioning

In this paper the exact linear relation between the leading eigenvector of the unnormalized modularity matrix and the eigenvectors of the adjacency matrix is developed. Based on this analysis a method to approximate the leading eigenvector of the modularity matrix is given, and the relative error of the approximation is derived. A complete proof of the equivalence between normalized modularity clustering and normalized adjacency clustering is also given. Some applications and experiments are given to illustrate and corroborate the points that are made in the theoretical development.Comment: 11 page

Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices

We consider the problem of detecting communities or modules in networks, groups of vertices with a higher-than-average density of edges connecting them. Previous work indicates that a robust approach to this problem is the maximization of the benefit function known as "modularity" over possible divisions of a network. Here we show that this maximization process can be written in terms of the eigenspectrum of a matrix we call the modularity matrix, which plays a role in community detection similar to that played by the graph Laplacian in graph partitioning calculations. This result leads us to a number of possible algorithms for detecting community structure, as well as several other results, including a spectral measure of bipartite structure in networks and a new centrality measure that identifies those vertices that occupy central positions within the communities to which they belong. The algorithms and measures proposed are illustrated with applications to a variety of real-world complex networks.Comment: 22 pages, 8 figures, minor corrections in this versio

An algebraic analysis of the graph modularity

One of the most relevant tasks in network analysis is the detection of community structures, or clustering. Most popular techniques for community detection are based on the maximization of a quality function called modularity, which in turn is based upon particular quadratic forms associated to a real symmetric modularity matrix $M$, defined in terms of the adjacency matrix and a rank one null model matrix. That matrix could be posed inside the set of relevant matrices involved in graph theory, alongside adjacency, incidence and Laplacian matrices. This is the reason we propose a graph analysis based on the algebraic and spectral properties of such matrix. In particular, we propose a nodal domain theorem for the eigenvectors of $M$; we point out several relations occurring between graph's communities and nonnegative eigenvalues of $M$; and we derive a Cheeger-type inequality for the graph optimal modularity

Community Detection via Maximization of Modularity and Its Variants

In this paper, we first discuss the definition of modularity (Q) used as a metric for community quality and then we review the modularity maximization approaches which were used for community detection in the last decade. Then, we discuss two opposite yet coexisting problems of modularity optimization: in some cases, it tends to favor small communities over large ones while in others, large communities over small ones (so called the resolution limit problem). Next, we overview several community quality metrics proposed to solve the resolution limit problem and discuss Modularity Density (Qds) which simultaneously avoids the two problems of modularity. Finally, we introduce two novel fine-tuned community detection algorithms that iteratively attempt to improve the community quality measurements by splitting and merging the given network community structure. The first of them, referred to as Fine-tuned Q, is based on modularity (Q) while the second one is based on Modularity Density (Qds) and denoted as Fine-tuned Qds. Then, we compare the greedy algorithm of modularity maximization (denoted as Greedy Q), Fine-tuned Q, and Fine-tuned Qds on four real networks, and also on the classical clique network and the LFR benchmark networks, each of which is instantiated by a wide range of parameters. The results indicate that Fine-tuned Qds is the most effective among the three algorithms discussed. Moreover, we show that Fine-tuned Qds can be applied to the communities detected by other algorithms to significantly improve their results

Modularity bounds for clusters located by leading eigenvectors of the normalized modularity matrix

Nodal theorems for generalized modularity matrices ensure that the cluster located by the positive entries of the leading eigenvector of various modularity matrices induces a connected subgraph. In this paper we obtain lower bounds for the modularity of that set of nodes showing that, under certain conditions, the nodal domains induced by eigenvectors corresponding to highly positive eigenvalues of the normalized modularity matrix have indeed positive modularity, that is they can be recognized as modules inside the network. Moreover we establish Cheeger-type inequalities for the cut-modularity of the graph, providing a theoretical support to the common understanding that highly positive eigenvalues of modularity matrices are related with the possibility of subdividing a network into communities

Modularity and community structure in networks

Many networks of interest in the sciences, including a variety of social and biological networks, are found to divide naturally into communities or modules. The problem of detecting and characterizing this community structure has attracted considerable recent attention. One of the most sensitive detection methods is optimization of the quality function known as "modularity" over the possible divisions of a network, but direct application of this method using, for instance, simulated annealing is computationally costly. Here we show that the modularity can be reformulated in terms of the eigenvectors of a new characteristic matrix for the network, which we call the modularity matrix, and that this reformulation leads to a spectral algorithm for community detection that returns results of better quality than competing methods in noticeably shorter running times. We demonstrate the algorithm with applications to several network data sets.Comment: 7 pages, 3 figure