Evaluating Overfit and Underfit in Models of Network Community Structure

A common data mining task on networks is community detection, which seeks an unsupervised decomposition of a network into structural groups based on statistical regularities in the network's connectivity. Although many methods exist, the No Free Lunch theorem for community detection implies that each makes some kind of tradeoff, and no algorithm can be optimal on all inputs. Thus, different algorithms will over or underfit on different inputs, finding more, fewer, or just different communities than is optimal, and evaluation methods that use a metadata partition as a ground truth will produce misleading conclusions about general accuracy. Here, we present a broad evaluation of over and underfitting in community detection, comparing the behavior of 16 state-of-the-art community detection algorithms on a novel and structurally diverse corpus of 406 real-world networks. We find that (i) algorithms vary widely both in the number of communities they find and in their corresponding composition, given the same input, (ii) algorithms can be clustered into distinct high-level groups based on similarities of their outputs on real-world networks, and (iii) these differences induce wide variation in accuracy on link prediction and link description tasks. We introduce a new diagnostic for evaluating overfitting and underfitting in practice, and use it to roughly divide community detection methods into general and specialized learning algorithms. Across methods and inputs, Bayesian techniques based on the stochastic block model and a minimum description length approach to regularization represent the best general learning approach, but can be outperformed under specific circumstances. These results introduce both a theoretically principled approach to evaluate over and underfitting in models of network community structure and a realistic benchmark by which new methods may be evaluated and compared.Comment: 22 pages, 13 figures, 3 table

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

An efficient and principled method for detecting communities in networks

A fundamental problem in the analysis of network data is the detection of network communities, groups of densely interconnected nodes, which may be overlapping or disjoint. Here we describe a method for finding overlapping communities based on a principled statistical approach using generative network models. We show how the method can be implemented using a fast, closed-form expectation-maximization algorithm that allows us to analyze networks of millions of nodes in reasonable running times. We test the method both on real-world networks and on synthetic benchmarks and find that it gives results competitive with previous methods. We also show that the same approach can be used to extract nonoverlapping community divisions via a relaxation method, and demonstrate that the algorithm is competitively fast and accurate for the nonoverlapping problem.Comment: 14 pages, 5 figures, 1 tabl