95,057 research outputs found
Median evidential c-means algorithm and its application to community detection
Median clustering is of great value for partitioning relational data. In this
paper, a new prototype-based clustering method, called Median Evidential
C-Means (MECM), which is an extension of median c-means and median fuzzy
c-means on the theoretical framework of belief functions is proposed. The
median variant relaxes the restriction of a metric space embedding for the
objects but constrains the prototypes to be in the original data set. Due to
these properties, MECM could be applied to graph clustering problems. A
community detection scheme for social networks based on MECM is investigated
and the obtained credal partitions of graphs, which are more refined than crisp
and fuzzy ones, enable us to have a better understanding of the graph
structures. An initial prototype-selection scheme based on evidential
semi-centrality is presented to avoid local premature convergence and an
evidential modularity function is defined to choose the optimal number of
communities. Finally, experiments in synthetic and real data sets illustrate
the performance of MECM and show its difference to other methods
The Advantage of Evidential Attributes in Social Networks
Nowadays, there are many approaches designed for the task of detecting
communities in social networks. Among them, some methods only consider the
topological graph structure, while others take use of both the graph structure
and the node attributes. In real-world networks, there are many uncertain and
noisy attributes in the graph. In this paper, we will present how we detect
communities in graphs with uncertain attributes in the first step. The
numerical, probabilistic as well as evidential attributes are generated
according to the graph structure. In the second step, some noise will be added
to the attributes. We perform experiments on graphs with different types of
attributes and compare the detection results in terms of the Normalized Mutual
Information (NMI) values. The experimental results show that the clustering
with evidential attributes gives better results comparing to those with
probabilistic and numerical attributes. This illustrates the advantages of
evidential attributes.Comment: 20th International Conference on Information Fusion, Jul 2017, Xi'an,
Chin
Community structure and patterns of scientific collaboration in Business and Management
This is the author's accepted version of this article deposited at arXiv (arXiv:1006.1788v2 [physics.soc-ph]) and subsequently published in Scientometrics October 2011, Volume 89, Issue 1, pp 381-396. The final publication is available at link.springer.com http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-011-0439-1Author's note: 17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full pape
Hierarchical mutual information for the comparison of hierarchical community structures in complex networks
The quest for a quantitative characterization of community and modular
structure of complex networks produced a variety of methods and algorithms to
classify different networks. However, it is not clear if such methods provide
consistent, robust and meaningful results when considering hierarchies as a
whole. Part of the problem is the lack of a similarity measure for the
comparison of hierarchical community structures. In this work we give a
contribution by introducing the {\it hierarchical mutual information}, which is
a generalization of the traditional mutual information, and allows to compare
hierarchical partitions and hierarchical community structures. The {\it
normalized} version of the hierarchical mutual information should behave
analogously to the traditional normalized mutual information. Here, the correct
behavior of the hierarchical mutual information is corroborated on an extensive
battery of numerical experiments. The experiments are performed on artificial
hierarchies, and on the hierarchical community structure of artificial and
empirical networks. Furthermore, the experiments illustrate some of the
practical applications of the hierarchical mutual information. Namely, the
comparison of different community detection methods, and the study of the
consistency, robustness and temporal evolution of the hierarchical modular
structure of networks.Comment: 14 pages and 12 figure
Communities and patterns of scientific collaboration in Business and Management
This is the author's accepted version of this article deposited at arXiv (arXiv:1006.1788v2 [physics.soc-ph]) and subsequently published in Scientometrics October 2011, Volume 89, Issue 1, pp 381-396. The final publication is available at link.springer.com http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-011-0439-1Author's note: 17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full pape
Detecting change points in the large-scale structure of evolving networks
Interactions among people or objects are often dynamic in nature and can be
represented as a sequence of networks, each providing a snapshot of the
interactions over a brief period of time. An important task in analyzing such
evolving networks is change-point detection, in which we both identify the
times at which the large-scale pattern of interactions changes fundamentally
and quantify how large and what kind of change occurred. Here, we formalize for
the first time the network change-point detection problem within an online
probabilistic learning framework and introduce a method that can reliably solve
it. This method combines a generalized hierarchical random graph model with a
Bayesian hypothesis test to quantitatively determine if, when, and precisely
how a change point has occurred. We analyze the detectability of our method
using synthetic data with known change points of different types and
magnitudes, and show that this method is more accurate than several previously
used alternatives. Applied to two high-resolution evolving social networks,
this method identifies a sequence of change points that align with known
external "shocks" to these networks
Communities and patterns of scientific collaboration
This is the author's accepted version of this article deposited at arXiv (arXiv:1006.1788v2 [physics.soc-ph]) and subsequently published in Scientometrics October 2011, Volume 89, Issue 1, pp 381-396. The final publication is available at link.springer.com http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-011-0439-1Author's note: 17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full paper17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full paper version)17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full paper version)17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full paper version)17 pages. To appear in special edition of Scientometrics. Abstract on arXiv meta-data a shorter version of abstract on actual paper (both in journal and arXiv full paper version)This paper investigates the role of homophily and focus constraint in shaping collaborative scientific research. First, homophily structures collaboration when scientists adhere to a norm of exclusivity in selecting similar partners at a higher rate than dissimilar ones. Two dimensions on which similarity between scientists can be assessed are their research specialties and status positions. Second, focus constraint shapes collaboration when connections among scientists depend on opportunities for social contact. Constraint comes in two forms, depending on whether it originates in institutional or geographic space. Institutional constraint refers to the tendency of scientists to select collaborators within rather than across institutional boundaries. Geographic constraint is the principle that, when collaborations span different institutions, they are more likely to involve scientists that are geographically co-located than dispersed. To study homophily and focus constraint, the paper will argue in favour of an idea of collaboration that moves beyond formal co-authorship to include also other forms of informal intellectual exchange that do not translate into the publication of joint work. A community-detection algorithm is applied to the co-authorship network of the scientists that submitted in Business and Management in the 2001 UK RAE. While results only partially support research-based homophily, they indicate that scientists use status positions for discriminating between potential partners by selecting collaborators from institutions with a rating similar to their own. Strong support is provided in favour of institutional and geographic constraints. Scientists tend to forge intra-institutional collaborations; yet, when they seek collaborators outside their own institutions, they tend to select those who are in geographic proximity
- …