Community structure is of paramount importance for the understanding of complex networks. Consequently, there is a tremendous effort in order to develop efficient community detection algorithms. Unfortunately, the issue of a fair assessment of these algorithms is a thriving open question. If the ground-truth community structure is available, various clustering-based metrics are used in order to compare it versus the one discovered by these algorithms. However, these metrics defined at the node level are fairly insensitive to the variation of the overall community structure. To overcome these limitations, we propose to exploit the topological features of the 'community graphs' (where the nodes are the communities and the links represent their interactions) in order to evaluate the algorithms. To illustrate our methodology, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of overlapping community detection algorithms using a set of real-world networks with known a priori community structure. Results provide a better perception of their relative performance as compared to classical metrics. Moreover, they show that more emphasis should be put on the topology of the community structure. We also investigate the relationship between the topological properties of the community structure and the alternative evaluation measures (quality metrics and clustering metrics). It appears clearly that they present different views of the community structure and that they must be combined in order to evaluate the effectiveness of community detection algorithms.
In the same vein as @cite_32 , the work of @cite_42 presents a comparative study of functional and structural communities. The structural communities discovered by ten community detection algorithms are compared to the ground-truth community structure defined by functional similarity. The authors used fifteen real-world networks with size ranging from 34 to 5189809 nodes. In these networks, the number of functional communities varies greatly (from 2 to 2183754). They also used a medium size synthetic network generated with the LFR algorithm. They conclude that functional communities are not recovered by most of the algorithms. Roughly speaking, there is no simple relation between the functional communities described by the ground-truth and the structural ones recovered by the algorithms.
@cite_42 @cite_32
2513567506 2083818595 2079149066 1995996823
Across many scientific domains, there is a common need to automatically extract a simplified view or coarse-graining of how a complex system’s components interact. This general task is called community detection in networks and is analogous to searching for clusters in independent vector data. It is common to evaluate the performance of community detection algorithms by their ability to find so-called ground truth communities. This works well in synthetic networks with planted communities because these networks’ links are formed explicitly based on those known communities. However, there are no planted communities in real-world networks. Instead, it is standard practice to treat some observed discrete-valued node attributes, or metadata, as ground truth. We show that metadata are not the same as ground truth and that treating them as such induces severe theoretical and practical problems. We prove that no algorithm can uniquely solve community detection, and we prove a general No Free Lunch theorem for community detection, which implies that there can be no algorithm that is optimal for all possible community detection tasks. However, community detection remains a powerful tool and node metadata still have value, so a careful exploration of their relationship with network structure can yield insights of genuine worth. We illustrate this point by introducing two statistical techniques that can quantify the relationship between metadata and community structure for a broad class of models. We demonstrate these techniques using both synthetic and real-world networks, and for multiple types of metadata and community structures. We propose a new local, deterministic and parameter-free algorithm that detects fuzzy and crisp overlapping communities in a weighted network and simultaneously reveals their hierarchy. Using a local fitness function, the algorithm greedily expands natural communities of seeds until the whole graph is covered. The hierarchy of communities is obtained analytically by calculating resolution levels at which communities grow rather than numerically by testing different resolution levels. This analytic procedure is not only more exact than its numerical alternatives such as LFM and GCE but also much faster. Critical resolution levels can be identified by searching for intervals in which large changes of the resolution do not lead to growth of communities. We tested our algorithm on benchmark graphs and on a network of 492 papers in information science. Combined with a specific post-processing, the algorithm gives much more precise results on LFR benchmarks with high overlap compared to other algorithms and performs very similarly to GCE. Four major factors govern the intricacies of community extraction in networks: (1) the literature offers a multitude of disparate community detection algorithms whose output exhibits high structural variability across the collection, (2) communities identified by algorithms may differ structurally from real communities that arise in practice, (3) there is no consensus characterizing how to discriminate communities from noncommunities, and (4) the application domain includes a wide variety of networks of fundamentally different natures. In this article, we present a class separability framework to tackle these challenges through a comprehensive analysis of community properties. Our approach enables the assessment of the structural dissimilarity among the output of multiple community detection algorithms and between the output of algorithms and communities that arise in practice. In addition, our method provides us with a way to organize the vast collection of community detection algorithms by grouping those that behave similarly. Finally, we identify the most discriminative graph-theoretical properties of community signature and the small subset of properties that account for most of the biases of the different community detection algorithms. We illustrate our approach with an experimental analysis, which reveals nuances of the structure of real and extracted communities. In our experiments, we furnish our framework with the output of 10 different community detection procedures, representative of categories of popular algorithms available in the literature, applied to a diverse collection of large-scale real network datasets whose domains span biology, online shopping, and social systems. We also analyze communities identified by annotations that accompany the data, which reflect exemplar communities in various domain. We characterize these communities using a broad spectrum of community properties to produce the different structural classes. As our experiments show that community structure is not a universal concept, our framework enables an informed choice of the most suitable community detection method for identifying communities of a specific type in a given network and allows for a comparison of existing community detection algorithms while guiding the design of new ones. Uncovering the community structure exhibited by real networks is a crucial step toward an understanding of complex systems that goes beyond the local organization of their constituents. Many algorithms have been proposed so far, but none of them has been subjected to strict tests to evaluate their performance. Most of the sporadic tests performed so far involved small networks with known community structure and or artificial graphs with a simplified structure, which is very uncommon in real systems. Here we test several methods against a recently introduced class of benchmark graphs, with heterogeneous distributions of degree and community size. The methods are also tested against the benchmark by Girvan and Newman [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 7821 (2002)] and on random graphs. As a result of our analysis, three recent algorithms introduced by Rosvall and Bergstrom [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 7327 (2007); Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 1118 (2008)], [J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. (2008), P10008], and Ronhovde and Nussinov [Phys. Rev. E 80, 016109 (2009)] have an excellent performance, with the additional advantage of low computational complexity, which enables one to analyze large systems.