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 @cite_9 , the authors perform a comparative evaluation of five popular quality metrics ( modularity, silhouette index, conductance, coverage, and performance) on seven different real-world networks. Five of them, with size ranging from 12008 to 36682 nodes, are with unknown ground-truth community structure. The remaining are small but with known ground-truth community structure. To compare different metrics, they selected four non-overlapping community detection algorithms from four different, representative categories of clustering algorithms. They conclude that the quality metrics behaves satisfactorily when the communities are well identified. In other words, in the case where the intra-link density value is very high as compared to the inter-link density value. Additionally, they show that the quality metrics have strong biases toward incorrectly awarding good scores to some kinds of clusters, especially seen in larger networks. They indicate that all metrics do not share a common view of what a true clustering should look like and that there is no such a thing as a 'best' quality metric.
@cite_9
2768318902 2610304566 1968656203 2513567506
Abstract As network analysis methods prevail, more metrics are applied to co-word networks to reveal hot topics in a field. However, few studies have examined the relationships among these metrics. To bridge this gap, this study explores the relationships among different ranking metrics, including one frequency-based and six network-based metrics, in order to understand the impact of network structural features on ranking themes on co-word networks. We collected bibliographic data from three disciplines from Web of Science (WoS), and generated 40 simulation networks following the preferential attachment assumption. Correlation analysis on the empirical and simulated networks shows strong relationships among the metrics. Their relationships are consistent across disciplines. The metrics can be categorized into three groups according to the strength of their correlations, where Degree Centrality, H-index, and Coreness are in one group, Betweenness Centrality, Clustering Coefficient, and frequency in another, and Weighted PageRank by itself. Regression analysis on the simulation networks reveals that network topology properties, such as connectivity, sparsity, and aggregation, influence the relationships among selected metrics. In addition, when comparing the top keywords ranked by the metrics in the three disciplines, we found the metrics exhibit different discriminative capacity. Coreness and H-index may be better suited for categorizing keywords rather than ranking keywords. Findings from this study contribute to a better understanding of the relationships among different metrics and provide guidance for using them effectively in different contexts. Evaluating a network partition just only via conventional quality metrics - such as modularity, conductance or normalized mutual of information - is usually insufficient. Indeed, global quality scores of a network partition or its clusters do not provide many ideas about their structural characteristics. Furthermore, quality metrics often fail to reach an agreement especially in networks whose modular structures are not very obvious. Evaluating the goodness of network partitions in function of desired structural properties is still a challenge. Here, we propose a methodology that allows one to expose structural information of clusters in a network partition in a comprehensive way, thus eventually helps one to compare communities identified by different community detection methods. This descriptive approach also helps to clarify the composition of communities in real-world networks. The methodology hence bring us a step closer to the understanding of modular structures in complex networks. Despite the prevalence of community detection algorithms, relatively less work has been done on understanding whether a network is indeed modular and how resilient the community structure is under perturbations. To address this issue, we propose a new vertex-based metric called "permanence", that can quantitatively give an estimate of the community- like structure of the network. The central idea of permanence is based on the observation that the strength of membership of a vertex to a community depends upon the following two factors: (i) the distribution of external connectivity of the vertex to individual communities and not the total external connectivity, and (ii) the strength of its internal connectivity and not just the total internal edges. In this paper, we demonstrate that compared to other metrics, permanence provides (i) a more accurate estimate of a derived community structure to the ground-truth community and (ii) is more sensitive to perturbations in the network. As a by-product of this study, we have also developed a community detection algorithm based on maximizing permanence. For a modular network structure, the results of our algorithm match well with ground-truth communities. 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.