One of the most widely studied problem in mining and analysis of complex networks is the detection of community structures. The problem has been extensively studied by researchers due to its high utility and numerous applications in various domains. Many algorithmic solutions have been proposed for the community detection problem but the quest to find the best algorithm is still on. More often than not, researchers focus on developing fast and accurate algorithms that can be generically applied to networks from a variety of domains without taking into consideration the structural and topological variations in these networks. In this paper, we evaluate the performance of different clustering algorithms as a function of varying network topology. Along with the well known LFR model to generate benchmark networks with communities,we also propose a new model named Naive Scale Free Model to study the behavior of community detection algorithms with respect to different topological features. More specifically, we are interested in the size of networks, the size of community structures, the average connectivity of nodes and the ratio of inter-intra cluster edges. Results reveal several limitations of the current popular network clustering algorithms failing to correctly find communities. This suggests the need to revisit the design of current clustering algorithms that fail to incorporate varying topological features of different networks.
Although the problem of community detection has been widely studied, the associated problem of generating standard benchmark datasets to evaluate the quality of clustering algorithms has not attracted much interest. One of the earlier works in this direction was by Girvan and Newman @cite_48 usually referred to as the GN benchmark. They used a network of 128 nodes divided into four communities of 32 nodes each with each node having approximately the same node degree. A parameter was used to control the intra-cluster and inter-cluster edges. A number of drawbacks were identified in this benchmark @cite_2 , most notably that all nodes of the network have the same degree and all the communities have the same number of nodes in them.
@cite_48 @cite_2
1971421925 2023655578
A number of recent studies have focused on the statistical properties of networked systems such as social networks and the Worldwide Web. Researchers have concentrated particularly on a few properties that seem to be common to many networks: the small-world property, power-law degree distributions, and network transitivity. In this article, we highlight another property that is found in many networks, the property of community structure, in which network nodes are joined together in tightly knit groups, between which there are only looser connections. We propose a method for detecting such communities, built around the idea of using centrality indices to find community boundaries. We test our method on computer-generated and real-world graphs whose community structure is already known and find that the method detects this known structure with high sensitivity and reliability. We also apply the method to two networks whose community structure is not well known—a collaboration network and a food web—and find that it detects significant and informative community divisions in both cases. Community structure is one of the most important features of real networks and reveals the internal organization of the nodes. Many algorithms have been proposed but the crucial issue of testing, i.e., the question of how good an algorithm is, with respect to others, is still open. Standard tests include the analysis of simple artificial graphs with a built-in community structure, that the algorithm has to recover. However, the special graphs adopted in actual tests have a structure that does not reflect the real properties of nodes and communities found in real networks. Here we introduce a class of benchmark graphs, that account for the heterogeneity in the distributions of node degrees and of community sizes. We use this benchmark to test two popular methods of community detection, modularity optimization, and Potts model clustering. The results show that the benchmark poses a much more severe test to algorithms than standard benchmarks, revealing limits that may not be apparent at a first analysis.