The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Community Detection via Maximization of Modularity and Its Variants
Open accessAbstract
In this paper, we first discuss the definition of modularity (Q) used as a metric for community quality and then we review the modularity maximization approaches which were used for community detection in the last decade. Then, we discuss two opposite yet coexisting problems of modularity optimization; in some cases, it tends to favor small communities over large ones while in others, large communities over small ones (so-called the resolution limit problem). Next, we overview several community quality metrics proposed to solve the resolution limit problem and discuss Modularity Density (Qds), which simultaneously avoids the two problems of modularity. Finally, we introduce two novel fine-tuned community detection algorithms that iteratively attempt to improve the community quality measurements by splitting and merging the given network community structure. The first one, referred to as Fine-tuned , is based on modularity (Q), while the second is based on Modularity Density (Qds) and denoted as Fine-tuned . Then, we compare the greedy algorithm of modularity maximization (denoted as Greedy ), Fine-tuned , and Fine-tuned on four real networks, and also on the classical clique network and the LFR benchmark networks, each of which is instantiated by a wide range of parameters. The results indicate that Fine-tuned Qdsis the most effective among the three algorithms discussed. Moreover, we show that Fine-tuned Qdscan be applied to the communities detected by other algorithms to significantly improve their results.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Finding and evaluating community structure in networks
Newman, M. E. J., & Girvan, M. (2004) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.69.026113 · Cited by 13,931
Modularity and community structure in networks
Newman, M. E. J. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0601602103 · Cited by 12,256
Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks
Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v3i1.13937 · Cited by 11,675
Fortunato, S. (2010) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.11.002 · Cited by 11,293
Hubert, L., & Arabie, P. (1985) · Journal of Classification · doi:10.1007/bf01908075 · Cited by 8,219
Functional cartography of complex metabolic networks
Guimerà, R., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03288 · Cited by 3,983 · cited 2×
“Finally, we overview several community quality measurements proposed to solve the resolution limit problem and then discuss Modularity Density (Qds) [23], [24] which simultaneously avoids these two problems.”
BackgroundResolution limit in community detection
Fortunato, S., & Barthélemy, M. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0605965104 · Cited by 3,024
Performance of modularity maximization in practical contexts
Good, B. H., de Montjoye, Y.-A., & Clauset, A. (2010) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.81.046106 · Cited by 937
Party Polarization in Congress: A Network Science Approach
Waugh, A. S., Pei, L., Fowler, J. H., Mucha, P. J., & Porter, M. A. (2009) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0907.3509 · Cited by 56
Cited by
Gaiteri, C., Chen, M., Szymanski, B., Kuzmin, K., Xie, J., Lee, C., Blanche, T., Chaibub Neto, E., Huang, S.-C., Grabowski, T., et al. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep16361 · Cited by 76
Self-citationConnelly, E., del Genio, C. I., & Harrison, F. (2020) · mBio · doi:10.1128/mbio.03136-19 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, M., Kuzmin, K., & Szymanski, B. K.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems
- Published
- 2014-03
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 46-65
- ISSN
- 2329-924X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2088162437
- Cited by
- 301
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 12.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.