Is it correct to project and detect? How weighting unipartite projections influences community detection

被引:2
作者
Cann, Tristan J. B. [1 ]
Weaver, Iain S. [1 ]
Williams, Hywel T. P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Exeter, Coll Engn Math & Phys Sci, Harrison Bldg,Streatham Campus,North Pk Rd, Exeter EX4 4QF, Devon, England
基金
英国工程与自然科学研究理事会;
关键词
bipartite networks; unpartite projection; community detection; edge weighting; NETWORK; MODULARITY; NEWS;
D O I
10.1017/nws.2020.11
中图分类号
O1 [数学]; C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 0701 ; 070101 ;
摘要
Bipartite networks represent pairwise relationships between nodes belonging to two distinct classes. While established methods exist for analyzing unipartite networks, those for bipartite network analysis are somewhat obscure and relatively less developed. Community detection in such instances is frequently approached by first projecting the network onto a unipartite network, a method where edges between node classes are encoded as edges within one class. Here we test seven different projection schemes by assessing the performance of community detection on both: (i) a real-world dataset from social media and (ii) an ensemble of artificial networks with prescribed community structure. A number of performance and accuracy issues become apparent from the experimental findings, especially in the case of long-tailed degree distributions. Of the methods tested, the "hyperbolic" projection scheme alleviates most of these difficulties and is thus the most robust scheme of those tested. We conclude that any interpretation of community detection algorithm performance on projected networks must be done with care as certain network configurations require strong community preference for the bipartite structure to be reflected in the unipartite communities. Our results have implications for the analysis of detected community structure in projected unipartite networks.
引用
收藏
页码:S145 / S163
页数:19
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]  
Alzahrani T, 2014, 2014 PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE/ACM INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN SOCIAL NETWORKS ANALYSIS AND MINING (ASONAM 2014), P890, DOI 10.1109/ASONAM.2014.6921691
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2013, P 28 ANN ACM S APPL
[3]  
Arthur R., 2019, ARXIV190802520
[4]   Modularity and community detection in bipartite networks [J].
Barber, Michael J. .
PHYSICAL REVIEW E, 2007, 76 (06)
[5]   Improved community detection in weighted bipartite networks [J].
Beckett, Stephen J. .
ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE, 2016, 3 (01)
[6]   Fast unfolding of communities in large networks [J].
Blondel, Vincent D. ;
Guillaume, Jean-Loup ;
Lambiotte, Renaud ;
Lefebvre, Etienne .
JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL MECHANICS-THEORY AND EXPERIMENT, 2008,
[7]   Core of communities in bipartite networks [J].
Bongiorno, Christian ;
London, Andras ;
Micciche, Salvatore ;
Mantegna, Rosario N. .
PHYSICAL REVIEW E, 2017, 96 (02)
[8]   Are randomly grown graphs really random? art. no. 041902 [J].
Callaway, DS ;
Hopcroft, JE ;
Kleinberg, JM ;
Newman, MEJ ;
Strogatz, SH .
PHYSICAL REVIEW E, 2001, 64 (04) :7
[9]   Is it Correct to Project and Detect? Assessing Performance of Community Detection on Unipartite Projections of Bipartite Networks [J].
Cann, Tristan J. B. ;
Weaver, Iain S. ;
Williams, Hywel T. P. .
COMPLEX NETWORKS AND THEIR APPLICATIONS VII, VOL 1, 2019, 812 :267-279
[10]   A study on some urban bus transport networks [J].
Chen, Yong-Zhou ;
Li, Nan ;
He, Da-Ren .
PHYSICA A-STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS, 2007, 376 :747-754