RECORD
Community Detection via Maximization of Modularity and Its Variants
Physics and Society · Submitted 2 Jul 2015
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review
The authors' main claim The results indicate that Fine-tuned Qds is the most effective among the three algorithms discussed.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
Open the compiled record
The abstract, sentence by sentence
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 of them, referred to as Fine-tuned Q, is based on modularity (Q) while the second one is based on Modularity Density (Qds) and denoted as Fine-tuned Qds. Then, we compare the greedy algorithm of modularity maximization (denoted as Greedy Q), Fine-tuned Q, and Fine-tuned Qds 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 Qds is the most effective among the three algorithms discussed. Moreover, we show that Fine-tuned Qds can be applied to the communities detected by other algorithms to significantly improve their results.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | 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. | background 0.70 | 0.33 | 0.02 | asserted 0.70 |
| s1 | 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). | background 0.93 | 0.09 | 0.02 | asserted 0.80 |
| s2 | 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. | background 0.68 | 0.13 | 0.06 | asserted 0.98 |
| s3 | 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. | contribution 0.83 | 0.88 | 0.04 | asserted 0.96 |
| s4 | The first of them, referred to as Fine-tuned Q, is based on modularity (Q) while the second one is based on Modularity Density (Qds) and denoted as Fine-tuned Qds. | contribution 0.55 | 0.82 | 0.03 | asserted 0.98 |
| s5 | Then, we compare the greedy algorithm of modularity maximization (denoted as Greedy Q), Fine-tuned Q, and Fine-tuned Qds 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. | method 0.96 | 0.93 | 0.03 | asserted 0.76 |
| s6 | The results indicate that Fine-tuned Qds is the most effective among the three algorithms discussed. | result 0.99 | 0.95 | 0.76 | asserted 0.53 |
| s7 | Moreover, we show that Fine-tuned Qds can be applied to the communities detected by other algorithms to significantly improve their results. | result 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.15 | asserted 1.00 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v1
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
The paper
Original abstract
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 of them, referred to as Fine-tuned Q, is based on modularity (Q) while the second one is based on Modularity Density (Qds) and denoted as Fine-tuned Qds. Then, we compare the greedy algorithm of modularity maximization (denoted as Greedy Q), Fine-tuned Q, and Fine-tuned Qds 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 Qds is the most effective among the three algorithms discussed. Moreover, we show that Fine-tuned Qds can be applied to the communities detected by other algorithms to significantly improve their results.
Human review
Discussion
Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.