pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.21216 · v2 · pith:XEMOXWF4new · submitted 2026-05-20 · 💻 cs.SI

ECHO-PPI: Trustworthy AI for Evidence-Bundled Detection of Overlapping Protein Modules in Protein-Protein Interaction Networks

Sima Soltani , Mehrdad Jalali , Yahya Forghani , Reza Sheybani This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 17:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SI
keywords protein-protein interaction networksoverlapping module detectioninterpretabilityevidence bundlingGene Ontologycommunity detectiontrustworthy AI
0
0 comments X

The pith

ECHO-PPI attaches topology, semantic and Gene Ontology evidence scores plus hierarchical confidence labels to each protein-module assignment in PPI networks.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces ECHO-PPI to detect overlapping protein modules while supplying per-assignment evidence from multiple sources. Current community detection recovers candidate modules yet leaves individual protein assignments without explanation or reliability ranking. ECHO-PPI combines weighted topology, semantic profiles, and Gene Ontology data to form evidence-potential nuclei, build modules, and assign proteins with bundled scores and confidence tiers. This turns opaque cluster outputs into inspectable, rankable predictions that curators can triage for downstream use. The evaluation on yeast data shows the method keeps baseline overlap performance while adding this audit layer.

Core claim

ECHO-PPI integrates weighted network topology, semantic protein profiles, and Gene Ontology evidence to identify evidence-potential nuclei, construct candidate modules, perform overlap-aware assignment, and export hierarchical confidence labels. The framework supports trustworthy computational decision support through assignment-level interpretability: each protein-module assignment is accompanied by topology, semantic, and Gene Ontology evidence scores and a hierarchical confidence label, enabling curators to inspect, rank, and triage overlapping module predictions.

What carries the argument

Evidence-potential nuclei that seed modules, followed by overlap-aware assignment exporting bundled topology, semantic and Gene Ontology scores together with hierarchical confidence labels for every protein-module pair.

If this is right

  • Overlapping module predictions remain competitive with strong baselines on yeast interaction data.
  • Each assignment carries explicit topology, semantic and Gene Ontology scores for inspection.
  • Hierarchical confidence labels allow ranking and triage of predictions by curators.
  • The outputs become reproducible and auditable for biological interpretation tasks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same evidence-bundling pattern could be applied to other noisy biological or social networks where assignments need audit trails.
  • Curators could use the confidence tiers to decide which modules receive priority for targeted wet-lab follow-up.
  • The framework illustrates a practical way to add interpretability without sacrificing the core overlap-detection capability.

Load-bearing premise

The integration of weighted network topology, semantic protein profiles, and Gene Ontology evidence produces biologically meaningful evidence-potential nuclei and overlap-aware assignments whose confidence labels reflect actual reliability rather than just internal consistency of the scoring rules.

What would settle it

Independent experiments that find no correlation between the exported hierarchical confidence labels and measured functional coherence or experimental validation success rates of the assigned modules would falsify the reliability claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.21216 by Mehrdad Jalali, Reza Sheybani, Sima Soltani, Yahya Forghani.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ECHO-PPI four-layer workflow. A weighted PPI input network is transformed into evidence-potential nucleus selection using topology, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ECHO-PPI four-layer workflow. A weighted PPI input network is transformed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Gavin benchmark comparison across F1, precision, and recall. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Candidate-source composition and held-out benchmark summary (candidate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Candidate-source composition and held-out benchmark sum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Gavin benchmark comparison across F1, precision, and recall. ClusterONE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Required-field evidence-bundle completeness. ECHO-PPI ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Required-field evidence-bundle completeness. ECHO-PPI exports complete [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Failure-mode ablation summary on full gold. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Precision–recall–size trade-off. Naive expansion occupies a high-size, low-F1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hierarchical confidence labels. Left: rule regions in topology– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Failure-mode ablation summary on full gold. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Confidence-label distribution across Gavin and Krogan. Label [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gavin and Krogan benchmark comparison. The second benchmark is used to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cached and uncached runtime comparison. Cached times as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Auditability transfer across Gavin and Krogan. Evidence-channel support [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Case study YKR018C: topology and semantic support across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hierarchical confidence labels. Left: rule regions in topology–semantic support [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Case study YIL161W: five modules with cytoplasmic GO sup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Confidence-label distribution across Gavin and Krogan. Label proportions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Diagnostic comparison of module sizes and gold-protein cover [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cached and uncached runtime comparison. Cached times assume pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Case study YKR018C: topology and semantic support across five modules [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Case study YIL161W: five modules with cytoplasmic GO support (inner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Diagnostic comparison of module sizes and gold-protein coverage for MCL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Recall on full gold: MCL versus core-only ablation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Protein-protein interaction networks provide a graph-level view of cellular organization, yet their functional modules are overlapping, noisy, and difficult to interpret from cluster assignments alone. Existing community-detection methods can recover candidate protein complexes, but they rarely explain why an individual protein is assigned to a specific module or whether that assignment should be treated as core, peripheral, or uncertain. Here we introduce ECHO-PPI, an evidence-bundled framework for interpretable overlapping protein-module detection in protein-protein interaction networks. ECHO-PPI integrates weighted network topology, semantic protein profiles, and Gene Ontology evidence to identify evidence-potential nuclei, construct candidate modules, perform overlap-aware assignment, and export hierarchical confidence labels. The framework supports trustworthy computational decision support through assignment-level interpretability: each protein-module assignment is accompanied by topology, semantic, and Gene Ontology evidence scores and a hierarchical confidence label, enabling curators to inspect, rank, and triage overlapping module predictions. Evaluation on yeast protein-interaction data shows that ECHO-PPI preserves the behaviour of strong overlap-aware baselines while adding evidence-bundled auditability. Rather than claiming universal predictive superiority, ECHO-PPI addresses a complementary need: making overlapping protein-module predictions inspectable, confidence-aware, and reproducible for downstream biological interpretation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents ECHO-PPI, an evidence-bundled framework for interpretable overlapping protein-module detection in PPI networks. It integrates weighted network topology, semantic protein profiles, and Gene Ontology evidence to identify evidence-potential nuclei, construct candidate modules, perform overlap-aware assignment, and export hierarchical confidence labels. The central claim is that this assignment-level interpretability (topology, semantic, and GO evidence scores plus confidence labels) enables trustworthy curator triage and decision support while preserving the behavior of strong overlap-aware baselines on yeast data, without claiming universal predictive superiority.

Significance. If the integrated evidence scores and hierarchical labels are externally validated, the work addresses a genuine practical gap in network module detection by prioritizing inspectability and auditability over raw accuracy gains. This complementary focus on reproducible, confidence-aware outputs is a strength for downstream biological use.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that evaluation on yeast data 'preserves the behaviour of strong overlap-aware baselines while adding evidence-bundled auditability' supplies no quantitative metrics, comparison tables, error analysis, or derivation of the evidence scores. This is load-bearing for the trustworthiness claim, as it leaves unverified whether the interpretability layer maintains detection quality.
  2. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: no calibration, correlation with gold-standard complexes, or curator study is described to test whether hierarchical confidence labels reflect actual biological reliability rather than internal consistency of the three evidence sources. This directly affects the central claim that the labels enable trustworthy triage.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The term 'evidence-potential nuclei' is introduced in the abstract without a concise definition or pointer to its algorithmic formalization.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments highlighting the need for clearer quantitative support in the abstract and stronger validation of the confidence labels. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to better substantiate the interpretability claims while remaining accurate about the scope of our evaluation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that evaluation on yeast data 'preserves the behaviour of strong overlap-aware baselines while adding evidence-bundled auditability' supplies no quantitative metrics, comparison tables, error analysis, or derivation of the evidence scores. This is load-bearing for the trustworthiness claim, as it leaves unverified whether the interpretability layer maintains detection quality.

    Authors: We agree the abstract is too terse on this point. The full evaluation section reports quantitative results on yeast PPI data, including preservation of overlap-aware performance metrics (e.g., comparable F1 and coverage scores to strong baselines such as ClusterONE and LinkComm) alongside the added evidence scores. We will revise the abstract to include a concise summary of these metrics and note that evidence-score derivation is detailed in Methods. This change will make the preservation claim verifiable directly from the abstract without altering the paper's emphasis on auditability rather than superiority. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: no calibration, correlation with gold-standard complexes, or curator study is described to test whether hierarchical confidence labels reflect actual biological reliability rather than internal consistency of the three evidence sources. This directly affects the central claim that the labels enable trustworthy triage.

    Authors: The labels are explicitly defined as an aggregation of the three internal evidence sources (topology, semantic profiles, GO), so they measure evidential support and consistency rather than external biological ground truth. We acknowledge that additional calibration against gold-standard complexes or a curator study would provide stronger external validation for the triage claim. In revision we will (i) add a correlation analysis between confidence labels and known yeast complexes where data are available and (ii) explicitly discuss this as a limitation, positioning external validation as future work. A full curator study lies outside the current scope and resources. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; framework is an integration without self-referential derivations

full rationale

The provided abstract and description present ECHO-PPI as an integration of weighted network topology, semantic profiles, and Gene Ontology evidence to produce nuclei, modules, assignments, and confidence labels. No equations, fitted parameters, self-citations, or uniqueness theorems are described. The evaluation claim is that it preserves baseline behavior while adding auditability on yeast data, with no reduction of any prediction or label to internal arithmetic by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained as a composite method rather than a closed loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

Abstract-only review limits visibility into parameters; framework implicitly relies on domain assumptions about evidence validity and introduces at least one new construct.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Gene Ontology annotations provide independent evidence that can be combined with network topology to assess module assignment quality
    Invoked when the framework exports GO evidence scores as part of the interpretability output.
invented entities (1)
  • evidence-potential nuclei no independent evidence
    purpose: Seed points for constructing candidate overlapping modules
    New term introduced to describe the initial step of the pipeline; no independent evidence supplied in abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5770 in / 1247 out tokens · 27555 ms · 2026-06-30T17:04:56.465896+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Evidence-Aware Protein Complex Detection: Methods, Benchmarks, and Reproducibility Challenges

    cs.SI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    A methodological review of post-2018 evidence-aware protein complex detection methods concludes that transparent graph-based approaches offer the best plausibility-reproducibility tradeoff while calling for harmonized...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    String v11: protein–protein association networks with increased coverage,

    D. Szklarczyk, A. L. Gable, D. Lyonet al., “String v11: protein–protein association networks with increased coverage,”Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 47, no. D1, pp. D607–D613, 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    Proteome survey reveals modularity of the yeast cell machinery,

    A.-C. Gavin, P. Aloy, P. Grandiet al., “Proteome survey reveals modularity of the yeast cell machinery,”Nature, vol. 440, no. 7084, pp. 631–636, 2006

    2006

  3. [3]

    Global landscape of protein complexes in the yeastSaccharomyces cerevisiae,

    N. J. Krogan, G. Cagney, H. Yuet al., “Global landscape of protein complexes in the yeastSaccharomyces cerevisiae,”Nature, vol. 440, no. 7084, pp. 637–643, 2006

    2006

  4. [4]

    The EBI Complex Portal: a resource of macromolecular complexes,

    B. H. M. Meldal, H. Bye-A-Jee, L. Gajdoˇ set al., “The EBI Complex Portal: a resource of macromolecular complexes,”Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 50, no. D1, pp. D578–D586, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Uncovering the overlapping com- munity structure of complex networks in nature and society,

    G. Palla, I. Der´ enyi, I. J. Farkas, and T. Vicsek, “Uncovering the overlapping com- munity structure of complex networks in nature and society,”Nature, vol. 435, no. 7043, pp. 814–818, 2005

    2005

  6. [6]

    Link communities reveal multiscale complexity in networks,

    Y.-Y. Ahn, J. P. Bagrow, and S. Lehmann, “Link communities reveal multiscale complexity in networks,”Nature, vol. 466, no. 7307, pp. 761–764, 2010

    2010

  7. [7]

    Graph clustering by flow simulation,

    S. van Dongen, “Graph clustering by flow simulation,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht, 2000

    2000

  8. [8]

    An efficient algorithm for large-scale detection of protein families,

    A. J. Enright, S. Van Dongen, and C. A. Ouzounis, “An efficient algorithm for large-scale detection of protein families,”Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 1575–1584, 2002

    2002

  9. [9]

    CFinder: locating cliques and overlapping modules in biological networks,

    B. Adamcsek, G. Palla, I. J. Farkas, I. Der´ enyi, and T. Vicsek, “CFinder: locating cliques and overlapping modules in biological networks,”Bioinformatics, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 1021–1023, 2006. 28

    2006

  10. [10]

    Detecting overlapping protein complexes from protein–protein interaction networks,

    T. Nepusz, H. Yu, and A. Paccanaro, “Detecting overlapping protein complexes from protein–protein interaction networks,”Bioinformatics, vol. 28, no. 18, pp. i429–i437, 2012

    2012

  11. [11]

    An automated method for finding molecular complexes in large protein interaction networks,

    G. D. Bader and C. W. V. Hogue, “An automated method for finding molecular complexes in large protein interaction networks,”BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 4, p. 2, 2003

    2003

  12. [12]

    Sentence-BERT: Sentence embeddings using siamese BERT-networks,

    N. Reimers and I. Gurevych, “Sentence-BERT: Sentence embeddings using siamese BERT-networks,” inProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2019, pp. 3982–3992

    2019

  13. [13]

    Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology,

    M. Ashburner, C. A. Ball, J. A. Blakeet al., “Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology,”Nature Genetics, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 25–29, 2000

    2000

  14. [14]

    The gene ontology resource: enriching a GOLD mine,

    G. O. Consortiumet al., “The gene ontology resource: enriching a GOLD mine,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 49, no. D1, pp. D325–D334, 2021

    2021

  15. [15]

    The black hole strategy: Gravity-based representative sampling for frugal graph learning on metal–organic framework networks,

    M. Jalali, A. D. D. Wonanke, P. Friederich, and C. W¨ oll, “The black hole strategy: Gravity-based representative sampling for frugal graph learning on metal–organic framework networks,”Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 65, no. 20, pp. 10 885–10 902, 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein–protein interactions,

    C. von Mering, R. Krause, B. Snel, M. Cornell, S. G. Oliver, S. Fields, and P. Bork, “Comparative assessment of large-scale data sets of protein–protein interactions,” Nature, vol. 417, no. 6887, pp. 399–403, 2002

    2002

  17. [17]

    BioGRID: a general repository for interaction datasets,

    C. Stark, B.-J. Breitkreutz, T. Reguly, L. Boucher, A. Breitkreutz, and M. Tyers, “BioGRID: a general repository for interaction datasets,”Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 34, no. Database issue, pp. D535–D539, 2006

    2006

  18. [18]

    Up-to-date catalogues of yeast protein complexes,

    S. Pu, J. Wong, B. Turner, E. Cho, and S. J. Wodak, “Up-to-date catalogues of yeast protein complexes,”Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 825–831, 2009

    2009

  19. [19]

    CORUM: the comprehensive resource of mammalian protein complexes–2019,

    M. Giurgiu, J. Reinhard, B. Brauner, I. Dunger-Kaltenbach, G. Fobo, G. Frishman, C. Montrone, and A. Ruepp, “CORUM: the comprehensive resource of mammalian protein complexes–2019,”Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 47, no. D1, pp. D559–D563, 2019

    2019

  20. [20]

    Evaluation of clustering algorithms for protein–protein interaction networks,

    S. Brohee and J. van Helden, “Evaluation of clustering algorithms for protein–protein interaction networks,”BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 7, p. 488, 2006

    2006

  21. [21]

    Evaluation of network cluster- ing methods for protein–protein interaction networks,

    S. Pu, J. Wong, B. Turner, E. Cho, and S. J. Wodak, “Evaluation of network cluster- ing methods for protein–protein interaction networks,”BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 20, p. 58, 2019

    2019

  22. [22]

    A review on efficient and scalable graph-based clustering algorithms for protein complex identification in PPI networks,

    S. Patra and T. R. Sahoo, “A review on efficient and scalable graph-based clustering algorithms for protein complex identification in PPI networks,”Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, vol. 94, pp. 477–501, 2026. 29

    2026

  23. [23]

    PRING: Rethinking protein-protein interaction prediction from pairs to graphs,

    X. Zheng, H. Du, F. Xu, J. Li, Z. Liu, W. Wang, T. Chen, W. Ouyang, S. Z. Li, Y. Lu, N. Dong, and Y. Zhang, “PRING: Rethinking protein-protein interaction prediction from pairs to graphs,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2025

    2025

  24. [24]

    Fast unfolding of communities in large networks,

    V. D. Blondel, J.-L. Guillaume, R. Lambiotte, and E. Lefebvre, “Fast unfolding of communities in large networks,”Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, vol. 2008, no. 10, p. P10008, 2008

    2008

  25. [25]

    From Louvain to Leiden: guaranteeing well-connected communities,

    V. A. Traag, L. Waltman, and N. J. van Eck, “From Louvain to Leiden: guaranteeing well-connected communities,”Scientific Reports, vol. 9, p. 5233, 2019

    2019

  26. [26]

    Detecting the overlapping and hier- archical community structure in complex networks,

    A. Lancichinetti, S. Fortunato, and J. Kert´ esz, “Detecting the overlapping and hier- archical community structure in complex networks,”New Journal of Physics, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 033015, 2009

    2009

  27. [27]

    SLPA: Uncovering overlapping communities in social networks via a speaker-listener interaction dynamic process,

    J. Xie, B. K. Szymanski, and X. Liu, “SLPA: Uncovering overlapping communities in social networks via a speaker-listener interaction dynamic process,” inProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, 2011, pp. 344–349

    2011

  28. [28]

    Extending the definition of modularity to directed graphs with overlapping communities,

    V. Nicosia, G. Mangioni, V. Carchiolo, and M. Malgeri, “Extending the definition of modularity to directed graphs with overlapping communities,”Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, vol. 2009, no. 03, p. P03024, 2009

    2009

  29. [29]

    RDS: A ReCIPE for overlap- ping community detection in biological networks,

    F. Ocitti, C. Versavel, S. Sledzieski, and L. Cowen, “RDS: A ReCIPE for overlap- ping community detection in biological networks,” inProceedings of the 16th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, and Health In- formatics, 2025, pp. 1–6

    2025

  30. [30]

    A survey on overlapping community detection: label propagation,

    S. Goswami and A. K. Singh, “A survey on overlapping community detection: label propagation,”Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 84, pp. 32 563–32 592, 2025

    2025

  31. [31]

    Overlapping community detection with a new modularity measure in directed weighted networks,

    A. Kumar, A. Kumari, P. Kumar, and R. Dohare, “Overlapping community detection with a new modularity measure in directed weighted networks,”Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 39, no. 6, p. 77, 2025

    2025

  32. [32]

    Exploiting indirect neighbours and topo- logical weight to predict protein function from protein–protein interactions,

    H. N. Chua, W.-K. Sung, and L. Wong, “Exploiting indirect neighbours and topo- logical weight to predict protein function from protein–protein interactions,”Bioin- formatics, vol. 22, no. 13, pp. 1623–1630, 2006

    2006

  33. [33]

    Improving the performance of evolutionary- based complex detection models using gene ontology-based mutation operator in protein-protein interaction networks,

    M. Abbas, D. Broneske, and G. Saake, “Improving the performance of evolutionary- based complex detection models using gene ontology-based mutation operator in protein-protein interaction networks,” inIntelligent Systems and Applications, ser. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, K. Arai, Ed. Cham: Springer, 2025, vol. 1553, pp. 512–528

    2025

  34. [34]

    A novel GAER-GMM framework for overlapping protein complex detection in protein interaction networks,

    J. Tu, R. Li, X. Gao, and L. Ma, “A novel GAER-GMM framework for overlapping protein complex detection in protein interaction networks,”IEEE Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 3486–3499, 2025. 30

    2025

  35. [35]

    On the permanence of vertices in network communities,

    T. Chakraborty, S. Srinivasan, N. Ganguly, A. Mukherjee, and S. Bhowmick, “On the permanence of vertices in network communities,” inProceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2014, pp. 1396–1405. 31

    2014