This document discusses two key problems with modularity-based community detection in networks: incomparability and resolution limit. The modularity measure cannot reliably distinguish between networks with genuine communities and networks with no communities. Additionally, the size of communities detected depends on the overall network size, so smaller true communities may not be detected in large networks. The document provides examples of networks where modularity fails to identify the true partition into communities.
GraphFrames: DataFrame-based graphs for Apache® Spark™Databricks
These slides support the GraphFrames: DataFrame-based graphs for Apache Spark webinar. In this webinar, the developers of the GraphFrames package will give an overview, a live demo, and a discussion of design decisions and future plans. This talk will be generally accessible, covering major improvements from GraphX and providing resources for getting started. A running example of analyzing flight delays will be used to explain the range of GraphFrame functionality: simple SQL and graph queries, motif finding, and powerful graph algorithms.
GraphFrames: DataFrame-based graphs for Apache® Spark™Databricks
These slides support the GraphFrames: DataFrame-based graphs for Apache Spark webinar. In this webinar, the developers of the GraphFrames package will give an overview, a live demo, and a discussion of design decisions and future plans. This talk will be generally accessible, covering major improvements from GraphX and providing resources for getting started. A running example of analyzing flight delays will be used to explain the range of GraphFrame functionality: simple SQL and graph queries, motif finding, and powerful graph algorithms.
Polarization and consensus in citation networksVincent Traag
How to measure polarization or consensus in citation networks? Can we use community detection to uncover consensus?
Presentation given at CWTS, 17 June 2015
Earliest Galaxies in the JADES Origins Field: Luminosity Function and Cosmic ...Sérgio Sacani
We characterize the earliest galaxy population in the JADES Origins Field (JOF), the deepest
imaging field observed with JWST. We make use of the ancillary Hubble optical images (5 filters
spanning 0.4−0.9µm) and novel JWST images with 14 filters spanning 0.8−5µm, including 7 mediumband filters, and reaching total exposure times of up to 46 hours per filter. We combine all our data
at > 2.3µm to construct an ultradeep image, reaching as deep as ≈ 31.4 AB mag in the stack and
30.3-31.0 AB mag (5σ, r = 0.1” circular aperture) in individual filters. We measure photometric
redshifts and use robust selection criteria to identify a sample of eight galaxy candidates at redshifts
z = 11.5 − 15. These objects show compact half-light radii of R1/2 ∼ 50 − 200pc, stellar masses of
M⋆ ∼ 107−108M⊙, and star-formation rates of SFR ∼ 0.1−1 M⊙ yr−1
. Our search finds no candidates
at 15 < z < 20, placing upper limits at these redshifts. We develop a forward modeling approach to
infer the properties of the evolving luminosity function without binning in redshift or luminosity that
marginalizes over the photometric redshift uncertainty of our candidate galaxies and incorporates the
impact of non-detections. We find a z = 12 luminosity function in good agreement with prior results,
and that the luminosity function normalization and UV luminosity density decline by a factor of ∼ 2.5
from z = 12 to z = 14. We discuss the possible implications of our results in the context of theoretical
models for evolution of the dark matter halo mass function.
Polarization and consensus in citation networksVincent Traag
How to measure polarization or consensus in citation networks? Can we use community detection to uncover consensus?
Presentation given at CWTS, 17 June 2015
Earliest Galaxies in the JADES Origins Field: Luminosity Function and Cosmic ...Sérgio Sacani
We characterize the earliest galaxy population in the JADES Origins Field (JOF), the deepest
imaging field observed with JWST. We make use of the ancillary Hubble optical images (5 filters
spanning 0.4−0.9µm) and novel JWST images with 14 filters spanning 0.8−5µm, including 7 mediumband filters, and reaching total exposure times of up to 46 hours per filter. We combine all our data
at > 2.3µm to construct an ultradeep image, reaching as deep as ≈ 31.4 AB mag in the stack and
30.3-31.0 AB mag (5σ, r = 0.1” circular aperture) in individual filters. We measure photometric
redshifts and use robust selection criteria to identify a sample of eight galaxy candidates at redshifts
z = 11.5 − 15. These objects show compact half-light radii of R1/2 ∼ 50 − 200pc, stellar masses of
M⋆ ∼ 107−108M⊙, and star-formation rates of SFR ∼ 0.1−1 M⊙ yr−1
. Our search finds no candidates
at 15 < z < 20, placing upper limits at these redshifts. We develop a forward modeling approach to
infer the properties of the evolving luminosity function without binning in redshift or luminosity that
marginalizes over the photometric redshift uncertainty of our candidate galaxies and incorporates the
impact of non-detections. We find a z = 12 luminosity function in good agreement with prior results,
and that the luminosity function normalization and UV luminosity density decline by a factor of ∼ 2.5
from z = 12 to z = 14. We discuss the possible implications of our results in the context of theoretical
models for evolution of the dark matter halo mass function.
Comparing Evolved Extractive Text Summary Scores of Bidirectional Encoder Rep...University of Maribor
Slides from:
11th International Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Computer Engineering (IcETRAN), Niš, 3-6 June 2024
Track: Artificial Intelligence
https://www.etran.rs/2024/en/home-english/
Observation of Io’s Resurfacing via Plume Deposition Using Ground-based Adapt...Sérgio Sacani
Since volcanic activity was first discovered on Io from Voyager images in 1979, changes
on Io’s surface have been monitored from both spacecraft and ground-based telescopes.
Here, we present the highest spatial resolution images of Io ever obtained from a groundbased telescope. These images, acquired by the SHARK-VIS instrument on the Large
Binocular Telescope, show evidence of a major resurfacing event on Io’s trailing hemisphere. When compared to the most recent spacecraft images, the SHARK-VIS images
show that a plume deposit from a powerful eruption at Pillan Patera has covered part
of the long-lived Pele plume deposit. Although this type of resurfacing event may be common on Io, few have been detected due to the rarity of spacecraft visits and the previously low spatial resolution available from Earth-based telescopes. The SHARK-VIS instrument ushers in a new era of high resolution imaging of Io’s surface using adaptive
optics at visible wavelengths.
DERIVATION OF MODIFIED BERNOULLI EQUATION WITH VISCOUS EFFECTS AND TERMINAL V...Wasswaderrick3
In this book, we use conservation of energy techniques on a fluid element to derive the Modified Bernoulli equation of flow with viscous or friction effects. We derive the general equation of flow/ velocity and then from this we derive the Pouiselle flow equation, the transition flow equation and the turbulent flow equation. In the situations where there are no viscous effects , the equation reduces to the Bernoulli equation. From experimental results, we are able to include other terms in the Bernoulli equation. We also look at cases where pressure gradients exist. We use the Modified Bernoulli equation to derive equations of flow rate for pipes of different cross sectional areas connected together. We also extend our techniques of energy conservation to a sphere falling in a viscous medium under the effect of gravity. We demonstrate Stokes equation of terminal velocity and turbulent flow equation. We look at a way of calculating the time taken for a body to fall in a viscous medium. We also look at the general equation of terminal velocity.
Remote Sensing and Computational, Evolutionary, Supercomputing, and Intellige...University of Maribor
Slides from talk:
Aleš Zamuda: Remote Sensing and Computational, Evolutionary, Supercomputing, and Intelligent Systems.
11th International Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Computer Engineering (IcETRAN), Niš, 3-6 June 2024
Inter-Society Networking Panel GRSS/MTT-S/CIS Panel Session: Promoting Connection and Cooperation
https://www.etran.rs/2024/en/home-english/
Professional air quality monitoring systems provide immediate, on-site data for analysis, compliance, and decision-making.
Monitor common gases, weather parameters, particulates.
Deep Behavioral Phenotyping in Systems Neuroscience for Functional Atlasing a...Ana Luísa Pinho
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) provides means to characterize brain activations in response to behavior. However, cognitive neuroscience has been limited to group-level effects referring to the performance of specific tasks. To obtain the functional profile of elementary cognitive mechanisms, the combination of brain responses to many tasks is required. Yet, to date, both structural atlases and parcellation-based activations do not fully account for cognitive function and still present several limitations. Further, they do not adapt overall to individual characteristics. In this talk, I will give an account of deep-behavioral phenotyping strategies, namely data-driven methods in large task-fMRI datasets, to optimize functional brain-data collection and improve inference of effects-of-interest related to mental processes. Key to this approach is the employment of fast multi-functional paradigms rich on features that can be well parametrized and, consequently, facilitate the creation of psycho-physiological constructs to be modelled with imaging data. Particular emphasis will be given to music stimuli when studying high-order cognitive mechanisms, due to their ecological nature and quality to enable complex behavior compounded by discrete entities. I will also discuss how deep-behavioral phenotyping and individualized models applied to neuroimaging data can better account for the subject-specific organization of domain-general cognitive systems in the human brain. Finally, the accumulation of functional brain signatures brings the possibility to clarify relationships among tasks and create a univocal link between brain systems and mental functions through: (1) the development of ontologies proposing an organization of cognitive processes; and (2) brain-network taxonomies describing functional specialization. To this end, tools to improve commensurability in cognitive science are necessary, such as public repositories, ontology-based platforms and automated meta-analysis tools. I will thus discuss some brain-atlasing resources currently under development, and their applicability in cognitive as well as clinical neuroscience.
Richard's aventures in two entangled wonderlandsRichard Gill
Since the loophole-free Bell experiments of 2020 and the Nobel prizes in physics of 2022, critics of Bell's work have retreated to the fortress of super-determinism. Now, super-determinism is a derogatory word - it just means "determinism". Palmer, Hance and Hossenfelder argue that quantum mechanics and determinism are not incompatible, using a sophisticated mathematical construction based on a subtle thinning of allowed states and measurements in quantum mechanics, such that what is left appears to make Bell's argument fail, without altering the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics. I think however that it is a smoke screen, and the slogan "lost in math" comes to my mind. I will discuss some other recent disproofs of Bell's theorem using the language of causality based on causal graphs. Causal thinking is also central to law and justice. I will mention surprising connections to my work on serial killer nurse cases, in particular the Dutch case of Lucia de Berk and the current UK case of Lucy Letby.
1. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Limits of community detection
V.A. Traag1, P. Van Dooren1, Y.E. Nesterov2
1ICTEAM
Universit´e Catholique de Louvain
2CORE
Universit´e Catholique de Louvain
20 March 2012
2. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Modularity
3 Problem 1: Incomparability
4 Problem 2: Resolution-limit
5 Resolution-limit-free
3. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Modularity
3 Problem 1: Incomparability
4 Problem 2: Resolution-limit
5 Resolution-limit-free
4. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Understanding Networks
Facebook (2011)
5. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Understanding Networks
Facebook (2011)
6. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Understanding Networks
Blogosphere Presidential Election (2004)
7. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Understanding Networks
Aad Kosto
Ab Klink
Abraham Kuyper
Abu Nuwas
Ad Melkert
Adri Duivesteijn
AEL
Afshin Ellian Ahmed Aboutaleb
Ahmet Daskapan
Aisha
AIVD
Ali B.
Ali Lazrak
Ali Madanipour
Al-Qaeda
Amin Saikal
Amitai Etzioni
Anil Ramdas
Anita Bocker
Annelies Verstand
Anne-Ruth Wertheim
Anton Zijderveld
Arie Slob
Arie van der Zwan
Arie van Deursen
Aristoteles
Averroes
Avicenna
Avishai Margalit
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Ayatolah Khomeini
Bart Jan Spruyt
Bart Tromp
Bas Heijne
Bas van Stokkom
Bernard Lewis
Bert Middel
Bertrand Russell
Bert Wagendorp
Betsy Udink
Osama Bin Laden
Britta Bohler
Camiel Eurlings
CDA
CIDI
Claude Lefort
Claude Steele
Commissie Blok
Commissie-Stasi
Commissie van Montfrans
CPBD66
Daniel Garrison Brinton
David Brooks
David Lilienthal
David Pryce-Jones
De Volkskrant
Dick Cheney
Dick de Ruijter
Dick Pels
Dick van Eijk
Dietrich Thranhardt
Driss el Boujoufi
Dyab Abou Jahjah
Ebru Umar
Ed Leuw
Edmund Burke
Edward Said
Een Ander Joods Geluid
Ella Kalsbeek
Elsbeth Etty
Els Borst
Erasmus
Erica Terpstra
Erik Snel
Ernest Renan
Fadima Orgu
Fatima Elatik
Fatma Katirci
Federatie Nederlandse Zionisten
Femke Halsema
FNV
Fokke Obbema
Forum
Freek de Jonge
Frits Bolkestein
Frits van veen
Frits WesterFuad Hussein
Gabriel van den Brink
Geert Mak
Geert Wilders
George W. Bush
Gerard de Vries
Gerard Smink
Gerard Spong
Gerrit Zalm
Gijs Weenink
Gilles Kepel
Groen Links
Haci Karacaer
Hafid Bouazza
Halim El Madkouri
Han Entzinger
Hans Boutellier
Hans Dijkstal
Hans Janmaat
Hans Siebers
Hans Visser
Harry van Doorn
Hendrik Colijn
Henk Doll
Herbert Gans
Herman Philipse
Herman Vuijsje
Hilbrand Nawijn
H.J.A. Hofland
Hoge Commissariaat voor Vluchtelingen
Hugo Brandt Corstius
Human Development Report
Ian Buruma
Ibn Hazam
Ibn Warraq
Ilhan Akel
imam El-Moumni
Immanuel Kant
Irshad Manji
Ivo Opstelten
Jacob Kohnstamm
Jaco Dagevos
Jacqueline Costa-Lascoux
Jacqueline Draaijer
Jacques Wallage
James C. Kennedy
Jan Beerenhout
Jan Blokker
Jan BrugmanJan Drentje
Jan Jacob Slauerhoff
Jan-Peter Balkendende
Jan Pronk
Jan Rijpstra
Jan Schaefer
Jantine Nipius
Jantine Oldersma
Jan Willem Duyvendak
Jean Tillie
Jefferson
Jelle van der Meer
Jerome Heldring
Job Cohen
Johan Norberg
Johan Remkes
John Coetzee
John Gray
John Jansen van galen
John Leerdam
John Mollenkopf
John Stuart Mill
Jola Jakson
Joodse Gemeente Amsterdam
Joods Journaal
Joost Eerdmans
Joost Niemoller
Joost Zwagerman
Jorg Haider
Jos de Beus
Jos de Mul
Jozias van Aartsen
Justus Veenman
Jytte Klausen
Kader Abdollah
Karel van het Reve
Karen Adelmund
Kees van der Staaij
Kees van Kooten
Kees Vendrik
Khalifa
KMAN
Kohnstamm Instituut
Kohnstamm-rapport
Laurent Chambon
Leefbaar Rotterdam
Leo Lucassen
Likud Nederland
LPF
Maarten Huygen
Malcolm X
Mansour Khalid
Marc de Kessel
Marcel van Dam
Marco Borsato
Marco Pastors
Maria van der Hoeven
Marijke Vos
Marion van San
Mark Bovens
Marlite Halbertsma
Martien Kromwijk
Martin Luther
Maududi
Maurits Berger
Maxime Verhagen
Meindert Fennema
Menno Hurenkamp
Micha de Winter
Michele de Waard
Michele Tribalat
Milli Gorus
Mimount Bousakla
Mirjam de Rijk
Mohammed Arkoun
Mohammed Benzakour
Mohammed Cheppih
Mohammed Iqbal
Mohammed Reza Pahlavi
Mohammed Sini
Naema Tahir
Naima Elmaslouhi
Nazih Ayubi
Nazmiye Oral
NCB
Neal Ascherson
Nebahat Albayrak
Nico de Haas
Nico van Nimwegen
Nieuw Israelitisch Weekblad
Norman Podhoretz
Nout Wellink
NRC Handelsblad
Olivier Roy
Orhan Pamuk
Oscar Garschagen
Oscar Hammerstein
Osdorp Posse
Paul Cliteur
Paul de Beer
Paul Gerbrands
Pauline Meurs
Paul Meurs
Paul Rosenmuller
Paul Scheffer
Paul Schnabel
Peter Langendam
Peter Smit
Pierre Bourdieu
Pierre Heijnen
Pieter Lakeman
Piet Hein Donner
Pim Fortuyn
PPR
President Eisenhower
Prinses Maxima
Profeet Mohammed
Professor Peters
PvdA
Qotb
Ramsey Nasr
Renate Rubinstein
Rene Cuperus
RIAGG
Ria van Gils
Rita Verdonk
Rob Oudkerk
Roger van Boxtel
Ronald van Raak
Rudy Kousbroek
Ruud Koopmans
Ruud Lubbers
Saddam Hussein
Said Benayad
Salman Rushdie
Samuel Huntington
Schelto Patijn
SCP
Senay Ozdemir
Shervin Nekuee
Shukri
Silvio Berlusconi
Simone van der Burg
SISWO
Sjaak van der Tak
Sjeik Ahmed Yassin
Sjoerd de Jong
Soedish Verhoeven
SP
Spinoza
Stef Blok
Susan Moller Okin
S.W. Couwenberg
Sylvain Ephimenco
Tara Singh Varma
Theodor Adorno
Theo van Gogh
Theo Veenkamp
Thijs WoltgensThorbecke
Timothy Garton Ash
Tiny Cox
Tony Blair
Tzvetan Todorov
Van Montfrans
Vlaams Blok
VN Committee for elimination of all forms of racism
Volkert van der Graaf
VVD
VVN
Wasif Shadid
Werner Schiffauer
Wiardi Beckman Stichting
Willem Vermeend
Wim de Bie
Wim Kok
Wim Willems
Wouter bos
WRR
WRR 1989
WRR 2001
WRR 2003
Yucel Yesilgoz
Zekeriya Gumus
Zeki Arslan
Dutch Debate on Integration (2002-04),
8. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Community Detection
• Detect ‘natural’ communities in networks
• Basic idea: ‘relatively’ many links inside communities
9. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Modularity
3 Problem 1: Incomparability
4 Problem 2: Resolution-limit
5 Resolution-limit-free
10. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
First principle approach
• Reward “good” links, penalize “bad” links.
• Assume contribution for links within and between are equal.
• Simplifies to only internal links.
Present Missing
Within + −
Between − +
Link present or missing?
Link within or
between community?
Reward (+) or
Penalize (−)
11. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
First principle approach
• Reward “good” links, penalize “bad” links.
• Assume contribution for links within and between are equal.
• Simplifies to only internal links.
Aij = 1 Aij = 0
δij = 1 aij −bij
δij = 0 −cij dij
Link present or missing?
Link within or
between community?
Reward (+) or
Penalize (−)
12. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
First principle approach
• Reward “good” links, penalize “bad” links.
• Assume contribution for links within and between are equal.
• Simplifies to only internal links.
Aij = 1 Aij = 0
δij = 1 aij −bij
δij = 0 −aij bij
Link present or missing?
Link within or
between community?
Reward (+) or
Penalize (−)
13. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
First principle approach
• Reward “good” links, penalize “bad” links.
• Assume contribution for links within and between are equal.
• Simplifies to only internal links.
Objective function
H = −
ij
(aij Aij −bij (1 − Aij )) δij
14. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Null-model
Objective function
H = −
ij
(aij Aij −bij (1 − Aij )) δij
• Introduce weights aij = 1 − γRBpij and bij = γRBpij .
• Null-model pij , constrained by ij pij = 2m.
• Parameter γ known as resolution parameter:
Higher γ ⇒ smaller communities.
Lower γ ⇒ larger communities.
• Leads to HRB = −
ij
(Aij − γpij ) δij .
15. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Configuration Null-model
Reichard-Bornholdt objective function
HRB = −
ij
(Aij − γpij ) δij
• Rewire links, but keep degrees unchanged
• Probability link between i and j is then pij =
ki kj
2m .
i jki kj
16. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Configuration Null-model
Reichard-Bornholdt objective function
HRB = −
ij
(Aij − γpij ) δij
• Rewire links, but keep degrees unchanged
• Probability link between i and j is then pij =
ki kj
2m .
i jki kj
γ = 1 leads to modularity Q =
1
2m
ij
Aij −
ki kj
2m
δij ∼ −H.
17. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Basic properties
Modularity
Q =
1
2m
ij
Aij −
ki kj
2m
δij
• Normalized: between −1 (bad partition) and 1 (good partition).
• Trivial partitions have modularity Q = 0.
• No community consists of a single node.
• Each community is internally connected.
• Modularity maximization is NP-complete.
18. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Modularity
3 Problem 1: Incomparability
4 Problem 2: Resolution-limit
5 Resolution-limit-free
19. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Examples: grid
Modularity tends to 1.
20. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Examples: tree
Modularity tends to 1.
21. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Examples: random graph
Random partition has Q ∼ 0, but best partition has Q ∼
√
k
k > 0.
22. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Problem 1: Incomparability
Modularity can be high even
“without communities”
23. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Compare modularity scores
(Dis)agreement on whether smoking is cancerous.
24. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Scientific specialization
25. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Scientific specialization
26. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Scientific specialization
27. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Modularity
3 Problem 1: Incomparability
4 Problem 2: Resolution-limit
5 Resolution-limit-free
28. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Example: ring of cliques
Modularity might merge cliques
29. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Example: ring of rings
Modularity might split rings
30. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Example: Cliques of different size
No longer fix γ = 1: tune γ so that it finds “correct” partition.
No γ yields “correct” partition.
31. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Example: broad community sizes
Competing constraints:
• Lower γ ⇒ merge smaller cliques.
• Higher γ ⇒ split large cliques.
No γ yields “correct” partition.
32. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Example: broad community sizes
Competing constraints:
• Lower γ ⇒ merge smaller cliques.
• Higher γ ⇒ split large cliques.
No γ yields “correct” partition.
33. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Example: broad community sizes
Competing constraints:
• Lower γ ⇒ merge smaller cliques.
• Higher γ ⇒ split large cliques.
No γ yields “correct” partition.
34. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Problem 2: Resolution-limit
Size of communities might
depend on size of network
35. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Modularity
3 Problem 1: Incomparability
4 Problem 2: Resolution-limit
5 Resolution-limit-free
36. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Resolution limit revisited
Resolution-limit
Resolution-limit-free
• Problem is not merging per s´e.
• Rather, cliques separate in subgraph, but merge in large graph
(or vice versa).
37. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Resolution limit revisited
Resolution-limit
Resolution-limit-free
Definition (Resolution-limit-free)
Objective function H is called resolution-limit-free if, whenever
partition C optimal for G, then subpartition D ⊂ C also optimal
for subgraph H(D) ⊂ G induced by D.
38. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Resolution-limit methods
General community detection
H = −
ij
(aij Aij −bij (1 − Aij )) δij
Not resolution-limit-free
RB model Set aij = 1 − γpij , bij = γRBpij .
Modularity Set pij =
ki kj
2m and γ = 1
What weights aij and bij to choose so that model is
resolution-limit-free?
39. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Resolution-limit-free methods
General community detection
H = −
ij
(aij Aij −bij (1 − Aij )) δij
Resolution-limit-free
RN model Set aij = 1, bij = γRN.
CPM Set aij = 1 − γ and bij = γ. Leads to
H = −
ij
(Aij − γ)δij .
Are there any other weights aij and bij ?
40. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Local weights
General community detection
H = −
ij
(aij Aij −bij (1 − Aij )) δij
i
j
Definition (Local weights)
Weights local when they only depend on subgraph induced by i
and j.
41. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Local weights
General community detection
H = −
ij
(aij Aij −bij (1 − Aij )) δij
i
j
Theorem (Local weights ⇒ resolution-limit-free)
Method is resolution-limit-free if weights are local.
42. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Local weights
General community detection
H = −
ij
(aij Aij −bij (1 − Aij )) δij
i
j
Are local weights necessary?
43. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
“Almost” resolution-free ⇒ local weights
α1
α2
α3
β1
β2
β3
β4
Not resolution free, whenever merged in large graph,
but separate in subgraph, or the other way around. So
Hm < Hs and Hm > Hs, or
Hm > Hs and Hm < Hs
45. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Louvain like algorithm
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 Init node sizes ni = 1
2 Loop over all nodes (randomly), calculate improvement
∆H(σi = c) = (ei↔c − 2γni
j
nj δ(σj , c)),
3 Create community graph, repeat procedure
46. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Louvain like algorithm
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 Init node sizes ni = 1
2 Loop over all nodes (randomly), calculate improvement
∆H(σi = c) = (ei↔c − 2γni
j
nj δ(σj , c)),
3 Create community graph, repeat procedure
47. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Louvain like algorithm
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 Init node sizes ni = 1
2 Loop over all nodes (randomly), calculate improvement
∆H(σi = c) = (ei↔c − 2γni
j
nj δ(σj , c)),
3 Create community graph, repeat procedure
48. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Louvain like algorithm
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 Init node sizes ni = 1
2 Loop over all nodes (randomly), calculate improvement
∆H(σi = c) = (ei↔c − 2γni
j
nj δ(σj , c)),
3 Create community graph, repeat procedure
49. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Louvain like algorithm
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
57 5 6
2
1 Init node sizes ni = 1
2 Loop over all nodes (randomly), calculate improvement
∆H(σi = c) = (ei↔c − 2γni
j
nj δ(σj , c)),
3 Create community graph, repeat procedure
50. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Performance (directed networks)
µ0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
NMI
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
CPM
γ=γ∗
ER
γ=p
RB Conf
γRB=γ∗
RB
Mod.
γRB=1
Inf.
n = 103
n = 104
51. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Problems of CPM
No problems:
• Doesn’t merge cliques.
• Doesn’t split rings.
• Correctly detects cliques of different size.
Remaining problem:
• Communities of different density.
52. Introduction Modularity Problem 1: Incomparability Problem 2: Resolution-limit Resolution-limit-free
Conclusions
• Modularity high even when no communities.
• Modularity merge/splits communities unexpectedly
(resolution-limit).
• Methods using local weights are resolution-limit-free.
• Resolution-limit-free method performs superbly.
Open question:
• what when communities have different densities?
Thank you for your attention.
Questions?