On Measuring the Quality of a Network Community Structure

Modularity is widely used to effectively measure the strength of the community structure found by community detection algorithms. However, modularity maximization suffers from two opposite yet coexisting problems: in some cases, it tends to favor small communities over large ones while in others, large communities over small ones. The latter tendency is known in the literature as the resolution limit problem. To address them, we propose to modify modularity by subtracting from it the fraction of edges connecting nodes of different communities and by including community density into modularity. We refer to the modified metric as Modularity Density and we demonstrate that it indeed resolves both problems mentioned above. We describe the motivation for introducing this metric by using intuitively clear and simple examples. We also discuss the results of applying this metric, modularity, and several other popular community quality metrics to two real dynamic networks. The results imply that Modularity Density is consistent with all the community quality measurements but not modularity, which suggests that Modularity Density is an improved measurement of the community quality compared to modularity.

[1]  E A Leicht,et al.  Community structure in directed networks. , 2007, Physical review letters.

[2]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Defining and Evaluating Network Communities Based on Ground-Truth , 2012, ICDM.

[3]  Vikas Kawadia,et al.  Sequential detection of temporal communities by estrangement confinement , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[4]  Alex Arenas,et al.  Analysis of the structure of complex networks at different resolution levels , 2007, physics/0703218.

[5]  Robert E. Park,et al.  Human communities: the city and human ecology , 1954 .

[6]  M E J Newman,et al.  Modularity and community structure in networks. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  M E J Newman,et al.  Fast algorithm for detecting community structure in networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[8]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Limits of modularity maximization in community detection , 2011, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[9]  Jonathan W. Berry,et al.  Tolerating the community detection resolution limit with edge weighting. , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[10]  Boleslaw K. Szymanski,et al.  LabelRankT: incremental community detection in dynamic networks via label propagation , 2013, DyNetMM '13.

[11]  J. Reichardt,et al.  Statistical mechanics of community detection. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[12]  M. Newman.  Analysis of weighted networks. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[13]  S. Fortunato,et al.  Resolution limit in community detection , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  M E J Newman,et al.  Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[15]  David Lazer,et al.  Inferring friendship network structure by using mobile phone data , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Community detection in graphs , 2009, ArXiv.

[17]  D. Lazer,et al.  Inferring Social Network Structure using Mobile Phone Data , 2006 .

[18]  P. Mucha,et al.  Party Polarization in Congress: A Social Networks Approach , 2009, 0907.3509.

[19]  Benjamin H. Good,et al.  Performance of modularity maximization in practical contexts. , 2009, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[20]  Boleslaw K. Szymanski,et al.  A New Metric for Quality of Network Community Structure , 2015, ArXiv.