Analysis of Network Clustering Algorithms and Cluster Quality Metrics at Scale

Overview Notions of community quality underlie the clustering of networks. While studies surrounding network clustering are increasingly common, a precise understanding of the realtionship between different cluster quality metrics is unknown. In this paper, we examine the relationship between stand-alone cluster quality metrics and information recovery metrics through a rigorous analysis of four widely-used network clustering algorithms—Louvain, Infomap, label propagation, and smart local moving. We consider the stand-alone quality metrics of modularity, conductance, and coverage, and we consider the information recovery metrics of adjusted Rand score, normalized mutual information, and a variant of normalized mutual information used in previous work. Our study includes both synthetic graphs and empirical data sets of sizes varying from 1,000 to 1,000,000 nodes. Cluster Quality Metrics We find significant differences among the results of the different cluster quality metrics. For example, clustering algorithms can return a value of 0.4 out of 1 on modularity but score 0 out of 1 on information recovery. We find conductance, though imperfect, to be the stand-alone quality metric that best indicates performance on the information recovery metrics. Additionally, our study shows that the variant of normalized mutual information used in previous work cannot be assumed to differ only slightly from traditional normalized mutual information. Network Clustering Algorithms Smart local moving is the overall best performing algorithm in our study, but discrepancies between cluster evaluation metrics prevent us from declaring it an absolutely superior algorithm. Interestingly, Louvain performed better than Infomap in nearly all the tests in our study, contradicting the results of previous work in which Infomap was superior to Louvain. We find that although label propagation performs poorly when clusters are less clearly defined, it scales efficiently and accurately to large graphs with well-defined clusters.

[1]  Mathieu Bastian,et al.  Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks , 2009, ICWSM.

[2]  L. Tian,et al.  Phase transitions of the q-state Potts model on multiply-laced Sierpinski gaskets , 2013, 1303.1605.

[3]  Mark A. Pitt,et al.  Advances in Minimum Description Length: Theory and Applications , 2005 .

[4]  J. Hintze,et al.  Violin plots : A box plot-density trace synergism , 1998 .

[5]  Réka Albert,et al.  Near linear time algorithm to detect community structures in large-scale networks. , 2007, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[6]  J. Rissanen,et al.  Modeling By Shortest Data Description* , 1978, Autom..

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

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

[9]  F. Radicchi,et al.  Benchmark graphs for testing community detection algorithms. , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[10]  Mohammed J. Zaki,et al.  Is There a Best Quality Metric for Graph Clusters? , 2011, ECML/PKDD.

[11]  Stephen G. Kobourov,et al.  Visualizing Graphs as Maps with Contiguous Regions , 2014, EuroVis.

[12]  Mauricio Barahona,et al.  Encoding dynamics for multiscale community detection: Markov time sweeping for the map equation. , 2011, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[13]  D. W. Scott On optimal and data based histograms , 1979 .

[14]  Martin Rosvall,et al.  Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  James Bailey,et al.  Information Theoretic Measures for Clusterings Comparison: Variants, Properties, Normalization and Correction for Chance , 2010, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[16]  Albert-Laszlo Barabasi,et al.  Deterministic scale-free networks , 2001 .

[17]  Yizhou Sun,et al.  SHRINK: a structural clustering algorithm for detecting hierarchical communities in networks , 2010, CIKM.

[18]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[19]  Andrea Lancichinetti,et al.  Detecting the overlapping and hierarchical community structure in complex networks , 2008, 0802.1218.

[20]  Camille Roth,et al.  Natural Scales in Geographical Patterns , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[21]  William M. Rand,et al.  Objective Criteria for the Evaluation of Clustering Methods , 1971 .

[22]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  A smart local moving algorithm for large-scale modularity-based community detection , 2013, The European Physical Journal B.

[23]  Ulrik Brandes,et al.  Experiments on Graph Clustering Algorithms , 2003, ESA.

[24]  J. Kertész,et al.  On the equivalence of the label propagation method of community detection and a Potts model approach , 2008, 0803.2804.

[25]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , 2008, 0803.0476.

[26]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[27]  Martin Rosvall,et al.  Efficient community detection of network flows for varying Markov times and bipartite networks , 2015, Physical review. E.

[28]  S. E. Schaeffer Survey Graph clustering , 2007 .

[29]  L. Hubert,et al.  Comparing partitions , 1985 .

[30]  P. Ronhovde,et al.  Local resolution-limit-free Potts model for community detection. , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

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

[32]  Andreas Noack,et al.  Multilevel local search algorithms for modularity clustering , 2011, JEAL.

[33]  M E J Newman,et al.  Community structure in social and biological networks , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  Jean-Charles Delvenne,et al.  Markov Dynamics as a Zooming Lens for Multiscale Community Detection: Non Clique-Like Communities and the Field-of-View Limit , 2011, PloS one.

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

[36]  Christos Faloutsos,et al.  Realistic, Mathematically Tractable Graph Generation and Evolution, Using Kronecker Multiplication , 2005, PKDD.

[37]  R. Franke,et al.  CHIMERA: Top-down model for hierarchical, overlapping and directed cluster structures in directed and weighted complex networks , 2016 .

[38]  Andrea Lancichinetti,et al.  Community detection algorithms: a comparative analysis: invited presentation, extended abstract , 2009, VALUETOOLS.

[39]  Michael Gleicher,et al.  Error Bars Considered Harmful: Exploring Alternate Encodings for Mean and Error , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[40]  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.

[41]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Image Labeling on a Network: Using Social-Network Metadata for Image Classification , 2012, ECCV.

[42]  M. Meilă Comparing clusterings---an information based distance , 2007 .