Relational flexibility of network elements based on inconsistent community detection

Community identification of network components enables us to understand the mesoscale clustering structure of networks. A number of algorithms have been developed to determine the most likely community structures in networks. Such a probabilistic or stochastic nature of this problem can naturally involve the ambiguity in resultant community structures. More specifically, stochastic algorithms can result in different community structures for each realization in principle. In this study, instead of trying to "solve" this community degeneracy problem, we turn the tables by taking the degeneracy as a chance to quantify how strong companionship each node has with other nodes. For that purpose, we define the concept of companionship inconsistency that indicates how inconsistently a node is identified as a member of a community regarding the other nodes. Analyzing model and real networks, we show that companionship inconsistency discloses unique characteristics of nodes, thus we suggest it as a new type of node centrality. In social networks, for example, companionship inconsistency can classify outsider nodes without firm community membership and promiscuous nodes with multiple connections to several communities. In infrastructure networks such as power grids, it can diagnose how the connection structure is evenly balanced in terms of power transmission. Companionship inconsistency, therefore, abstracts individual nodes' intrinsic property on its relationship to a higher-order organization of the network.

[1]  Alain Barrat,et al.  Contact Patterns in a High School: A Comparison between Data Collected Using Wearable Sensors, Contact Diaries and Friendship Surveys , 2015, PloS one.

[2]  Alan M. Frieze,et al.  Random graphs , 2006, SODA '06.

[3]  T. Vicsek,et al.  Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and society , 2005, Nature.

[4]  Konstantin Avrachenkov,et al.  Cooperative Game Theory Approaches for Network Partitioning , 2017, COCOON.

[5]  K. Goh,et al.  Universal behavior of load distribution in scale-free networks. , 2001, Physical review letters.

[6]  Yong-Yeol Ahn,et al.  On comparing clusterings: an element-centric framework unifies overlaps and hierarchy , 2017, ArXiv.

[7]  M. Newman,et al.  Finding community structure in very large networks. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[8]  W. Zachary,et al.  An Information Flow Model for Conflict and Fission in Small Groups , 1977, Journal of Anthropological Research.

[9]  Yong-Yeol Ahn,et al.  The Impact of Random Models on Clustering Similarity , 2017, bioRxiv.

[10]  Yong-Yeol Ahn,et al.  Element-centric clustering comparison unifies overlaps and hierarchy , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[11]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Consensus clustering in complex networks , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[12]  Julie Fournet,et al.  Data on face-to-face contacts in an office building suggest a low-cost vaccination strategy based on community linkers , 2014, Network Science.

[13]  Haewoon Kwak,et al.  Consistent Community Identification in Complex Networks , 2009, 0910.1508.

[14]  R. Carter.  11 – IT and society , 1991 .

[15]  Mark Newman,et al.  Networks: An Introduction , 2010 .

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

[17]  Shai Shalev-Shwartz,et al.  Average Stability is Invariant to Data Preconditioning. Implications to Exp-concave Empirical Risk Minimization , 2016, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[18]  Mason A. Porter,et al.  Communities in Networks , 2009, ArXiv.

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

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

[21]  Fabio Lucidi,et al.  Measuring Bullying and Victimization Among Immigrant and Native Primary School Students: Evidence From Italy , 2019 .

[22]  Sarah Feldt Muldoon,et al.  Applications of community detection techniques to brain graphs: Algorithmic considerations and implications for neural function , 2017 .

[23]  Stefan Bornholdt,et al.  Detecting fuzzy community structures in complex networks with a Potts model. , 2004, Physical review letters.

[24]  Petter Holme,et al.  Community consistency determines the stability transition window of power-grid nodes , 2015, 1504.05717.

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

[26]  Eduardo Álvarez-Miranda,et al.  In-depth data on the network structure and hourly activity of the Central Chilean power grid , 2018, Scientific Data.

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

[28]  Jari Saramäki,et al.  Temporal Networks , 2011, Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining.

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

[30]  Sune Lehmann,et al.  Link communities reveal multiscale complexity in networks , 2009, Nature.

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

[32]  Liang Tian,et al.  Bridges in Complex Networks , 2016, Physical review. E.

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

[34]  Kristin M. Holland,et al.  A systematic review and content analysis of bullying and cyber-bullying measurement strategies. , 2014, Aggression and violent behavior.

[35]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Multiresolution Consensus Clustering in Networks , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[36]  Helen Cowie,et al.  Measuring workplace bullying , 2002 .