2007
DOI: 10.1140/epjb/e2007-00088-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Limited resolution in complex network community detection with Potts model approach

Abstract: According to Fortunato and Barthélemy, modularity-based community detection algorithms have a resolution threshold such that small communities in a large network are invisible. Here we generalize their work and show that the q-state Potts community detection method introduced by Reichardt and Bornholdt also has a resolution threshold. The model contains a parameter by which this threshold can be tuned, but no a priori principle is known to select the proper value. Single global optimization criteria do not see… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
155
0
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 152 publications
(160 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
4
155
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We use a random rewiring of the original graph to sample G(G ) (Maslov & Sneppen 2002), and the heuristics proposed in Newman (2006) to calculateQ. We note that it is notoriously difficult to compare modularity of networks of different sizes (Kumpula et al 2007), but, in this case, when the networks come from a series from the same network being continuously reduced, this can at most shift the peak of maximum D marginally (Huss & Holme 2007). We note that there are several other ways, apart from maximizing equation (2.1), of dividing networks into clusters.…”
Section: Network Modularitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We use a random rewiring of the original graph to sample G(G ) (Maslov & Sneppen 2002), and the heuristics proposed in Newman (2006) to calculateQ. We note that it is notoriously difficult to compare modularity of networks of different sizes (Kumpula et al 2007), but, in this case, when the networks come from a series from the same network being continuously reduced, this can at most shift the peak of maximum D marginally (Huss & Holme 2007). We note that there are several other ways, apart from maximizing equation (2.1), of dividing networks into clusters.…”
Section: Network Modularitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This avoids the problems of modularity-based methods [17,18,19], which may not properly resolve communities if their size distribution is broad. The LA mechanism, which is mainly responsible for introducing new links, generates at least one triangle per added link.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The majority of these algorithms classify the nodes into disjoint communities, and in most cases a global quantity called modularity [56,55] is used to evaluate the quality of the partitioning. However, as pointed out in [29,49], the modularity optimisation introduces a resolution limit in the clustering, and communities containing a smaller number of edges than √ M (where M is the total number of edges) cannot be resolved. One of the big advantages of the clique percolation method (CPM) is that it identifies communities as k-clique percolation clusters, and therefore, the algorithm is local, and does not suffer from resolution problems of this type [64,21].…”
Section: Applications: Community Finding and Clusteringmentioning
confidence: 99%