Community structure

In the study of complex networks, a network is said to have community structure if the nodes of the
network can be easily grouped into (potentially overlapping) sets of nodes such that each set of nodes is
densely connected internally. In the particular case of non-overlapping community finding, this implies that
the network divides naturally into groups of nodes with dense connections internally and sparser
connections between groups. But overlapping communities are also allowed. The more general definition is
based on the principle that pairs of nodes are more likely to be connected if they are both members of the
same community(ies), and less likely to be connected if they do not share communities. A related but
different problem is community search, where the goal is to find a community that a certain vertex belongs
to.

Properties
In the study of networks, such as computer and information
networks, social networks and biological networks, a number of
different characteristics have been found to occur commonly,
including the small-world property, heavy-tailed degree
distributions, and clustering, among others. Another common
characteristic is community structure.[1][2][3][4][5] In the context of
networks, community structure refers to the occurrence of groups of
nodes in a network that are more densely connected internally than
with the rest of the network, as shown in the example image to the
right. This inhomogeneity of connections suggests that the network
has certain natural divisions within it.

Communities are often defined in terms of the partition of the set of Fig. 1: A sketch of a small network
vertices, that is each node is put into one and only one community, displaying community structure,
just as in the figure. This is a useful simplification and most with three groups of nodes with
community detection methods find this type of community dense internal connections and
structure. However, in some cases a better representation could be sparser connections between
one where vertices are in more than one community. This might groups.
happen in a social network where each vertex represents a person,
and the communities represent the different groups of friends: one
community for family, another community for co-workers, one for friends in the same sports club, and so
on. The use of cliques for community detection discussed below is just one example of how such
overlapping community structure can be found.

Some networks may not have any meaningful community structure. Many basic network models, for
example, such as the random graph and the Barabási–Albert model, do not display community structure.

Importance
Community structures are quite common in real networks. Social networks include community groups (the
origin of the term, in fact) based on common location, interests, occupation, etc.[5][6]
Finding an underlying community structure in a network, if it exists, is important for a number of reasons.
Communities allow us to create a large scale map of a network since individual communities act like meta-
nodes in the network which makes its study easier.[7]

Individual communities also shed light on the function of the system represented by the network since
communities often correspond to functional units of the system. In metabolic networks, such functional
groups correspond to cycles or pathways whereas in the protein interaction network, communities
correspond to proteins with similar functionality inside a biological cell. Similarly, citation networks form
communities by research topic.[1] Being able to identify these sub-structures within a network can provide
insight into how network function and topology affect each other. Such insight can be useful in improving
some algorithms on graphs such as spectral clustering.[8]

Importantly, communities often have very different properties than the average properties of the networks.
Thus, only concentrating on the average properties usually misses many important and interesting features
inside the networks. For example, in a given social network, both gregarious and reticent groups might
exists simultaneously.[7]

Existence of communities also generally affects various processes like rumour spreading or epidemic
spreading happening on a network. Hence to properly understand such processes, it is important to detect
communities and also to study how they affect the spreading processes in various settings.

Finally, an important application that community detection has found in network science is the prediction of
missing links and the identification of false links in the network. During the measurement process, some
links may not get observed for a number of reasons. Similarly, some links could falsely enter into the data
because of the errors in the measurement. Both these cases are well handled by community detection
algorithm since it allows one to assign the probability of existence of an edge between a given pair of
nodes.[9]

Algorithms for finding communities

Finding communities within an arbitrary network can be a computationally difficult task. The number of
communities, if any, within the network is typically unknown and the communities are often of unequal
size and/or density. Despite these difficulties, however, several methods for community finding have been
developed and employed with varying levels of success.[4]

Minimum-cut method

One of the oldest algorithms for dividing networks into parts is the minimum cut method (and variants such
as ratio cut and normalized cut). This method sees use, for example, in load balancing for parallel
computing in order to minimize communication between processor nodes.

In the minimum-cut method, the network is divided into a predetermined number of parts, usually of
approximately the same size, chosen such that the number of edges between groups is minimized. The
method works well in many of the applications for which it was originally intended but is less than ideal for
finding community structure in general networks since it will find communities regardless of whether they
are implicit in the structure, and it will find only a fixed number of them.[10]

Hierarchical clustering
Another method for finding community structures in networks is hierarchical clustering. In this method one
defines a similarity measure quantifying some (usually topological) type of similarity between node pairs.
Commonly used measures include the cosine similarity, the Jaccard index, and the Hamming distance
between rows of the adjacency matrix. Then one groups similar nodes into communities according to this
measure. There are several common schemes for performing the grouping, the two simplest being single-
linkage clustering, in which two groups are considered separate communities if and only if all pairs of
nodes in different groups have similarity lower than a given threshold, and complete linkage clustering, in
which all nodes within every group have similarity greater than a threshold. An important step is how to
determine the threshold to stop the agglomerative clustering, indicating a near-to-optimal community
structure. A common strategy consist to build one or several metrics monitoring global properties of the
network, which peak at given step of the clustering. An interesting approach in this direction is the use of
various similarity or dissimilarity measures, combined through convex sums,[11]. Another approximation is
the computation of a quantity monitoring the density of edges within clusters with respect to the density
between clusters, such as the partition density, which has been proposed when the similarity metric is
defined between edges (which permits the definition of overlapping communities),[12] and extended when
the similarity is defined between nodes, which allows to consider alternative definitions of communities
such as guilds (i.e. groups of nodes sharing a similar number of links with respect to the same neighbours
but not necessarily connected themselves).[13] These methods can be extended to consider
multidimensional networks, for instance when we are dealing with networks having nodes with different
types of links.[13]

Girvan–Newman algorithm

Another commonly used algorithm for finding communities is the Girvan–Newman algorithm.[1] This
algorithm identifies edges in a network that lie between communities and then removes them, leaving
behind just the communities themselves. The identification is performed by employing the graph-theoretic
measure betweenness centrality, which assigns a number to each edge which is large if the edge lies
"between" many pairs of nodes.

The Girvan–Newman algorithm returns results of reasonable quality and is popular because it has been
implemented in a number of standard software packages. But it also runs slowly, taking time O(m2 n) on a
network of n vertices and m edges, making it impractical for networks of more than a few thousand
nodes.[14]

Modularity maximization

In spite of its known drawbacks, one of the most widely used methods for community detection is
modularity maximization.[14] Modularity is a benefit function that measures the quality of a particular
division of a network into communities. The modularity maximization method detects communities by
searching over possible divisions of a network for one or more that have particularly high modularity. Since
exhaustive search over all possible divisions is usually intractable, practical algorithms are based on
approximate optimization methods such as greedy algorithms, simulated annealing, or spectral optimization,
with different approaches offering different balances between speed and accuracy.[15][16] A popular
modularity maximization approach is the Louvain method, which iteratively optimizes local communities
until global modularity can no longer be improved given perturbations to the current community
state.[17][18] An algorithm that utilizes the RenEEL scheme, which is an example of the Extremal Ensemble
Learning (EEL) paradigm, is currently the best modularity maximizing algorithm.[19] [20]
The usefulness of modularity optimization is questionable, as it has been shown that modularity
optimization often fails to detect clusters smaller than some scale, depending on the size of the network
(resolution limit[21]); on the other hand the landscape of modularity values is characterized by a huge
degeneracy of partitions with high modularity, close to the absolute maximum, which may be very different
from each other.[22]

Statistical inference

Methods based on statistical inference attempt to fit a generative model to the network data, which encodes
the community structure. The overall advantage of this approach compared to the alternatives is its more
principled nature, and the capacity to inherently address issues of statistical significance. Most methods in
the literature are based on the stochastic block model[23] as well as variants including mixed
membership,[24][25] degree-correction,[26] and hierarchical structures.[27] Model selection can be performed
using principled approaches such as minimum description length[28][29] (or equivalently, Bayesian model
selection[30]) and likelihood-ratio test.[31] Currently many algorithms exist to perform efficient inference of
stochastic block models, including belief propagation[32][33] and agglomerative Monte Carlo.[34]

In contrast to approaches that attempt to cluster a network given an objective function, this class of methods
is based on generative models, which not only serve as a description of the large-scale structure of the
network, but also can be used to generalize the data and predict the occurrence of missing or spurious links
in the network.[35][36]

Clique-based methods

Cliques are subgraphs in which every node is connected to every other node in the clique. As nodes can not
be more tightly connected than this, it is not surprising that there are many approaches to community
detection in networks based on the detection of cliques in a graph and the analysis of how these overlap.
Note that as a node can be a member of more than one clique, a node can be a member of more than one
community in these methods giving an "overlapping community structure".

One approach is to find the "maximal cliques". That is to find the cliques which are not the subgraph of
any other clique. The classic algorithm to find these is the Bron–Kerbosch algorithm. The overlap of these
can be used to define communities in several ways. The simplest is to consider only maximal cliques bigger
than a minimum size (number of nodes). The union of these cliques then defines a subgraph whose
components (disconnected parts) then define communities.[37] Such approaches are often implemented in
social network analysis software such as UCInet.

The alternative approach is to use cliques of fixed size . The overlap of these can be used to define a type
of -regular hypergraph or a structure which is a generalisation of the line graph (the case when )
known as a "Clique graph". [38] The clique graphs have vertices which represent the cliques in the original
graph while the edges of the clique graph record the overlap of the clique in the original graph. Applying
any of the previous community detection methods (which assign each node to a community) to the clique
graph then assigns each clique to a community. This can then be used to determine community membership
of nodes in the cliques. Again as a node may be in several cliques, it can be a member of several
communities. For instance the clique percolation method[39] defines communities as percolation clusters of
-cliques. To do this it finds all -cliques in a network, that is all the complete sub-graphs of -nodes. It
then defines two -cliques to be adjacent if they share nodes, that is this is used to define edges in a
clique graph. A community is then defined to be the maximal union of -cliques in which we can reach any
 -clique from any other -clique through series of -clique adjacencies. That is communities are just the
connected components in the clique graph. Since a node can belong to several different -clique
percolation clusters at the same time, the communities can overlap with each other.

Testing methods of finding communities algorithms

The evaluation of algorithms, to detect which are better at detecting community structure, is still an open
question. It must be based on analyses of networks of known structure. A typical example is the "four
groups" test, in which a network is divided into four equally-sized groups (usually of 32 nodes each) and
the probabilities of connection within and between groups varied to create more or less challenging
structures for the detection algorithm. Such benchmark graphs are a special case of the planted l-partition
model[40] of Condon and Karp, or more generally of "stochastic block models", a general class of random
network models containing community structure. Other more flexible benchmarks have been proposed that
allow for varying group sizes and nontrivial degree distributions, such as LFR benchmark[41] [42] which is
an extension of the four groups benchmark that includes heterogeneous distributions of node degree and
community size, making it a more severe test of community detection methods.[43][44]

Commonly used computer-generated benchmarks start with a network of well-defined communities. Then,
this structure is degraded by rewiring or removing links and it gets harder and harder for the algorithms to
detect the original partition. At the end, the network reaches a point where it is essentially random. This
kind of benchmark may be called "open". The performance on these benchmarks is evaluated by measures
such as normalized mutual information or variation of information. They compare the solution obtained by
an algorithm [42] with the original community structure, evaluating the similarity of both partitions.

Detectability
During recent years, a rather surprising result has been obtained by various groups which shows that a
phase transition exists in the community detection problem, showing that as the density of connections
inside communities and between communities become more and more equal or both become smaller
(equivalently, as the community structure becomes too weak or the network becomes too sparse), suddenly
the communities become undetectable. In a sense, the communities themselves still exist, since the presence
and absence of edges is still correlated with the community memberships of their endpoints; but it becomes
information-theoretically impossible to label the nodes better than chance, or even distinguish the graph
from one generated by a null model such as the Erdos–Renyi model without community structure. This
transition is independent of the type of algorithm being used to detect communities, implying that there
exists a fundamental limit on our ability to detect communities in networks, even with optimal Bayesian
inference (i.e., regardless of our computational resources).[45][46][47]

Consider a stochastic block model with total nodes, groups of equal size, and let and be
the connection probabilities inside and between the groups respectively. If , the network would
possess community structure since the link density inside the groups would be more than the density of
links between the groups. In the sparse case, and scale as so that the average degree is
constant:

and

Then it becomes impossible to detect the communities when:[46]

See also
Complex network
Hierarchy
Network theory
Percolation theory

References
1. M. Girvan; M. E. J. Newman (2002). "Community structure in social and biological networks"
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC122977). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 99 (12):
7821–7826. arXiv:cond-mat/0112110 (https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0112110).
Bibcode:2002PNAS...99.7821G (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002PNAS...99.7821G).
doi:10.1073/pnas.122653799 (https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.122653799). PMC 122977
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC122977). PMID 12060727 (https://pubmed.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/12060727).
2. S. Fortunato (2010). "Community detection in graphs". Phys. Rep. 486 (3–5): 75–174.
arXiv:0906.0612 (https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.0612). Bibcode:2010PhR...486...75F (https://ui.a
dsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PhR...486...75F). doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.11.002 (https://do
i.org/10.1016%2Fj.physrep.2009.11.002). S2CID 10211629 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/
CorpusID:10211629).
3. F. D. Malliaros; M. Vazirgiannis (2013). "Clustering and community detection in directed
networks: A survey". Phys. Rep. 533 (4): 95–142. arXiv:1308.0971 (https://arxiv.org/abs/130
8.0971). Bibcode:2013PhR...533...95M (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhR...533...9
5M). doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2013.08.002 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.physrep.2013.08.002).
S2CID 15006738 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15006738).
4. M. A. Porter; J.-P. Onnela; P. J. Mucha (2009). "Communities in Networks" (https://www.ams.
org/notices/200909/rtx090901082p.pdf) (PDF). Notices of the American Mathematical
Society. 56: 1082–1097, 1164–1166. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2021061317213
8/https://www.ams.org/notices/200909/rtx090901082p.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 2021-
06-13. Retrieved 2021-04-28.
5. Fani, Hossein; Bagheri, Ebrahim (2017). "Community detection in social networks".
Encyclopedia with Semantic Computing and Robotic Intelligence. Vol. 1. pp. 1630001 [8].
doi:10.1142/S2425038416300019 (https://doi.org/10.1142%2FS2425038416300019).
S2CID 52471002 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:52471002).
6. Hamdaqa, Mohammad; Tahvildari, Ladan; LaChapelle, Neil; Campbell, Brian (2014).
"Cultural Scene Detection Using Reverse Louvain Optimization" (https://zenodo.org/record/8
89712). Science of Computer Programming. 95: 44–72. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2014.01.006 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.scico.2014.01.006). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/202008
07053431/https://zenodo.org/record/889712) from the original on 2020-08-07. Retrieved
2019-08-29.
7. M.E.J.Neman (2006). "Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of
matrices". Phys. Rev. E. 74 (3): 1–19. arXiv:physics/0605087 (https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0
605087). Bibcode:2006PhRvE..74c6104N (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhRvE..7
4c6104N). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.74.036104 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevE.74.036
104). PMID 17025705 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17025705). S2CID 138996 (https://a
pi.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:138996).
 8. Zare, Habil; P. Shooshtari; A. Gupta; R. Brinkman (2010). "Data reduction for spectral
clustering to analyze high throughput flow cytometry data" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm
c/articles/PMC2923634). BMC Bioinformatics. 11 (1): 403. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-11-403 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1186%2F1471-2105-11-403). PMC 2923634 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pmc/articles/PMC2923634). PMID 20667133 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20667133).
9. Aaron Clauset; Cristopher Moore; M.E.J. Newman (2008). "Hierarchical structure and the
prediction of missing links in networks". Nature. 453 (7191): 98–101. arXiv:0811.0484 (http
s://arxiv.org/abs/0811.0484). Bibcode:2008Natur.453...98C (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ab
s/2008Natur.453...98C). doi:10.1038/nature06830 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature06830).
PMID 18451861 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18451861). S2CID 278058 (https://api.se
manticscholar.org/CorpusID:278058).
10. M. E. J. Newman (2004). "Detecting community structure in networks". Eur. Phys. J. B. 38
(2): 321–330. Bibcode:2004EPJB...38..321N (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004EPJB...
38..321N). doi:10.1140/epjb/e2004-00124-y (https://doi.org/10.1140%2Fepjb%2Fe2004-001
24-y). hdl:2027.42/43867 (https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42%2F43867). S2CID 15412738 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15412738).
11. Alvarez, Alejandro J.; Sanz-Rodríguez, Carlos E.; Cabrera, Juan Luis (2015-12-13).
"Weighting dissimilarities to detect communities in networks" (https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frst
a.2015.0108). Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 373 (2056): 20150108.
Bibcode:2015RSPTA.37350108A (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015RSPTA.3735010
8A). doi:10.1098/rsta.2015.0108 (https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frsta.2015.0108). ISSN 1364-
503X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1364-503X). PMID 26527808 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/26527808).
12. Ahn, Y.-Y.; Bagrow, J.P.; Lehmann, S. (2010). "Link communities reveal multi-scale
complexity in networks". Nature. 466 (7307): 761–764. arXiv:0903.3178 (https://arxiv.org/ab
s/0903.3178). Bibcode:2010Natur.466..761A (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Natur.4
66..761A). doi:10.1038/nature09182 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature09182).
PMID 20562860 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20562860). S2CID 4404822 (https://api.se
manticscholar.org/CorpusID:4404822).
13. Pascual-García, Alberto; Bell, Thomas (2020). "functionInk: An efficient method to detect
functional groups in multidimensional networks reveals the hidden structure of ecological
communities". Methods Ecol Evol. 11 (7): 804–817. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.13377 (https://d
oi.org/10.1111%2F2041-210X.13377). S2CID 214033410 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/C
orpusID:214033410).
14. M. E. J. Newman (2004). "Fast algorithm for detecting community structure in networks".
Phys. Rev. E. 69 (6): 066133. arXiv:cond-mat/0309508 (https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/03095
08). Bibcode:2004PhRvE..69f6133N (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PhRvE..69f613
3N). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.69.066133 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevE.69.066133).
PMID 15244693 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15244693). S2CID 301750 (https://api.se
manticscholar.org/CorpusID:301750).
15. L. Danon; J. Duch; A. Díaz-Guilera; A. Arenas (2005). "Comparing community structure
identification". J. Stat. Mech. 2005 (9): P09008. arXiv:cond-mat/0505245 (https://arxiv.org/ab
s/cond-mat/0505245). Bibcode:2005JSMTE..09..008D (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/20
05JSMTE..09..008D). doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2005/09/P09008 (https://doi.org/10.1088%2F
1742-5468%2F2005%2F09%2FP09008). S2CID 14798969 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/
CorpusID:14798969).
16. R. Guimera; L. A. N. Amaral (2005). "Functional cartography of complex metabolic networks"
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2175124). Nature. 433 (7028): 895–900.
arXiv:q-bio/0502035 (https://arxiv.org/abs/q-bio/0502035). Bibcode:2005Natur.433..895G (htt
ps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.433..895G). doi:10.1038/nature03288 (https://doi.
org/10.1038%2Fnature03288). PMC 2175124 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PM
C2175124). PMID 15729348 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15729348).
17. V.D. Blondel; J.-L. Guillaume; R. Lambiotte; E. Lefebvre (2008). "Fast unfolding of
community hierarchies in large networks". J. Stat. Mech. 2008 (10): P10008.
arXiv:0803.0476 (https://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0476). Bibcode:2008JSMTE..10..008B (https://ui.
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JSMTE..10..008B). doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008
(https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1742-5468%2F2008%2F10%2FP10008). S2CID 334423 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:334423).
18. "Lightning-fast Community Detection in Social Media: A Scalable Implementation of the
Louvain Algorithm" (http://pasl.eng.auburn.edu/pubs/pasl-graphcom-2013-tr01.pdf) (PDF).
Auburn University. 2013. S2CID 16164925 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:16164
925).
19. J. Guo; P. Singh; K.E. Bassler (2019). "Reduced network extremal ensemble learning
(RenEEL) scheme for community detection in complex networks" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g
ov/pmc/articles/PMC6775136). Scientific Reports. 9 (14234): 14234. arXiv:1909.10491 (http
s://arxiv.org/abs/1909.10491). Bibcode:2019NatSR...914234G (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.ed
u/abs/2019NatSR...914234G). doi:10.1038/s41598-019-50739-3 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2
Fs41598-019-50739-3). PMC 6775136 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6775
136). PMID 31578406 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31578406).
20. "RenEEL-Modularity" (https://github.com/kbassler/RenEEL-Modularity). GitHub. 31 October
2019. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210101034332/https://github.com/kbassler/R
enEEL-Modularity) from the original on 1 January 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2019.
21. S. Fortunato; M. Barthelemy (2007). "Resolution limit in community detection" (https://www.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1765466). Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America. 104 (1): 36–41. arXiv:physics/0607100 (https://arxi
v.org/abs/physics/0607100). Bibcode:2007PNAS..104...36F (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/a
bs/2007PNAS..104...36F). doi:10.1073/pnas.0605965104 (https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.
0605965104). PMC 1765466 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1765466).
PMID 17190818 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17190818).
22. B. H. Good; Y.-A. de Montjoye; A. Clauset (2010). "The performance of modularity
maximization in practical contexts". Phys. Rev. E. 81 (4): 046106. arXiv:0910.0165 (https://ar
xiv.org/abs/0910.0165). Bibcode:2010PhRvE..81d6106G (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/
2010PhRvE..81d6106G). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.81.046106 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPh
ysRevE.81.046106). PMID 20481785 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20481785).
S2CID 16564204 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:16564204).
23. Holland, Paul W.; Kathryn Blackmond Laskey; Samuel Leinhardt (June 1983). "Stochastic
blockmodels: First steps". Social Networks. 5 (2): 109–137. doi:10.1016/0378-
8733(83)90021-7 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0378-8733%2883%2990021-7). ISSN 0378-
8733 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0378-8733).
24. Airoldi, Edoardo M.; David M. Blei; Stephen E. Fienberg; Eric P. Xing (June 2008). "Mixed
Membership Stochastic Blockmodels" (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1390681.1442798).
J. Mach. Learn. Res. 9: 1981–2014. ISSN 1532-4435 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1532-44
35). PMC 3119541 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3119541).
PMID 21701698 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21701698). Archived (https://web.archive.
org/web/20181121182557/https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1390681.1442798) from the
original on 2018-11-21. Retrieved 2013-10-09.
25. Ball, Brian; Brian Karrer; M. E. J. Newman (2011). "Efficient and principled method for
detecting communities in networks". Physical Review E. 84 (3): 036103. arXiv:1104.3590 (ht
tps://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3590). Bibcode:2011PhRvE..84c6103B (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.ed
u/abs/2011PhRvE..84c6103B). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.84.036103 (https://doi.org/10.1103%
2FPhysRevE.84.036103). PMID 22060452 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22060452).
S2CID 14204351 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14204351).
26. Karrer, Brian; M. E. J. Newman (2011-01-21). "Stochastic blockmodels and community
structure in networks". Physical Review E. 83 (1): 016107. arXiv:1008.3926 (https://arxiv.org/
abs/1008.3926). Bibcode:2011PhRvE..83a6107K (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011P
hRvE..83a6107K). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.83.016107 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRev
E.83.016107). PMID 21405744 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21405744).
S2CID 9068097 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:9068097).
27. Peixoto, Tiago P. (2014-03-24). "Hierarchical Block Structures and High-Resolution Model
Selection in Large Networks". Physical Review X. 4 (1): 011047. arXiv:1310.4377 (https://ar
xiv.org/abs/1310.4377). Bibcode:2014PhRvX...4a1047P (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/
2014PhRvX...4a1047P). doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.4.011047 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhys
RevX.4.011047). S2CID 5841379 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:5841379).
28. Martin Rosvall; Carl T. Bergstrom (2007). "An information-theoretic framework for resolving
community structure in complex networks" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1
855072). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
104 (18): 7327–7331. arXiv:physics/0612035 (https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612035).
Bibcode:2007PNAS..104.7327R (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PNAS..104.7327
R). doi:10.1073/pnas.0611034104 (https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0611034104).
PMC 1855072 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1855072). PMID 17452639
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17452639).
29. P. Peixoto, T. (2013). "Parsimonious Module Inference in Large Networks". Phys. Rev. Lett.
110 (14): 148701. arXiv:1212.4794 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4794).
Bibcode:2013PhRvL.110n8701P (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhRvL.110n8701
P). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.148701 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevLett.110.148
701). PMID 25167049 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25167049). S2CID 2668815 (https://
api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2668815).
30. P. Peixoto, T. (2019). "Bayesian stochastic blockmodeling". Advances in Network Clustering
and Blockmodeling. pp. 289–332. arXiv:1705.10225 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.10225).
doi:10.1002/9781119483298.ch11 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2F9781119483298.ch11).
ISBN 978-1-119-22470-9. S2CID 62900189 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6290
0189).
31. Yan, Xiaoran; Jacob E. Jensen; Florent Krzakala; Cristopher Moore; Cosma Rohilla Shalizi;
Lenka Zdeborová; Pan Zhang; Yaojia Zhu (2012-07-17). "Model Selection for Degree-
corrected Block Models" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4498413). Journal
of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment. 2014 (5): P05007. arXiv:1207.3994 (http
s://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3994). Bibcode:2014JSMTE..05..007Y (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/
abs/2014JSMTE..05..007Y). doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2014/05/P05007 (https://doi.org/10.108
8%2F1742-5468%2F2014%2F05%2FP05007). PMC 4498413 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go
v/pmc/articles/PMC4498413). PMID 26167197 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26167197).
32. Gopalan, Prem K.; David M. Blei (2013-09-03). "Efficient discovery of overlapping
communities in massive networks" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC376753
9). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 110 (36): 14534–14539.
Bibcode:2013PNAS..11014534G (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PNAS..11014534
G). doi:10.1073/pnas.1221839110 (https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1221839110).
ISSN 0027-8424 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0027-8424). PMC 3767539 (https://www.ncb
i.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3767539). PMID 23950224 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
23950224).
33. Decelle, Aurelien; Florent Krzakala; Cristopher Moore; Lenka Zdeborová (2011-12-12).
"Asymptotic analysis of the stochastic block model for modular networks and its algorithmic
applications". Physical Review E. 84 (6): 066106. arXiv:1109.3041 (https://arxiv.org/abs/110
9.3041). Bibcode:2011PhRvE..84f6106D (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PhRvE..84
f6106D). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.84.066106 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevE.84.0661
06). PMID 22304154 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22304154). S2CID 15788070 (https://
api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15788070).
34. Peixoto, Tiago P. (2014-01-13). "Efficient Monte Carlo and greedy heuristic for the inference
of stochastic block models". Physical Review E. 89 (1): 012804. arXiv:1310.4378 (https://arxi
v.org/abs/1310.4378). Bibcode:2014PhRvE..89a2804P (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2
014PhRvE..89a2804P). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.89.012804 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhy
sRevE.89.012804). PMID 24580278 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24580278).
S2CID 2674083 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2674083).
35. Guimerà, Roger; Marta Sales-Pardo (2009-12-29). "Missing and spurious interactions and
the reconstruction of complex networks" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC279
9723). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106 (52): 22073–22078.
arXiv:1004.4791 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1004.4791). Bibcode:2009PNAS..10622073G (https://
ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PNAS..10622073G). doi:10.1073/pnas.0908366106 (https://
doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0908366106). PMC 2799723 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar
ticles/PMC2799723). PMID 20018705 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20018705).
36. Clauset, Aaron; Cristopher Moore; M. E. J. Newman (2008-05-01). "Hierarchical structure
and the prediction of missing links in networks". Nature. 453 (7191): 98–101.
arXiv:0811.0484 (https://arxiv.org/abs/0811.0484). Bibcode:2008Natur.453...98C (https://ui.a
dsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Natur.453...98C). doi:10.1038/nature06830 (https://doi.org/10.1
038%2Fnature06830). ISSN 0028-0836 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0028-0836).
PMID 18451861 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18451861). S2CID 278058 (https://api.se
manticscholar.org/CorpusID:278058).
37. M.G. Everett; S.P. Borgatti (1998). "Analyzing Clique Overlap Connections". Connections.
21: 49.
38. T.S. Evans (2010). "Clique Graphs and Overlapping Communities". J. Stat. Mech. 2010 (12):
P12037. arXiv:1009.0638 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0638). Bibcode:2010JSMTE..12..037E
(https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010JSMTE..12..037E). doi:10.1088/1742-
5468/2010/12/P12037 (https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1742-5468%2F2010%2F12%2FP1203
7). S2CID 2783670 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2783670).
39. G. Palla; I. Derényi; I. Farkas; T. Vicsek (2005). "Uncovering the overlapping community
structure of complex networks in nature and society". Nature. 435 (7043): 814–818.
arXiv:physics/0506133 (https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506133).
Bibcode:2005Natur.435..814P (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.435..814P).
doi:10.1038/nature03607 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature03607). PMID 15944704 (https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15944704). S2CID 3250746 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corp
usID:3250746).
40. Condon, A.; Karp, R. M. (2001). "Algorithms for graph partitioning on the planted partition
model". Random Struct. Algor. 18 (2): 116–140. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.22.4340 (https://citeseerx.i
st.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.22.4340). doi:10.1002/1098-
2418(200103)18:2<116::AID-RSA1001>3.0.CO;2-2 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2F1098-241
8%28200103%2918%3A2%3C116%3A%3AAID-RSA1001%3E3.0.CO%3B2-2).
41. A. Lancichinetti; S. Fortunato; F. Radicchi (2008). "Benchmark graphs for testing community
detection algorithms". Phys. Rev. E. 78 (4): 046110. arXiv:0805.4770 (https://arxiv.org/abs/08
05.4770). Bibcode:2008PhRvE..78d6110L (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PhRvE..7
8d6110L). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.78.046110 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevE.78.046
110). PMID 18999496 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18999496). S2CID 18481617 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:18481617).
42. Fathi, Reza (April 2019). "Efficient Distributed Community Detection in the Stochastic Block
Model". arXiv:1904.07494 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.07494) [cs.DC (https://arxiv.org/archive/
cs.DC)].
43. M. Q. Pasta; F. Zaidi (2017). "Leveraging Evolution Dynamics to Generate Benchmark
Complex Networks with Community Structures". arXiv:1606.01169 (https://arxiv.org/abs/160
6.01169) [cs.SI (https://arxiv.org/archive/cs.SI)].
44. Pasta, M. Q.; Zaidi, F. (2017). "Topology of Complex Networks and Performance Limitations
of Community Detection Algorithms" (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FACCESS.2017.2714018).
IEEE Access. 5: 10901–10914. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2714018 (https://doi.org/10.110
9%2FACCESS.2017.2714018).
45. Reichardt, J.; Leone, M. (2008). "(Un)detectable Cluster Structure in Sparse Networks".
Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (78701): 1–4. arXiv:0711.1452 (https://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1452).
Bibcode:2008PhRvL.101g8701R (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PhRvL.101g8701
R). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.078701 (https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevLett.101.078
701). PMID 18764586 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18764586). S2CID 41197281 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:41197281).
46. Decelle, A.; Krzakala, F.; Moore, C.; Zdeborová, L. (2011). "Inference and Phase Transitions
in the Detection of Modules in Sparse Networks". Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (65701): 1–5.
arXiv:1102.1182 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1182). Bibcode:2011PhRvL.107f5701D (https://u
i.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PhRvL.107f5701D). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.065701 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevLett.107.065701). PMID 21902340 (https://pubmed.ncbi.n
lm.nih.gov/21902340). S2CID 18399723 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1839972
3).
47. Nadakuditi, R.R; Newman, M.E.J. (2012). "Graph Spectra and the Detectability of
Community Structure in Networks". Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (188701): 1–5. arXiv:1205.1813 (htt
ps://arxiv.org/abs/1205.1813). Bibcode:2012PhRvL.108r8701N (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.ed
u/abs/2012PhRvL.108r8701N). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.188701 (https://doi.org/10.110
3%2FPhysRevLett.108.188701). PMID 22681123 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2268112
3). S2CID 11820036 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:11820036).

External links
Community detection in graphs (http://digitalinterface.blogspot.it/2013/05/community-detecti
on-in-graphs.html) – an introduction
Are there implementations of algorithms for community detection in graphs? (https://stackove
rflow.com/questions/5822265/are-there-implementations-of-algorithms-for-community-detecti
on-in-graphs) – Stack Overflow
What are the differences between community detection algorithms in igraph? (https://stackov
erflow.com/questions/9471906/what-are-the-differences-between-community-detection-algor
ithms-in-igraph/) – Stack Overflow
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_structure&oldid=1163038144"