Cargando…
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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4938516/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27391786 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159161 |
_version_ | 1782441869649641472 |
---|---|
author | Emmons, Scott Kobourov, Stephen Gallant, Mike Börner, Katy |
author_facet | Emmons, Scott Kobourov, Stephen Gallant, Mike Börner, Katy |
author_sort | Emmons, Scott |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4938516 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49385162016-07-22 Analysis of Network Clustering Algorithms and Cluster Quality Metrics at Scale Emmons, Scott Kobourov, Stephen Gallant, Mike Börner, Katy PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2016-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4938516/ /pubmed/27391786 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159161 Text en © 2016 Emmons et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Emmons, Scott Kobourov, Stephen Gallant, Mike Börner, Katy Analysis of Network Clustering Algorithms and Cluster Quality Metrics at Scale |
title | Analysis of Network Clustering Algorithms and Cluster Quality Metrics at Scale |
title_full | Analysis of Network Clustering Algorithms and Cluster Quality Metrics at Scale |
title_fullStr | Analysis of Network Clustering Algorithms and Cluster Quality Metrics at Scale |
title_full_unstemmed | Analysis of Network Clustering Algorithms and Cluster Quality Metrics at Scale |
title_short | Analysis of Network Clustering Algorithms and Cluster Quality Metrics at Scale |
title_sort | analysis of network clustering algorithms and cluster quality metrics at scale |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4938516/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27391786 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159161 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT emmonsscott analysisofnetworkclusteringalgorithmsandclusterqualitymetricsatscale AT kobourovstephen analysisofnetworkclusteringalgorithmsandclusterqualitymetricsatscale AT gallantmike analysisofnetworkclusteringalgorithmsandclusterqualitymetricsatscale AT bornerkaty analysisofnetworkclusteringalgorithmsandclusterqualitymetricsatscale |