Cargando…

Comparing methods for comparing networks

With the impressive growth of available data and the flexibility of network modelling, the problem of devising effective quantitative methods for the comparison of networks arises. Plenty of such methods have been designed to accomplish this task: most of them deal with undirected and unweighted net...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tantardini, Mattia, Ieva, Francesca, Tajoli, Lucia, Piccardi, Carlo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6879644/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31772246
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53708-y
_version_ 1783473644407619584
author Tantardini, Mattia
Ieva, Francesca
Tajoli, Lucia
Piccardi, Carlo
author_facet Tantardini, Mattia
Ieva, Francesca
Tajoli, Lucia
Piccardi, Carlo
author_sort Tantardini, Mattia
collection PubMed
description With the impressive growth of available data and the flexibility of network modelling, the problem of devising effective quantitative methods for the comparison of networks arises. Plenty of such methods have been designed to accomplish this task: most of them deal with undirected and unweighted networks only, but a few are capable of handling directed and/or weighted networks too, thus properly exploiting richer information. In this work, we contribute to the effort of comparing the different methods for comparing networks and providing a guide for the selection of an appropriate one. First, we review and classify a collection of network comparison methods, highlighting the criteria they are based on and their advantages and drawbacks. The set includes methods requiring known node-correspondence, such as DeltaCon and Cut Distance, as well as methods not requiring a priori known node-correspondence, such as alignment-based, graphlet-based, and spectral methods, and the recently proposed Portrait Divergence and NetLSD. We test the above methods on synthetic networks and we assess their usability and the meaningfulness of the results they provide. Finally, we apply the methods to two real-world datasets, the European Air Transportation Network and the FAO Trade Network, in order to discuss the results that can be drawn from this type of analysis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6879644
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68796442019-12-05 Comparing methods for comparing networks Tantardini, Mattia Ieva, Francesca Tajoli, Lucia Piccardi, Carlo Sci Rep Article With the impressive growth of available data and the flexibility of network modelling, the problem of devising effective quantitative methods for the comparison of networks arises. Plenty of such methods have been designed to accomplish this task: most of them deal with undirected and unweighted networks only, but a few are capable of handling directed and/or weighted networks too, thus properly exploiting richer information. In this work, we contribute to the effort of comparing the different methods for comparing networks and providing a guide for the selection of an appropriate one. First, we review and classify a collection of network comparison methods, highlighting the criteria they are based on and their advantages and drawbacks. The set includes methods requiring known node-correspondence, such as DeltaCon and Cut Distance, as well as methods not requiring a priori known node-correspondence, such as alignment-based, graphlet-based, and spectral methods, and the recently proposed Portrait Divergence and NetLSD. We test the above methods on synthetic networks and we assess their usability and the meaningfulness of the results they provide. Finally, we apply the methods to two real-world datasets, the European Air Transportation Network and the FAO Trade Network, in order to discuss the results that can be drawn from this type of analysis. Nature Publishing Group UK 2019-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6879644/ /pubmed/31772246 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53708-y Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Tantardini, Mattia
Ieva, Francesca
Tajoli, Lucia
Piccardi, Carlo
Comparing methods for comparing networks
title Comparing methods for comparing networks
title_full Comparing methods for comparing networks
title_fullStr Comparing methods for comparing networks
title_full_unstemmed Comparing methods for comparing networks
title_short Comparing methods for comparing networks
title_sort comparing methods for comparing networks
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6879644/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31772246
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53708-y
work_keys_str_mv AT tantardinimattia comparingmethodsforcomparingnetworks
AT ievafrancesca comparingmethodsforcomparingnetworks
AT tajolilucia comparingmethodsforcomparingnetworks
AT piccardicarlo comparingmethodsforcomparingnetworks