[IEEE 2013 International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom) - Alexandria, VA, USA (2013.09.8-2013.09.14)] 2013 International Conference on Social Computing - On Measuring the

On Measuring the Quality of a Network CommunityStructure

Mingming ChenDepartment of Computer Science

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

110 8th Street, Troy, NY 12180

Email: [email protected]

Tommy NguyenDepartment of Computer Science




Boleslaw K. SzymanskiDepartment of Computer Science




Abstract—Modularity is widely used to effectively measurethe strength of the community structure found by communitydetection algorithms. However, modularity maximization suffersfrom two opposite yet coexisting problems: in some cases, it tendsto favor small communities over large ones while in others, largecommunities over small ones. The latter tendency is known inthe literature as the resolution limit problem. To address them,we propose to modify modularity by subtracting from it thefraction of edges connecting nodes of different communities andby including community density into modularity. We refer to themodified metric as Modularity Density and we demonstrate that itindeed resolves both problems mentioned above. We describe themotivation for introducing this metric by using intuitively clearand simple examples. We also discuss the results of applying thismetric, modularity, and several other popular community qualitymetrics to two real dynamic networks. The results imply thatModularity Density is consistent with all the community qualitymeasurements but not modularity, which suggests that ModularityDensity is an improved measurement of the community qualitycompared to modularity.

I. INTRODUCTION

Communities are basic structures in sociology intensivelystudied since 1950’s [1], [2]. Social media enabled online com-munities that link people regardless of their physical location.Thus, computational methods are needed to analyze and detectsuch large communities. Formally, communities are definedas groups of nodes within which connections are denser thanbetween them [3] and community detection became one of thefundamental issues in network science. Community detectionhas been shown to reveal latent yet meaningful structure notonly for groups in online and contact-based social networks,but also in functional modules in protein-protein interactionnetworks, groups of customers with similar interests in onlineretailer user networks, groups of scientists in interdisciplinarycollaboration networks, etc. [4].

In the last decade, the most popular community detectionmethod, proposed by Newman [5], has been to maximizethe quality metric known as modularity [3], [6] over all thepossible partitions of a network. This metric measures thedifference (relative to the total number of edges) between theactual and expected (in a randomized graph with the samenumber of nodes and the same degree distribution) numberof edges within a given community. It is widely used tomeasure the strength of the community structures detectedby the community detection algorithms. However, modularitymaximization has two opposite yet concurrent problems. In

some cases, it tends to split large communities into smallercommunities. In other cases, it tends to form large communi-ties by merging communities that are smaller than a certainthreshold which depends on the total number of edges in thenetwork and on the degree of inter-connectivity between thecommunities. The latter problem is known as the resolutionlimit problem [7].

To solve these two problems simultaneously, we proposea new community quality metric, that we termed ModularityDensity, as an alternative to modularity. First, we show thatmodularity decreased by Split Penalty, defined as the frac-tion of edges that connect nodes of different communities,solves the problem of favoring small communities. Next, wedemonstrate that including community density into modularityaddresses the problem of favoring large communities. We referto the resulting metric as Modularity Density.

We discuss our experiments with Modularity Density,modularity, and other popular community quality metrics,including the number of Intra-edges, Contraction, the numberof Inter-edges, Expansion, and Conductance [8], on two realdynamic networks. The results show that Modularity Densityis different from original modularity, but consistent with allthose community quality measurements, which implies thatModularity Density is effective in measuring the communityquality of networks.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First, inSection II we discuss some related works. Then, we brieflyintroduce modularity and illustrate our motivation to proposethe new metric with examples in Section III. Section IVpresents the experiments that demonstrate Modularity Densitysolves the two problems of modularity simultaneously. Finally,we conclude and discuss the future work in Section V.

II. RELATED WORK

Several metrics for evaluating the quality of communitystructure have been introduced. The most popular and widelyused is modularity [3], [6]. It is defined as the difference(relative to the total number of edges) between the actual andexpected (in a randomized graph with the same number ofnodes and the same degree sequence) number of edges insidea given community. Although initially defined for unweightedand undirected networks, the definition of modularity hasbeen subsequently extended to capture community structurein weighted networks [9] and then in directed networks [10].

SocialCom/PASSAT/BigData/EconCom/BioMedCom 2013

978-0-7695-5137-1/13 $26.00 © 2013 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/SocialCom.2013.25

122

(a) Two very well separated communities. (b) Two well separated communities. (c) Two weakly connected communities.

(d) Ambiguity between one and two communities. (e) One well connected community. (f) One very well connected community.Fig. 1. Six simple network examples that have two different community structures, one with a single big community containing all eight nodes and the otherwith the two small communities each containing four different nodes.

However, recently, Fortunato and Barthelemy [7] presenteda resolution limit problem of modularity, essence of which isthat optimizing modularity will not find communities smallerthan a threshold size, or weight [11]. This threshold depends onthe total number, or total weight, of edges in the network andon the degree of interconnectedness between the communities.Moreover, Good et al. [12] shown that the range of modularityvalues computed over all possible partitions of a graph has astructure in which the maximum modularity partition is typi-cally concealed among an exponentially large (in terms of thegraph size) number of structurally dissimilar, high-modularitypartitions. To address this resolution limit problem, multi-resolution versions of modularity [13], [14] were proposed toallow researchers to specify a tunable target resolution limitparameter and identify communities on that scale. Typically, itis not clear how to choose the correct value for this parameter.Furthermore, Lancichinetti and Fortunato [15] stated that eventhose multi-resolution versions of modularity as well as its o-riginal version are not only inclined to merge the smallest well-formed communities but also to split the largest well-formedcommunities. In contrast, the Modularity Density metric wepropose here solves those two problems of modularity withoutthe trouble of specifying any particular parameter.

III. MODULARITY DENSITY

In this section, we first formally introduce Newman’sdefinition of modularity and then illustrate the motivation formodifying modularity with several simple network examples.Next, we propose a new community quality metric, calledModularity Density, as an alternative to modularity by com-bining modularity with Split Penalty and community densityto avoid the two coexisting problems of modularity. Finally,

we define Modularity Density for different kinds of networks,including unweighted and undirected networks, weighted net-works, and directed networks, based on the correspondingformulas of modularity.

A. Newman’s Modularity

Newman’s modularity [3], [6] for unweighted networksis defined as the ratio of difference between the actual andexpected (in a randomized graph with the same number ofnodes and the same degree sequence) number of edges withinthe community. For the given community partition of a networkG = (V,E) with |E| edges, modularity (Q) [3] is given by

Q =∑ci∈C

[|Ein

ci ||E| −

(α|Ein

ci |+ |Eoutci |

α|E|)2

], (1)

where C is the set of all the communities, ci is a specificcommunity in C, |Ein

ci | is the number of edges between nodeswithin community ci, |Eout

ci | is the number of edges from thenodes in community ci to the nodes outside ci, and α is 1 fordirected networks and 2 for undirected ones.

The definition of modularity [9] for the weighted networkshas precisely the same formula, Equation (1), as for theunweighted networks. However, for weighted networks, |E| isthe sum of weights of all the edges in the network, |Ein

ci | is thesum of weights of the edges between nodes within communityci, and |Eout

ci | is the sum of weights of the edges from thenodes in community ci to the nodes outside ci.

B. Motivation for Introducing Split Penalty

In this subsection, we demonstrate the motivation for intro-ducing Split Penalty into modularity by using seven intuitively

123

TABLE I. METRIC VALUES OF THE EXAMPLE: TWO VERY WELL

SEPARATED COMMUNITIES.

Modularity (Q) Split Penalty (SP ) Qs Qds

Two communities 0.5 0 0.5 0.5

One community 0 0 0 0.245

TABLE II. METRIC VALUES OF THE EXAMPLE: TWO WELL SEPARATED

COMMUNITIES.


Two communities 0.357 0.143 0.214 0.339


TABLE III. METRIC VALUES OF THE EXAMPLE: TWO WEAKLY

CONNECTED COMMUNITIES.


Two communities 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.263


TABLE IV. METRIC VALUES OF THE EXAMPLE: AMBIGUITY BETWEEN

ONE AND TWO COMMUNITIES.


Two communities 0.25 0.25 0 0.188


TABLE V. METRIC VALUES OF THE EXAMPLE: ONE WELL

CONNECTED COMMUNITY.


Two communities 0.167 0.333 -0.167 0.0417


TABLE VI. METRIC VALUES OF THE EXAMPLE: ONE VERY WELL

CONNECTED COMMUNITY.


Two communities 0.0455 0.455 -0.409 -0.239


TABLE VII. METRIC VALUES OF THE EXAMPLE: ONE COMPLETE

GRAPH.


Two communities -0.0714 0.571 -0.643 -0.643

One community 0 0 0 0

clear and simple network examples, six of which are presentedin Figure 1. The seventh example is a complete graph witheight nodes and one big community containing all eight nodeswhile the alternative partition consists of the two small com-munities each containing four different nodes. We could easilyjudge that for the first, second, and the third examples, thecommunity structure with two small communities is better thanthe community structure in which they are merged together.For the fourth example, the two different community structuresare nearly of the same quality. However, for the fifth, sixth,and the seventh examples, the community structure with onebig community is of better quality than the alternative.

Tables I-VII show the metric values of the seven networkexamples described above. Tables I-III, and Table VII demon-strate that modularity succeeds in measuring the quality of thetwo different community structures in those four examples.However, from Tables IV-VI, we could observe that modularityactually fails to measure the community quality of those threeexamples because it implies that the community structure withtwo small communities is better. In contrast, for the fifth andthe sixth examples, the community structure with one bigcommunity is of better quality. Yet, in this case modularitygives preference to the community structure with two separatedsmall communities, demonstrating that modularity has the

problem of favoring small communities.

To address the drawback of favoring small communities,we propose that the quality of the community structure shouldtake into account the edges between different communities. Weintroduce Modularity with Split Penalty (Qs) by subtractingfrom modularity the Split Penalty (SP ) which is the fractionof edges that connect nodes of different communities. Moreformally,

Qs = Q− SP. (2)

The intuition here is clear. Modularity measures the positiveeffect of grouping nodes together in terms of taking intoaccount existing edges between nodes while Split Penalty mea-sures the negative effect of ignoring edges joining members ofdifferent communities. Enlarging community eliminates someSplit Penalty but if there are only a few edges across currentpartition, modularity of the merged community could be lower,negating the benefit of merging. Splitting a community intotwo or more communities introduces some Split Penalty butif there are only a few edges between those separated com-munities, an increase of modularity can make such splittingbeneficial. Tables I-VII demonstrate that Qs can correctlymeasure the quality of the community structures of all sevennetwork examples.

C. Modularity with Split Penalty

In this subsection, we extend the formula of Qs to dif-ferent kinds of networks, such as unweighted and undirectednetworks, weighted networks, and directed networks, basedon the corresponding formulas of modularity presented inSubsection III-A.

From Subsection III-B, we know that Split Penalty (SP ) isthe fraction of edges that connect nodes of different commu-nities. Thus, for networks, no matter unweighted or weighted,Split Penalty is defined as

SP =∑ci∈C

⎡⎢⎢⎣ ∑

cj∈Ccj �=ci

|Eci,cj |α|E|

⎤⎥⎥⎦ . (3)

where |Eci,cj | is the number of edges from community ci tocommunity cj for unweighted networks or the sum of weightsof the edges from community ci to community cj for weightednetworks and α as previously is 1 for directed networks and2 for undirected ones.

Therefore, for networks, both unweighted and weighted,from Equations (1), (2), and (3), Qs is defined as

Qs =∑ci∈C

⎡⎢⎢⎣ |Ein

ci ||E| −

(α|Ein

ci |+ |Eoutci |

α|E|)2

−∑cj∈Ccj �=ci

|Eci,cj |α|E|

⎤⎥⎥⎦ .

(4)

D. Motivation for Introducing Community Density

Modularity has the resolution limit problem that Qs makeseven worse. This problem is illustrated in Figure 2. It displaysa ring network comprised of thirty identical cliques, each of

124

Fig. 2. A ring network example made out of thirty identical cliques, eachhaving five nodes and connected by single edges.

which has five nodes and they are connected by single edges.In this case, the modularity of the community structure witheach clique forming a different community, totally thirty com-munities, should be larger than that of the community structurein which two consecutive cliques form a different community,totally fifteen communities. However, Table VIII shows thatthe relation is reversed since the community structure withfifteen communities has larger modularity than that of thecommunity structure with thirty communities. Moreover, aspointed out in [7], when m(m − 1) + 2 < n, where n isthe number of cliques and m is the number of nodes ineach clique, modularity is higher for the large communitywith two consecutive cliques instead of the small communitywith a single clique. Moreover, Table VIII demonstrates thatthe difference of Qs for these two community structures islarger than the corresponding difference of modularity. Morespecifically, ΔQs = (0.8424 − 0.7848) = 0.0576 > ΔQ =(0.8879− 0.8758) = 0.0121, which means that Qs makes theresolution limit problem even worse.

To address the resolution limit problem above, we proposeand it is also quite intuitive to introduce community densityinto modularity, incorporating both the number of edges andthe number of nodes in the communities and also Split Penalty.The corresponding new metric is called Modularity Density(Qds). Table VIII shows that the Qds of the communitystructure in which two consecutive cliques form a differentcommunity is almost half of the Qds of the alternative in whicheach clique forms a different community. Hence, in this case,Qds avoids the resolution limit problem. Furthermore, TablesI-VII and Figure 1 demonstrate that Qds correctly measuresthe quality of the community structures of all seven networkexamples. Even for the network example of Figure 1(d) inwhich there is ambiguity which community structure is ofhigher quality, the Qds of the one big community is onlyslightly larger than the Qds of the two small communities asshown in Table IV.

E. Modularity Density

In this subsection, we will give the formulas for Qds fordifferent kinds of networks, including unweighted and undi-rected networks, weighted networks, and directed networks,based on the corresponding formulas of Qs presented inSubsection III-C.

TABLE VIII. METRIC VALUES OF THE EXAMPLE: A RING OF THIRTY

CLIQUES, EACH HAVING FIVE NODES AND CONNECTED BY SINGLE EDGES.


Thirty communities 0.8758 0.09091 0.7848 0.8721

Fifteen communities 0.8879 0.04545 0.8424 0.4305

For networks, regardless whether unweighted or weighted,we define Qds using Equation (4) as follows

Qds =∑ci∈C

[ |Einci ||E| dci −

(α|Ein

ci |+ |Eoutci |

α|E| dci

)2

−∑cj∈Ccj �=ci

|Eci,cj |α|E| dci,cj

],

dci =α|Ein

ci ||ci|(|ci| − 1)

,

dci,cj =|Eci,cj ||ci||cj | .

(5)

In the above, dci is the internal density of community ci, dci,cjis the pair-wise density between community ci and communitycj , and α is 1 for directed networks and 2 for undirected ones.Note that |Ein

ci | in dci and |Eci,cj | in dci,cj are unweightedfor both unweighted and weighted networks, so that those twocommunity densities are always less than or equal to 1.0.

IV. EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS

In this section, we first introduce two real dynamic datasetsand various other popular community quality measurements.Then, we show the experimental results that validate Modu-larity Density (Qds) ability to address the two problems ofmodularity (Q) simultaneously. Formal proofs that Qds solvesthe modularity shortcomings are presented in the extendedversion of this paper [16].

A. Real Dynamic Datasets

In this subsection, we introduce two real dynamic datasetson which we conduct experiments in order to validate that Qds

avoids the two problems of modularity.

Senate Dataset [17], [18]. The Senate dataset is a time-evolving weighted network comprised of United States sen-ators where the weight of an edge represents the similarityof their roll call voting behavior. This dataset was obtainedfrom website voteview.com and the similarities between apair of senators were calculated following Waugh et al. [18]as the number of bills for which the senators of the pairvoted the same way, normalized by the number of bills forwhich they both voted. The dataset totally consists of 111snapshots corresponding to Senate’s activities over 220 yearsand includes 1916 unique senators.

Reality Mining Bluetooth Scan Data [19]. This datasetwas created from the records of Bluetooth Scans generatedamong the 94 subjects in Reality Mining study conductedfrom 2004-2005 at the MIT Media Laboratory. In the network,nodes represent the subjects and the directed edges correspondto the Bluetooth Scan records while the weight of each edgerepresents the number of direct Bluetooth scans between thetwo subjects. In the experiments, we only used the records

125

TABLE IX. THE AVERAGE METRIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LABELRANKT WITH DIFFERENT VALUES OF CONDITIONAL UPDATE PARAMETER q AND

ESTRANGEMENT ON SENATE DATASET.

LabelRankT conditional update q 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.95

Q -0.0534 -0.0462 -0.0408 -0.0538 -0.0714 -0.0848 -0.083 -0.0897 -0.0897 -0.0848 -0.08

Qs -0.166 -0.0802 0.0468 0.0808 0.0969 0.112 0.116 0.115 0.115 0.111 0.106

Qds -0.1638 -0.0787 0.04847 0.08297 0.0995 0.1145 0.1182 0.1183 0.1183 0.1135 0.1083

# Intra-edges -159.102 -32.444 234.296 387.38 510.645 616.855 615.123 624.764 624.764 602.627 580.733

Contraction -6.806 -3.023 2.481 4.553 5.937 7.033 7.065 7.227 7.227 6.927 6.622

# Inter-edges -75.962 -54.098 -123.898 -187.99 -245.198 -299.356 -300.108 -303.043 -303.043 -292.782 -282.442

Expansion 6.448 2.91 -2.428 -4.416 -5.737 -6.847 -6.878 -7.009 -7.009 -6.724 -6.431

Conductance 0.213 0.0851 -0.0886 -0.148 -0.186 -0.214 -0.216 -0.224 -0.224 -0.213 -0.201

TABLE X. THE AVERAGE METRIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LABELRANKT WITH DIFFERENT VALUES OF CONDITIONAL UPDATE PARAMETER q AND

ESTRANGEMENT ON REALITY MINING BLUETOOTH SCAN DATA.

LabelRankT conditional update q 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.95

Q -0.167 -0.13 -0.0878 -0.0814 -0.081 -0.0798 -0.0793 -0.0821 -0.0836 -0.0848 -0.0866

Qs -0.404 -0.279 -0.144 -0.112 -0.087 -0.0851 -0.0741 -0.0775 -0.0888 -0.0989 -0.103

Qds -0.173 -0.0945 -0.0264 -0.0198 -0.0168 -0.0178 -0.0113 -0.0166 -0.0186 -0.0186 -0.0183

# Intra-edges -1450.893 -956.006 -479.377 -331.371 -230.263 -183.536 -102.94 -78.93 -155.183 -242.287 -333.419

Contraction -86.909 -69.914 -52.543 -46.371 -43.176 -40.567 -35.948 -36.425 -38.006 -41.277 -45.425

# Inter-edges -39.949 -76.524 -159.74 -167.333 -190.947 -190.865 -196.098 -193.123 -188.708 -179.653 -178.96

Expansion 52.529 25.829 6.289 5.76 5.664 7.07 4.881 6.799 6.916 6.117 5.669

Conductance 0.23 0.176 0.114 0.1 0.0934 0.0933 0.0843 0.0955 0.102 0.107 0.104

from August 02, 2004 (Monday) to May 29, 2005 (Sunday)and we divided them into weekly snapshots, so each snapshotrepresents scans collected during the corresponding week.There are total of 43 snapshots.

B. Community Quality Measurements

In the discussion of the experimental results we use variouscommunity quality metrics, including the number of Intra-edges, Contraction, the number of Inter-edges, Expansion, andConductance [8], which characterize how community-like isthe connectivity structure of a given set of nodes. All of themrely on the intuition that communities are sets of nodes withmany edges inside them and few edges outside of them. Now,given a network G = (V,E) and given a community or a setof nodes c, let |c| be the number of nodes in the communityc and let |Ein

c | denote the total number of edges in c forunweighted networks or the total weight of such edges forweighted networks. We denote the total number of edges onthe boundary of c for unweighted networks or the total weightof such edges for weighted networks as |Eout

c |. Then, thedefinitions of the five quality metrics are as follows:The number of Intra-edges: |Ein

c |; it is the total number ofedges in c or the total weight of such edges. The larger thevalue of this metric is, the better the community quality is.Contraction: 2|Ein

c |/|c| for undirected networks or |Einc |/|c|

for directed networks; it measures the average number of edgesper node inside the community c or the average weight pernode of such edges. The larger the value of Contraction is,the better the community quality is.The number of Inter-edges: |Eout

c |; it is the total number ofedges on the boundary of c or the total weight of such edges.The smaller it is, the better the community quality is.Expansion: |Eout

c |/|c|; it measures the average number ofedges (per node) that point outside the community c or theaverage weight per node of such edges. The smaller the valueof Expansion, the better the community quality is.

Conductance: |Eoutc |

2|Einc |+|Eout

c | for undirected networks or|Eout

c ||Ein

c |+|Eoutc | for directed networks; it measures the fraction

of the total number of edges that point outside the communityfor unweighted networks or the fraction of the total weight of

such edges for weighted networks. The smaller the value ofConductance is, the better the community quality is.

C. Experimental Results

In this subsection, we report the results of performingcommunity detection on the two real dynamic datasets intro-duced in Subsection IV-A by using the dynamic communitydetection algorithms, LabelRankT [20] and Estrangement [17].LabelRankT [20] detects communities in large-scale dynamicnetworks through stabilized label propagation. Estrangement[17] detects temporal communities by maximizing modularityin a snapshot subject to a constraint on the estrangementfrom the partition in the previous snapshot. We chose thesetwo algorithms because the second algorithm relies on themodularity optimization while the first one does not. In theexperiments, we adopted the best parameter of Estrangementbut varying the conditional update parameter q ∈ [0, 1] ofLabelRankT from 0.05 to 0.95. As seen in the results, in mostcases, the best q is around 0.7 in agreement with the best valuereported in [20]. For the community structures found by thetwo algorithms, we calculated the values of modularity (Q),Qs, Modularity Density (Qds), and the five metrics describedin Subsection IV-B.

Table IX and Table X present the average metric differ-ences between LabelRankT with different values of conditionalupdate parameter q and Estrangement on Senate dataset andReality Mining Bluetooth Scan data, respectively. That is, wefirst computed the values of the eight metrics above for thecommunity detection results, detected by Estrangement, ofeach snapshot. Then, we calculated the eight metrics values forthe community detection results, discovered by LabelRankTfor all q, of each snapshot. Next, we got the metric differ-ences of all eight metrics by subtracting the metric values ofEstrangement from those of LabelRankT for all q’s over eachsnapshot. Then, averaging those differences of each metricover all the snapshots, we obtained the corresponding averagemetric differences.

Table IX demonstrates that Q gets its largest value whenq = 0.2; Qs reaches the largest value when q = 0.6; Qds,Intra-edges, and Contraction get their largest values at q = 0.7

126

and q = 0.8; also, Inter-edges, Expansion, and Conductancereach their smallest values at q = 0.7 and q = 0.8. Thus, Qds isconsistent with the five metrics introduced in Subsection IV-Bon determining the best q for LabelRankT on Senate datasetwhile Q and Qs are not consistent with them. Further, wecould observe that Q is always negative which indicates thatLabelRankT performs below Estrangement over all q’s becausethe goal of Estrangement is to maximize modularity (Q). How-ever, the other seven metrics imply that LabelRankT performsbetter than Estrangement when q > 0.1. Therefore, we couldexplicitly observe that maximizing Q to detect communitieshas problems in measuring the community detection qualitycorrectly on Senate dataset.

Table X shows that seven metrics get their best (largestor smallest) values at q = 0.6 while the only exception, thenumber of Intra-edges, reaches its largest value when q = 0.7.Thus, the seven metrics are consistent on determining the bestvalue of q for LabelRankT on Reality Mining Bluetooth Scandata. However, all the metrics imply that LabelRankT performsslightly below the performance of Estrangement over all q’s.This indicates that on Reality Mining Bluetooth Scan data, Qmeasures the community detection quality correctly.

It is also interesting to observe that for q = 0.05 andq = 0.1 in Table IX, Inter-edges implies that LabelRankTperforms better than Estrangement on Senate dataset, which isnot consistent with Qs, Qds, Intra-edges, Contraction, Expan-sion, and Conductance. Thus, Inter-edges has some problems.Also, as mentioned in the paragraph above, Intra-edges is notconsistent with the other seven metrics on determining thebest q for LabelRankT, which also means that Intra-edges hasproblems. We conjecture that the reason for the shortcomingof Intra-edges and Inter-edges is the same as the case ofmodularity (Q) which does not consider the number of nodesin the communities. This reason also implies the superiorityof Qds over Q and Qs.

Based on the results presented in the above two tables,we conclude that Qds solves the problems of modularity. Wealso conjecture that the difference between the best values ofq for LabelRankT determined by Q and Qs and the differencedetermined by Qs and Qds on Senate dataset is a manifestationof the two problems of modularity maximization, namelyfavoring small communities and the resolution limit problem.However, maximizing Q does not have those two issues onReality Mining Bluetooth Scan data. Thus, Qs and Qds can beused for checking whether finding communities by maximizingQ on a specific dataset will suffer any of the two problems.

V. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

In this paper, we propose a new community quality metric,called Modularity Density, which solves the shortcomings ofmodularity of favoring small communities in some circum-stances and large communities in others. We demonstrate withexperiments on real dynamic datasets that Modularity Densityis an effective alternative to modularity.

In the future, we plan to extend Modularity Density toenable evaluation of the quality of overlapping communitystructures. We will also propose a community detection al-gorithm based on Modularity Density maximization and then

compare its community detection results with those of modu-larity maximization algorithms on some typical real networks.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported in part by the Army ResearchLaboratory under Cooperative Agreement Number W911NF-09-2-0053 and by the the Office of Naval Research Grant No.N00014-09-1-0607. The views and conclusions contained inthis document are those of the authors and should not beinterpreted as representing the official policies either expressedor implied of the Army Research Laboratory or the U.S.Government.

REFERENCES

[1] R. E. Park, Human communities: The city and human ecology. NewYork, NY: Free Press, 1952.

[2] W. S. Bainbridge, “Computational sociology,” in Blackwell Encyclope-dia of Sociology, 2007.

[3] M. E. J. Newman and M. Girvan, “Finding and evaluating communitystructure in networks,” Phys. Rev. E, vol. 69, p. 026113, Feb 2004.

[4] S. Fortunato, “Community detection in graphs,” Physics Reports, vol.486, pp. 75–174, 2010.

[5] M. E. J. Newman, “Fast algorithm for detecting community structurein networks,” Phys. Rev. E, vol. 69, p. 066133, Jun 2004.

[6] M. E. J. Newman, “Modularity and community structure in networks,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 103, no. 23, pp.8577–8582, 2006.

[7] S. Fortunato and M. Barthlemy, “Resolution limit in community de-tection,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 104,no. 1, pp. 36–41, 2007.

[8] J. Yang and J. Leskovec, “Defning and evaluating network communitiesbased on ground-truth,” IEEE International Conference On Data Mining(ICDM), 2012.

[9] M. E. J. Newman, “Analysis of weighted networks,” Phys. Rev. E,vol. 70, p. 056131, Nov 2004.

[10] E. A. Leicht and M. E. J. Newman, “Community structure in directednetworks,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 100, p. 118703, Mar 2008.

[11] J. W. Berry, B. Hendrickson, R. A. LaViolette, and C. A. Phillips, “Tol-erating the community detection resolution limit with edge weighting,”Phys. Rev. E, vol. 83, p. 056119, May 2011.

[12] B. H. Good, Y.-A. de Montjoye, and A. Clauset, “Performance ofmodularity maximization in practical contexts,” Phys. Rev. E, vol. 81,p. 046106, Apr 2010.

[13] J. Reichardt and S. Bornholdt, “Statistical mechanics of communitydetection,” Phys. Rev. E, vol. 74, p. 016110, Jul 2006.

[14] A. Arenas, A. Fernndez, and S. Gmez, “Analysis of the structureof complex networks at different resolution levels,” New Journal ofPhysics, vol. 10, no. 5, p. 053039, 2008.

[15] A. Lancichinetti and S. Fortunato, “Limits of modularity maximizationin community detection,” Phys. Rev. E, vol. 84, p. 066122, Dec 2011.

[16] M. Chen, T. Nguyen, and B. K. Szymanski, “A new metric for qualityof network community structure,” ASE Human Journal, to appear, 2013.

[17] V. Kawadia and S. Sreenivasan, “Sequential detection of temporalcommunities by estrangement confinement,” Scientific Reports, vol. 2,November 2012.

[18] A. S. Waugh, L. Pei, J. H. Fowler, P. J. Mucha, and M. A. Porter,“Party polarization in congress: A network science approach,” arX-iv:0907.3509, 2010.

[19] N. Eagle, A. Pentland, and D. Lazer, “Inferring social network structureusing mobile phone data,” Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences (PNAS), vol. 106, no. 36, pp. 15 274–15 278, 2009.

[20] J. Xie, M. Chen, and B. K. Szymanski, “LabelrankT: Incrementalcommunity detection in dynamic networks via label propagation,” inACM SIGMOD Workshop on Dynamic Networks Management andMining (DyNetMM), New York, USA, 2013.

127

Documents

[IEEE 2013 International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom) - Alexandria, VA, USA (2013.09.8-2013.09.14)] 2013 International Conference on Social Computing - On Measuring the