1 / 23

Overcoming Resolution Limits in MDL Community Detection

Overcoming Resolution Limits in MDL Community Detection. L. Karl Branting The MITRE Corporation. Outline. Utility functions in community detection Resolution limits MDL-based community detection Previous: RB and AP New: SGE Experimental Evaluation Lessons.

amber-ryan
Download Presentation

Overcoming Resolution Limits in MDL Community Detection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Overcoming Resolution Limits in MDL Community Detection L. Karl Branting The MITRE Corporation

  2. Outline • Utility functions in community detection • Resolution limits • MDL-based community detection • Previous: RB and AP • New: SGE • Experimental Evaluation • Lessons

  3. Utility functions in community detection • Two components of community detection algorithms • Utility function – quality criterion to be optimized • Search strategy – procedure for finding optimal partition • Examples • Garvin & Newman (2003) • Utility function: modularity • Search strategy: greedy divisive hierarchical clustering (iteratively remove highest betweenness edge) • Newman (2003) • Utility function: modularity • Search strategy: greedy agglomerative hierarchical clustering (iteratively choose highest modularity merge) • Tasgin & Bingol (2006) • Utility function: modularity • Search strategy: genetic algorithm

  4. Utility functions in community detection • Other search strategies used with modularity • Rattigan, Maier, Jensen (2007) • Utility function: modularity • Search strategy: Greedy divisive hierarchical clustering using a Network Structured Index to approximation edge betweenness • Donetti & Munoz (2004) • Utility function: modularity • Search strategy: greedy agglomerative hierarchical clustering with spectral division

  5. Utility functions in community detection • Statistical Approaches • Zhang, Qiu, Giles, Foley, & Yen (2007) • Utility function: log-likelihood (LDA parameters) • Search strategy: fixed-point iteration • Compression-Based Approaches • Rosvall & Bergstrom (2007) • Utility function: Minimum Description Length • Search strategy: simulated annealing • Chakrabarti (2004) • Utility function: Minimum Description Length • Search strategy: exhaustive search for k, hill-climbing given k • Utility function implicit in search strategy • Raghavan, Albert, & Kumara (2007) – marker passing • Cliques, cores, etc.

  6. Modularity • W(Dii) = number of edges internal to group i • li = number of edges incident to vertices in group I • l = total number of edges • Intuitive – expresses intuition that ratio of internal to external edges is greater for groups than for non-groups • Popular • Imperfect • Fortunato & Barthelemy (2007) Resolution limit: groups conflated if number of vertices less than • Rosvall & Bergstrom (2007) Biased towards same-sized groups

  7. Resolution Limit • Ring graph R15,4 • 15 communities • 4 nodes per community • Community structure that maximizes modularity conflates groups

  8. Approaches to modularity’s resolution limit • Apply recursively to large communities (Ruan & Zhang 2007) • Apply locally (Clauset 2005) • Choose a different utility function

  9. Description Length • Utility of community structure is sum of bits needed to represent • Community structure + • Graph given community structure • Search strategy attempts to minimize description length • There is no unique bit count • Undecidability of Kolmogorov complexity • Previous approaches • Rosvall & Bergstrom (2007): RB • Handles group size skew better than modularity • Chakrabarti (2004): AP • Comparison • Similar breakdown of bits • Different calculation

  10. Components of Description • Components (details in paper) • Bits to represent number of nodes in graph • ignored because not specific to community structure • Bits to represent number of groups • Bits to represent mapping between nodes and groups • Bits needed for number of group-to-group edges • Bits needed for adjacencies between nodes • Purpose • 2, 3, 4: represent group structure • 1, 5: represent graph as a whole

  11. Surprising Experimental Result • RB, AP, and modularity compared as utility functions • Applied to ring graphs Rm,c for 4 ≤ m ≤ 16 and 3 ≤ c ≤ 9 • Search strategy: greedy divisive hierarchical clustering (iteratively remove highest betweenness edge) • Unsurprising result. Modularity led to conflated groups for: • m > 8 and c = 3 • m > 10 and c = 4 • m > 11 and c = 5 • m > 13 and c = 6,7 • Surprising result. • Both RB and AP conflated at least one pair of groups in every Rm,c!

  12. Hypothesis • Both RB and AP require at least one bit per pair of groups in term 4 • Perhaps this estimation causes group conflation • Term 4 grows as the square of the number of groups • If graph is sparse, conflating groups may save more in term 4 reduction than it costs in term 5 increase Components • Bits to represent number of nodes in graph • ignored because not specific to community structure • Bits to represent number of groups • Bits to represent mapping between nodes and groups • Bits needed for number of group-to-group edges • Bits needed for adjacencies between nodes

  13. SGE (Sparse Graph Encoding) • Components • Bits to represent number of nodes in graph • Ignored, as in RB and AP • Bits to represent number of groups • Follows RB • Bits to represent mapping between nodes and groups • Similar to AP • Bits needed for number of group to group edges • Split into 2 terms • Which pairs of groups are connected (much less than one bit per pair if pairs sparsely or densely connected) • Number of edges between connected groups • Grows as number of connected pairs, not total number of pairs • Bits needed for adjacencies between nodes • Follows RB

  14. Performance of SGE on Ring Graphs • Correct community structure found for every Rm,c for 4 ≤ m ≤ 16 and 3 ≤ c ≤ 9 except • R4,3 • R13,3 • Results confirm hypothesis that resolution limit in RB and AP is result of over-counting term 4: the bits needed for group-to-group edges • Significance • Ring graphs rare in real world • How does SGE compare on more realistic graphs?

  15. Uniform random graph • Similar to graphs in Rosvall & Bergstrom (2007) • Test set • 32 vertices • 4 groups • average degree 6 • size ratio {1.0,1.25,1.5,1.75,2.0} • Proportion internal edges {0.6,0.75,0.9} • Example: • 32 vertices • 4 groups • average degree 6 • size ratio 1.25 • Proportion internal edges 0.67

  16. Embedded Barabasi-Albert Graphs • Test set • 4 communities separately generated by preferential attachment • In each community • 4 initial vertices • 2-4 edges added per time step • 20 time steps • Example • 4 communities • 4 initial vertices • 3 edges added per time step • 20 time steps

  17. Evaluation Criteria • Rand index (Rand 1971) • Adjusted Rand index (Hubert & Arabie 1985) • F-measure – based on same-cluster pairs • Recall = • Precision = • F-measure =

  18. Results: Uniform random graph

  19. Results: Uniform random graph

  20. Results: Uniform random graph

  21. Results: Embedded Barabasi-Albert

  22. Summary of Evaluation • Random graphs • Community structure is weak • Group sizes are balanced – modularity is best • Group sizes are imbalanced – RS is best (as per Rosvall & Bergstrom 2007) • Community structure is strong • Group sizes are balanced – not much difference • Group sizes are imbalanced – modularity is particularly bad (as per Rosvall & Bergstrom 2007), SGE slightly better than RS and AP • EBA graphs • Sparse – AP and SGE weaker than modularity and RS • Dense – essentially identical accuracy

  23. Conclusion • Narrow • Conflation of groups by MDL in sparse graphs (e.g., ring graphs) can be avoided by adjusting group-to-group edge counts. • This change doesn’t hurt performance in more common types of graphs. • Compression-based clustering works well, but requires tinkering • Modularity detects weak structure well when graph not too big and groups not too imbalanced • Broad • Still unclear what utility function is best overall • Needed: theory relating graph typology to utility functions

More Related