Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30533512›Full record

ArticleApplied network science2017

The many facets of community detection in complex networks.

Michael T Schaub, Jean-Charles Delvenne, Martin Rosvall, Renaud Lambiotte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied network science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Convex skeletons of complex networks.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2018
    Article
  19. Multiscale mixing patterns in networks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michael T Schaub1Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA, Cambridge, 02139 USA.
Jean-Charles Delvenne2ICTEAM, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, B-1348 Belgium.
Martin Rosvall5Integrated Science Lab, Department of Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, SE-901 87 Sweden.
Renaud Lambiotte3naXys and Department of Mathematics, University of Namur, Namur, B-5000 Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community detection, the decomposition of a graph into essential building blocks, has been a core research topic in network science over the past years. Since a precise notion of what constitutes a community has remained evasive, community detection algorithms have often been compared on benchmark graphs with a particular form of assortative community structure and classified based on the mathematical techniques they employ. However, this comparison can be misleading because apparent similarities in their mathematical machinery can disguise different goals and reasons for why we want to employ community detection in the first place. Here we provide a focused review of these different motivations that underpin community detection. This problem-driven classification is useful in applied network science, where it is important to select an appropriate algorithm for the given purpose. Moreover, highlighting the different facets of community detection also delineates the many lines of research and points out open directions and avenues for future research.

Indexed as

Block modelCommunity detectionGraph partitioningModularity

Identifiers

PMID30533512
PMCPMC6245232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.