Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36510602›Full record

ArticleApplied network science2022

Towards explainable community finding.

Sophie Sadler, Derek Greene, Daniel Archambault

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied network science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Sophie SadlerSwansea University, Swansea, UK.
Derek GreeneSchool of Computer Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Daniel ArchambaultSwansea University, Swansea, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The detection of communities of nodes is an important task in understanding the structure of networks. Multiple approaches have been developed to tackle this problem, many of which are in common usage in real-world applications, such as in public health networks. However, clear insight into the reasoning behind the community labels produced by these algorithms is rarely provided. Drawing inspiration from the machine learning literature, we aim to provide post-hoc explanations for the outputs of these algorithms using interpretable features of the network. In this paper, we propose a model-agnostic methodology that identifies a set of informative features to help explain the output of a community finding algorithm. We apply it to three well-known algorithms, though the methodology is designed to generalise to new approaches. As well as identifying important features for a post-hoc explanation system, we report on the common features found made by the different algorithms and the differences between the approaches. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41109-022-00515-6.

Indexed as

Community detectionExplainabilityGraph miningNetwork analysis

Identifiers

PMID36510602
PMCPMC9731939

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.