Using Triangles to Improve Community Detection in Directed Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a graph, a community may be loosely defined as a group of nodes that are more closely connected to one another than to the rest of the graph. While there are a variety of metrics that can be used to specify the quality of a given community, one common theme is that flows tend to stay within communities. Hence, we expect cycles to play an important role in community detection. For undirected graphs, the importance of triangles -- an undirected 3-cycle -- has been known for a long time and can be used to improve community detection. In directed graphs, the situation is more nuanced. The smallest cycle is simply two nodes with a reciprocal connection, and using information about reciprocation has proven to improve community detection. Our new idea is based on the four types of directed triangles that contain cycles. To identify communities in directed networks, then, we propose an undirected edge-weighting scheme based on the type of the directed triangles in which edges are involved. We also propose a new metric on quality of the communities that is based on the number of 3-cycles that are split across communities. To demonstrate the impact of our new weighting, we use the standard METIS graph partitioning tool to determine communities and show experimentally that the resulting communities result in fewer 3-cycles being cut. The magnitude of the effect varies between a 10 and 50% reduction, and we also find evidence that this weighting scheme improves a task where plausible ground-truth communities are known.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".