MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005989548 · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/1/013044

Defining and identifying cograph communities in complex networks

2015· article· en· W2005989548 on OpenAlexaff
Songwei Jia, Lin Gao, Yong Gao, James Nastos, Yijie Wang, Xindong Zhang, Haiyang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Journal of Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCentralityEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionCommunity structureComplex networkComputer scienceCographFocus (optics)Representation (politics)Simple (philosophy)Theoretical computer scienceIdentification (biology)GraphAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceCombinatoricsMathematicsPhysicsPolitical scienceEpistemologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community or module detection is a fundamental problem in complex networks. Most of the traditional algorithms available focus only on vertices in a subgraph that are densely connected among themselves while being loosely connected to the vertices outside the subgraph, ignoring the topological structure of the community. However, in most cases one needs to make further analysis on the interior topological structure of communities to obtain various meaningful subgroups. We thus propose a novel community referred to as a cograph community , which has a well-understood structure. The well-understood structure of cographs and their corresponding cotree representation allows for an immediate identification of structurally-equivalent subgroups. We develop an algorithm called the Edge P 4 centrality -based divisive algorithm (EPCA) to detect these cograph communities; this algorithm is efficient, free of parameters and independent of additional measures mainly due to the novel local edge P 4 centrality measure. Further, we compare the EPCA with algorithms from the existing literature on synthetic, social and biological networks to show it has superior or competitive performance in accuracy. In addition to the computational advantages over other community-detection algorithms, the EPCA provides a simple means of discovering both dense and sparse subgroups based on structural equivalence or homogeneous roles which may otherwise go undetected by other algorithms which rely on edge density measures for finding subgroups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Journal of PhysicsSame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207