Anti‐triangle centrality‐based community detection in complex networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community detection has been extensively studied in the past decades largely because of the fact that community exists in various networks such as technological, social and biological networks. Most of the available algorithms, however, only focus on the properties of the vertices, ignoring the roles of the edges. To explore the roles of the edges in the networks for community discovery, the authors introduce the novel edge centrality based on its antitriangle property. To investigate how the edge centrality characterises the community structure, they develop an approach based on the edge antitriangle centrality with the isolated vertex handling strategy (EACH) for community detection. EACH first calculates the edge antitriangle centrality scores for all the edges of a given network and removes the edge with the highest score per iteration until the scores of the remaining edges are all zero. Furthermore, EACH is characterised by being free of the parameters and independent of any additional measures to determine the community structure. To demonstrate the effectiveness of EACH, they compare it with the state-of-the art algorithms on both the synthetic networks and the real world networks. The experimental results show that EACH is more accurate and has lower complexity in terms of community discovery and especially it can gain quite inherent and consistent communities with a maximal diameter of four jumps.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".