Locally optimal heuristic for modularity maximization of networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community detection in networks based on modularity maximization is currently done with hierarchical divisive or agglomerative as well as partitioning heuristics, hybrids, and, in a few papers, exact algorithms. We consider here the case of hierarchical networks in which communities should be detected and propose a divisive heuristic which is locally optimal in the sense that each of the successive bipartitions is done in a provably optimal way. This heuristic is compared with the spectral-based hierarchical divisive heuristic of Newman [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 8577 (2006).] and with the hierarchical agglomerative heuristic of Clauset, Newman, and Moore [Phys. Rev. E 70, 066111 (2004).]. Computational results are given for a series of problems of the literature with up to 4941 vertices and 6594 edges. They show that the proposed divisive heuristic gives better results than the divisive heuristic of Newman and than the agglomerative heuristic of Clauset et al.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".