Heuristic Modularity Maximization Algorithms for Community Detection Rarely Return an Optimal Partition or Anything Similar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community detection is a fundamental problem in computational sciences with extensive applications in various fields. The most commonly used methods are the algorithms designed to maximize modularity over different partitions of the network nodes. Using 80 real and random networks from a wide range of contexts, we investigate the extent to which current heuristic modularity maximization algorithms succeed in returning maximum-modularity (optimal) partitions. We evaluate (1) the ratio of the algorithms' output modularity to the maximum modularity for each input graph, and (2) the maximum similarity between their output partition and any optimal partition of that graph. We compare eight existing heuristic algorithms against an exact integer programming method that globally maximizes modularity. The average modularity-based heuristic algorithm returns optimal partitions for only 19.4% of the 80 graphs considered. Additionally, results on adjusted mutual information reveal substantial dissimilarity between the sub-optimal partitions and any optimal partition of the networks in our experiments. More importantly, our results show that near-optimal partitions are often disproportionately dissimilar to any optimal partition. Taken together, our analysis points to a crucial limitation of commonly used modularity-based heuristics for discovering communities: they rarely produce an optimal partition or a partition resembling an optimal partition. If modularity is to be used for detecting communities, exact or approximate optimization algorithms are recommendable for a more methodologically sound usage of modularity within its applicability limits.
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 | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".