Finding Modules in Networks with Non-modular Regions
Most network clustering methods share the assumption that the network can be completely decomposed into modules, that is, every node belongs to (usually exactly one) module. Forcing this constraint can lead to misidentification of modules where none exist, while the true modules are drowned out in the noise, as has been observed e.g. for protein interaction networks. We thus propose a clustering model where networks contain both a modular region consisting of nodes that can be partitioned into modules, and a transition region containing nodes that lie between or outside modules. We propose two scores based on spectral properties to determine how well a network fits this model. We then evaluate three (partially adapted) clustering algorithms from the literature on random networks that fit our model, based on the scores and comparison to the ground truth. This allows to pinpoint the types of networks for which the different algorithms perform well.
KeywordsTransition Region Module Density Module Size Find Module Dense Subgraph
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Bader, G.D., Hogue, C.W.: An automated method for finding molecular complexes in large protein interaction networks. BMC Bioinformatics 4 (2003)Google Scholar
- 2.Bagrow, J.P.: Communities and bottlenecks: Trees and treelike networks have high modularity. Phys. Rev. E 85, 066118 (2012)Google Scholar
- 12.Newman, M.E.J., Girvan, M.: Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Pattern Recognition Letters 69(2), 413–421 (2004)Google Scholar
- 13.Nicosia, V., Mangioni, G., Carchiolo, V., Malgeri, M.: Extending the definition of modularity to directed graphs with overlapping communities. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2009, 22 (2008)Google Scholar
- 20.Sarich, M., Djurdjevac, N., Bruckner, S., Conrad, T.O.F., Schütte, C.: Modularity revisited: A novel dynamics-based concept for decomposing complex networks. To Appear, Journal of Computational Dynamics (2012), http://publications.mi.fu-berlin.de/1127/
- 21.Satuluri, V., Parthasarathy, S., Ucar, D.: Markov clustering of protein interaction networks with improved balance and scalability. In: Proceedings of the First ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, BCB 2010, pp. 247–256. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
- 23.Schütte, C., Sarich, M.: Metastability and Markov State Models in Molecular Dynamics. Submitted to Courant Lecture Notes (2013)Google Scholar
- 25.Weber, M., Rungsarityotin, W., Schliep, A.: Perron cluster analysis and its connection to graph partitioning for noisy data. ZIB Report, 04-39 (2004)Google Scholar