Abstract

Most current survey papers classify community detection methods into broad categories and do not draw clear boundaries between the specific techniques employed by these methods. We survey in this paper all fine-grained community detection categories, the clustering methods that fall under these categories, and the techniques employed by these methods for optimizing each objective function. We provide methodology-based taxonomies that classify static and dynamic community detection methods into hierarchically nested, fine-grained, and specific classes. We classify the methods into the objective function they optimize. Each objective function class is classified into clustering categories. Each category is further classified into clustering methods. Methods are further classified into sub-methods and so on. Thus, the lowest subclass in a hierarchy is a fine-grained and specific method. For each method, we survey the different techniques in literature employed by the method. We empirically and experimentally compare and rank the different methods that fall under each clustering category. We also empirically and experimentally compare and rank the different categories that optimize a same objective function. In summary, the block-based, top-down divisive-based, random walk-based, and matrix eigenvector-based methods achieved good results. Finally, we provide fitness metrics for each objective function.

Highlights

  • Community detection is an essential objective in graph mining

  • Most current survey papers classify clustering methods into broad categories and do not draw clear boundaries between the specific techniques employed by these methods [56]

  • Most current survey papers classify community detection methods into broad categories and do not draw clear boundaries between the specific techniques employed by these methods [56]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Community detection is an essential objective in graph mining. A community can be defined as a group of similar and densely connected vertices that are sparsely connected with the remaining vertices in the network. Each community has a certain structure that reflects the degree of interaction between its members. Such structure is analyzed for gaining insight into the degree of dynamicity between the members. In a social structure setting, the social network is clustered to reflect social unities such as families, colleagues, villages, and social groups. Densely connected vertices in metabolic networks are examined for determining functionally related units [122], [124], [125]. In information forensic setting, densely connected vertices in criminal networks are examined for determining criminal organizations [126]. Densely connected vertices are examined for purposes such as business potentials [127]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call