Advertisement

Is it Correct to Project and Detect? Assessing Performance of Community Detection on Unipartite Projections of Bipartite Networks

  • Tristan J. B. Cann
  • Iain S. Weaver
  • Hywel T. P. Williams
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 812)

Abstract

Many real-world systems can be represented by bipartite networks that link two classes of node. However, methods for analysing bipartite networks are not as well-developed as those for unipartite networks. In particular, community detection in bipartite networks is often approached by projecting the network onto a unipartite network incorporating just one of the bipartite node classes. Here we apply a simple model to generate bipartite networks with prescribed community structure and then test the performance of community detection using four different unipartite projection schemes. Several important performance issues emerge from this treatment, particularly when the original bipartite networks have a long-tailed degree distribution. We find that a “hyperbolic” projection scheme mitigates performance issues to some extent, but conclude that care must be taken when interpreting community detection algorithm performance on projected networks. These findings have implications for any scenario where a unipartite projection is analysed in place of a bipartite system, including common applications to online social networks, social media and scientific collaboration networks.

Notes

Acknowledgements

TC is funded by an EPSRC Research Studentship (grant number EP/M506527/1). HW and IW acknowledge funding from ESRC (grant number ES/N012283/1) and NERC (grant number NE/P017436/1). We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments and the resulting improvements to this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Barber, M.J.: Modularity and community detection in bipartite networks. Phys. Rev. E 76, 066,102 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beckett, S.J.: Improved community detection in weighted bipartite networks. Royal Soc. Open Sci. 3(1) (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blondel, V.D., Guillaume, J.L., Lambiotte, R., Lefebvre, E.: Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J. Statist. Mech. Theory Exp. 2008(10), P10,008 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bongiorno, C., London, A., Miccichè, S., Mantegna, : R.N.: Core of communities in bipartite networks. Phys. Rev. E 96, 022,321 (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Callaway, D.S., Hopcroft, J.E., Kleinberg, J.M., Newman, M.E.J., Strogatz, S.H.: Are randomly grown graphs really random? Phys. Rev. E 64, 041,902 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Del Vicario, M., Zollo, F., Caldarelli, G., Scala, A., Quattrociocchi, W.: Mapping social dynamics on Facebook: the Brexit debate. Soc. Netw. 50, 6–16 (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Everett, M., Borgatti, S.: The dual-projection approach for two-mode networks. Soc. Netw. 35(2), 204–210 (2013). Special Issue on Advances in Two-mode Social NetworksGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guimerà, R., Sales-Pardo, M., Amaral, L.A.N.: Module identification in bipartite and directed networks. Phys. Rev. E 76, 036,102 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jacomy, M., Venturini, T., Heymann, S., Bastian, M.: ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PLoS One 9(6), 1–12 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Archambault, É.: The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900–2007. J. Am. Soc. Informat. Sci. Technol. 60(4), 858–862 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li, Y., You, C.: What is the difference of research collaboration network under different projections: topological measurement and analysis. Physica A Statist. Mech. Appl. 392(15), 3248–3259 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marquitti, F.M.D., Guimares, P.R., Pires, M.M., Bittencourt, L.F.: Modular: software for the autonomous computation of modularity in large network sets. Ecography 37(3), 221–224 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Melamed, D.: Community structures in bipartite networks: a dual-projection approach. PLoS One 9(5), 1–5 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Newman, M.: Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemp. Phys. 46(5), 323–351 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Newman, M.E.J.: Scientific collaboration networks. ii. shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Phys. Rev. E 64, 016,132 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmidt, A.L., Zollo, F., Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H.E., Quattrociocchi, W.: Anatomy of news consumption on Facebook. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 114(12), 3035–3039 (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Starbird, K.: Examining the alternative media ecosystem through the production of alternative narratives of mass shooting events on Twitter. In: Proceedings of International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media(2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weaver, I.S.: Preferential attachment in randomly grown networks. Physica A Statist. Mech. Appl. 439, 85–92 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Williams, M., Cioroianu, I., Williams, H.: Different news for different views: political news-sharing communities on social media through the UK general election in 2015. In: Proceedings Workshop on News and Public Opinion (NECO) at International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhou, C., Feng, L., Zhao, Q.: A novel community detection method in bipartite networks. Physica A Statist. Mech. Appl. 492, 1679–1693 (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tristan J. B. Cann
    • 1
  • Iain S. Weaver
    • 1
  • Hywel T. P. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, Harrison Building, Streatham CampusUniversity of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations