Overcoming Bias in Community Detection Evaluation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Community detection is a key task to further understand the function and the structure of complex networks. Therefore, a strategy used to assess this task must be able to avoid biased and incorrect results that might invalidate further analyses or applications that rely on such communities. Two widely used strategies to assess this task are generally known as structural and functional. The structural strategy basically consists in detecting and assessing such communities by using multiple methods and structural metrics. On the other hand, the functional strategy might be used when ground truth data are available to assess the detected communities. However, the evaluation of communities based on such strategies is usually done in experimental configurations that are largely susceptible to biases, a situation that is inherent to algorithms, metrics and network data used in this task. Furthermore, such strategies are not systematically combined in a way that allows for the identification and mitigation of bias in the algorithms, metrics or network data to converge into more consistent results. In this context, the main contribution of this article is an approach that supports a robust quality evaluation when detecting communities in real-world networks. In our approach, we measure the quality of a community by applying the structural and functional strategies, and the combination of both, to obtain different pieces of evidence. Then, we consider the divergences and the consensus among the pieces of evidence to identify and overcome possible sources of bias in community detection algorithms, evaluation metrics, and network data. Experiments conducted with several real and synthetic networks provided results that show the effectiveness of our approach to obtain more consistent conclusions about the quality of the detected communities.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Feb 2021.
Builds on
18 of 50 references.
References · 18
- 2017Cooperative Game Theory Approaches for Network Partitioningcited by 134
- 2013Multilayer Networkscited by 86
- 2016The ground truth about metadata and community detection in networkscited by 42
- 2014Data on face-to-face contacts in an office building suggests a low-cost vaccination strategy based on community linkerscited by 17
- 2018Evaluating Overfit and Underfit in Models of Network Community Structurecited by 17
- 2014Community detection in networks: Structural communities versus ground truthcited by 14
- 2018Evaluation of Community Detection Methodscited by 14
- 2017Can co-location be used as a proxy for face-to-face contacts?cited by 12
- 2016Ground Truth Bias in External Cluster Validity Indicescited by 10
- 2018A Survey on Theoretical Advances of Community Detection in Networkscited by 7
- 2013Generalized Measures for the Evaluation of Community Detection Methodscited by 3
- 2017GRM: Group Regularity Mobility Modelcited by 2
6 more
- 2018Community structure: A comparative evaluation of community detection methodscited by 2
- 2019Discovering Communities of Community Discoverycited by 2
- 2017Sampling of Temporal Networks: Methods and Biasescited by 1
- 2017Community detection algorithm evaluation with ground-truth datacited by 1
- 2018Measuring the effect of node aggregation on community detectioncited by 1
- 2019A Multi-Strategy Approach to Overcoming Bias in Community Detection Evaluationcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.