Discovering communities in complex networks means grouping nodes similar to each other, to uncover latent information about them. There are hundreds of different algorithms to solve the community detection task, each with its own understanding and definition of what a "community" is. Dozens of review works attempt to order such a diverse landscape -- classifying community discovery algorithms by the process they employ to detect communities, by their explicitly stated definition of community, or by their performance on a standardized task. In this paper, we classify community discovery algorithms according to a fourth criterion: the similarity of their results. We create an Algorithm Similarity Network (ASN), whose nodes are the community detection approaches, connected if they return similar groupings. We then perform community detection on this network, grouping algorithms that consistently return the same partitions or overlapping coverage over a span of more than one thousand synthetic and real world networks. This paper is an attempt to create a similarity-based classification of community detection algorithms based on empirical data. It improves over the state of the art by comparing more than seventy approaches, discovering that the ASN contains well-separated groups, making it a sensible tool for practitioners, aiding their choice of algorithms fitting their analytic needs.
The third category -- gaining popularity recently -- includes works classifying community discovery algorithms by giving them a specific task and ranking them in how well they in that task. Such tasks can be maximizing modularity or the normalized mutual information of the communities they recover versus some other metadata we have about the nodes. In this category, we can find papers such as @cite_3 , @cite_40 , @cite_15 , @cite_29 , @cite_38 , @cite_23 , @cite_27 ; and, specifically for overlapping community discovery, @cite_25 . In line with this approach, we also use standardized tests and benchmarks. However, we have no interest in which algorithm performs best'' -- whatever the definition of best'' is -- rather in what works similarly. We have a small ranking discussion, but we use it to criticize the notion of a best'' community discovery algorithm rather than taking the results at face value.
@cite_38 @cite_29 @cite_3 @cite_40 @cite_27 @cite_23 @cite_15 @cite_25
2090372231 2111002549 2120043163 1995996823 2497752945 1565608089 1568213684 2139694940
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative to the widely used Times Cited criterion for analysing citation networks. The approach involves taking account of the natures of the papers that cite a given paper, so as to differentiate between papers that attract the same number of citations.Design methodology approach – ArticleRank is an algorithm that has been derived from Google's PageRank algorithm to measure the influence of journal articles. ArticleRank is applied to two datasets – a citation network based on an early paper on webometrics, and a self‐citation network based on the 19 most cited papers in the Journal of Documentation – using citation data taken from the Web of Knowledge database.Findings – ArticleRank values provide a different ranking of a set of papers from that provided by the corresponding Times Cited values, and overcomes the inability of the latter to differentiate between papers with the same numbers of citations. The difference in rankings between Times Cited ... A citing sentence is one that appears in a scientific article and cites previous work. Citing sentences have been studied and used in many applications. For example, they have been used in scientific paper summarization, automatic survey generation, paraphrase identification, and citation function classification. Citing sentences that cite multiple papers are common in scientific writing. This observation should be taken into consideration when using citing sentences in applications. For instance, when a citing sentence is used in a summary of a scientific paper, only the fragments of the sentence that are relevant to the summarized paper should be included in the summary. In this paper, we present and compare three different approaches for identifying the fragments of a citing sentence that are related to a given target reference. Our methods are: word classification, sequence labeling, and segment classification. Our experiments show that segment classification achieves the best results. Abstract Documents in computer-readable form can be used to provide information about other documents, i.e. those they cite. To do this efficiently requires procedures for computer recognition of citing statements. This is not easy, especially for multi-sentence citing statements. Computer recognition procedures have been developed which are accurate to the following extent: 73 of the words in statements selected by computer procedures as being citing statements are words which are correctly attributable to the corresponding documents. The retrieval effectiveness of computer-recognized citing statements was tested in the following way. First, for eight retrieval requests in inorganiic chemistry, average recall by search of Chemical Abstracts Service indexing and Chemical Abstracts abstract text words was found to be 50 . Words from citing statements referring to the papers to be retrieved were then added to the index terms and abstract words as additional access points, and searching was repeated. Average recall increased to 70 . Only words from citing statements published within a year of the cited papers were used. The retrieval effect of citing statement words alone (published within a year) without index or abstract terms was the following: average recall was 40 . When just the words of the titles of the cited papers were added to those citing statement words, average recall increased to 50 . In a document network such as a citation network of scientific documents, web-logs, etc., the content produced by authors exhibits their interest in certain topics. In addition some authors influence other authors' interests. In this work, we propose to model the influence of cited authors along with the interests of citing authors. Moreover, we hypothesize that apart from the citations present in documents, the context surrounding the citation mention provides extra topical information about the cited authors. However, associating terms in the context to the cited authors remains an open problem. We propose novel document generation schemes that incorporate the context while simultaneously modeling the interests of citing authors and influence of the cited authors. Our experiments show significant improvements over baseline models for various evaluation criteria such as link prediction between document and cited author, and quantitatively explaining unseen text.