Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Community detection in complex networks via node similarity, graph representation learning, and hierarchical clustering

Summary

The paper proposes three general hierarchical frameworks for community detection that combine linkage-based clustering, vertex proximity matrices, and graph representation learning models. Comparing 364 module combinations on Stochastic Block Model graphs and real datasets, the best pipelines (Wasserman-Faust and mutual-information-based PPMI proximity, plus deep learning-based DNGR representations) perform competitively with Leiden and Louvain while remaining hierarchical, but time complexity limits them to networks of about 10,000 vertices on personal machines.

SourcearXiv Machine LearningAuthor: {\L}ukasz Brzozowski, Grzegorz Siudem, Marek Gagolewski
Community detection in complex networks via node similarity, graph representation learning, and hierarchical clustering
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 21 Mar 2023 (v1), last revised 3 Nov 2026 (this version, v3)]

Title:Community detection in complex networks via node similarity, graph representation learning, and hierarchical clustering

View a PDF of the paper titled Community detection in complex networks via node similarity, graph representation learning, and hierarchical clustering, by {\L}ukasz Brzozowski and 2 other authors

View PDF

Abstract:Community detection is a significant challenge in analysing real graphs, including social, citation, biological, and many other networks. This article proposes three new, general, hierarchical frameworks to deal with this task. The introduced approach supports various linkage-based clustering algorithms, vertex proximity matrices, and graph representation learning models. We compare 364 module combinations on Stochastic Block Model graphs and real-life datasets. We observe that our best pipelines (Wasserman-Faust and the mutual information-based PPMI proximity, as well as the deep learning-based DNGR representations) perform competitively with the state-of-the-art Leiden and Louvain algorithms. At the same time, unlike the latter, they remain hierarchical. Thus, they output a series of nested partitions of all possible cardinalities which are compatible with each other. This feature is crucial when the number of correct partitions is unknown in advance, and we show that it is obtained at near-zero practical cost in terms of partition quality. On graphs composed of many small communities, our pipelines are more accurate than the reference solutions. Nevertheless, the downside of our approach is its time complexity, which confines the framework to networks of some 10000 vertices on personal machines.

Subjects:

Social and Information Networks (cs.SI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

Cite as: arXiv:2303.12212 [cs.SI]

(or arXiv:2303.12212v3 [cs.SI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.12212

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Journal reference: Information Systems 144, 102824, 2027

Related DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2026.102824

DOI(s) linking to related resources

Submission history

From: Marek Gagolewski [view email] [v1] Tue, 21 Mar 2023 22:12:53 UTC (880 KB)

[v2] Wed, 24 May 2023 02:55:38 UTC (309 KB)

[v3] Tue, 3 Nov 2026 16:48:43 UTC (11,384 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Community detection in complex networks via node similarity, graph representation learning, and hierarchical clustering, by {\L}ukasz Brzozowski and 2 other authors

View PDF

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.SI

new | recent | 2023-03

Change to browse by:

cs cs.LG

References & Citations

SciX

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

ResearchersAdvanced

Key points

  • Three general hierarchical frameworks support various linkage-based clustering algorithms, vertex proximity matrices, and graph representation learning models.
  • Comparison of 364 module combinations on Stochastic Block Model graphs and real datasets shows best pipelines are competitive with Leiden and Louvain while remaining hierarchical.
  • On graphs composed of many small communities, the proposed pipelines are more accurate than reference solutions.
  • Main drawback is time complexity, confining the framework to networks of some 10,000 vertices on personal machines.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.