Community detection in social networks an overview

IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Volume: 02 Special Issue: 02 | Dec-2013, Available @ http://www.ijret.org 83
COMMUNITY DETECTION IN SOCIAL NETWORKS: AN OVERVIEW
Deepjyoti Choudhury1
, Arnab Paul2
1
Department of Information Technology, Triguna Sen School of Technology, Assam University, Silchar
2
Department of Information Technology, Triguna Sen School of Technology, Assam University, Silchar
Abstract
A social network can be defined as a set of people connected by a set of people. Social network analysis provides both a visual and a
mathematical analysis of human relationship. The investigation of the community structure in the social network has been the
important issue in many domains and disciplines. Community structure assumes more significance with the increasing popularity of
online social network services like Facebook, MySpace, or Twitter. This paper reflects the emergence of communities that occur in the
structure of social networks, represented as graphs. We have mainly discussed various community detection algorithms in real world
networks in this paper. This paper represents as an overview of the community detection algorithms in social networks.
Keywords: node, graph, community, algorithms, clustering
-----------------------------------------------------------------------***-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the most relevant features of graphs representing real
systems is community structure, or clustering, i.e. the
organization of vertices in clusters, with many edges joining
vertices of the same cluster and comparatively few edges join
vertices of different clusters. Detecting communities is of great
importance in sociology, biology and computer science,
disciplines where systems are often represented as graphs. Real
networks are not random graphs, as they display big in
homogeneities, revealing a high level of order and organization.
The degree distribution is broad, with a tail that often follows a
power law. Therefore, many vertices with low degree coexist
with some vertices with large degree. Furthermore, the
distribution of edges is not only globally, but also locally
inhomogeneous, with high concentrations of edges within
special groups of vertices, and low concentrations between these
groups. This feature of real networks is called community
structure, or clustering.
The term “Community” first appeared in the book
“Gemeinschaft und Gesellchaft” published in 1887. There is no
unique definition of community till to present which is widely
accepted in social networks. A variety of definitions of
community have been proposed according to different sides,
which can be mainly classified to three categories: intuitive
definition, functional definition and definition from the process
of algorithm.
Fig 1: A simple graph with three communities.
In the above figure, we have seen there are three communities in
which all the nodes contain in a community are dense intra-
connected with each other and sparse inter-connected with the
nodes contain in another community. In a community, nodes are
connected with each other based on their human relationship
like friendship, colleague etc.
In computer science, community can be regarded as sub-graphs
of network. The whole complex network can be generated as a
graph, which is consisted of many sub-graphs. Connection
between nodes in a sub-graph is intra-dense, while connection
between the nodes among sub-graphs is relatively sparse.
Newman call this sub-graph community structure [1].This
2
1
3
4
6
5
7
8
9
1110

__________________________________________________________________________________________
definition emphasis on structural characteristic of community,
with links inter community more dense than intra-community,
which can be measured by degree of the module [2]. Most
existing community detection algorithms are limited to deal
with non-overlapping communities, which do not work well on
overlapping community detection [3]. Overlapping community
detection involves community definition, as well as the
evaluation metric which especially focuses on analysis and
comparison of the existing overlapping community detection
algorithms including the basic ideas of the algorithms, and its
performance. M. Girvan and M. E. J. Newman [4] had proposed
community structure and detection algorithm in social and
biological networks. The ability to detect community structure
in a network could clearly have practical applications.
Communities in a social network might represent real social
groupings.
Community detection in dynamic networks [5] is a challenging
task since such networks are multi-graphs and a pair of nodes
can have links appearing or disappearing at different time
points. Instability of link configurations leads to constant
changes in graph partitions between slices of a multi-graph
which make community detection difficult in dynamic
networks. Mobility is used to be a network transport mechanism
for distributing data in many networks. However, many mobility
models are set up based on individual movement case which
ignores the fact that peer nodes often carried by people and thus
move in community pattern according to some kind of social
relation. GuoDong Kang et.al have proposed two new mobility
models [6], as called Social Community Partner Mobility Model
(SCP) and Social Community Leader Mobility Model (SCL) in
2011.
Minimum-cut method is one of the oldest algorithms for
dividing networks into parts. This method uses in load balancing
for parallel computing in order to minimize communication
between processor nodes. However, this method always finds
communities regardless of whether they are implicit in the
structure, and it can only find a fixed number of them. So it is
less than ideal for finding community structure in general
networks [1]. In simulation environment, SCP model [6] will
regard the office, restaurant and cinema to be small squares in
the given simulation area. When the community moves from the
office to the restaurant, the restaurant is called the community
destination. In simulation, the community destination is the
square which is chosen to correspond to the restaurant. When
the community moves from restaurant to the cinema, one new
square in the simulation will be chosen as a new community
destination which corresponds to the cinema. In Partner
Movement Case, the members in one community will also have
their own destinations in the restaurant or cinema.
Jie Jin et. Al [7] have proposed a new center-based method,
which is especially designed for weighted networks. And the
method is also suitable for large-scale network because of its
low computational complexity. They demonstrated the method
on a synthetic network and two real-world networks. There are
always some important nodes in the real networks, which are
often the cores of the community and organize the whole
community structure.
Most known techniques for community detection use only the
information about the linkage behavior [8] for the purposes of
community prediction and clustering. Some recent work has
shown that the use of node content can be helpful in improving
the quality of the communities. Moreover, we can see that edge
content [9] provides a number of unique distinguishing
characteristics of the communities which cannot be modeled by
node content. Some examples of networks with edge-content are
as follows:
In email networks, a communication between two participants
can be considered an edge, which has content corresponding to
the text which is communicated between two participants.
Clearly, participants containing the similar content of
communication are much likely to belong to the same
community.
Complex networks in nature and society range from the immune
system and the brain to social, communication and transport
networks [10]. The key issue to develop these algorithms is able
to automatically detect communities in complex networks.
Camelia Chira et. al [10] propose a new fitness function for the
assessment of community structures quality which is based on
the number of nodes and their links inside a community versus
the community size further reported to the size of the network.
In this paper, we have first discussed the fundamental concepts
of community in social networks like walk, trail, path and chain.
We have elaborated various community detection algorithms in
social networks in the next section. We have separated the
community detection algorithms under the sub-section as
traditional methods, divisive algorithm, modularity based
methods, spectral algorithms and dynamic algorithms. Then we
have concluded this paper.
2. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF COMMUNITY
IN SOCIAL NETWORKS
To study and analyze the community structure in social
networks the following concepts are necessary which are given
in below:
2.1 Walk
A walk in a network is described as a sequence of nodes which
hold the relations among themselves [11]. A walk starts with the
source node and end with the target node. While a walk starts
with a source node and ends with the same node then that walk
is considered as the closed walk. In Fig. 2 we can see A-B-C-F-
G is a walk and D-C-F-E-D is a closed walk in that network. C.
Gkantsidis, M. Mihail, and A. Saberi [12] have described the
effectiveness of the random walks for searching and

__________________________________________________________________________________________
construction of unstructured peer-to-peer network. With a
natural way, Supervised Random Walk [13] combines the
information from the network structure with the characteristics
of the nodes and the edge level attributes.
Fig 2: An undirected graph is used to show walk, trail and path
2.2 Trail
A trail in a network is considered as a walk between the nodes
where a relation occurs between the nodes is never repeated for
twice. The same nodes in a trail can be part of another trail for
several times but the same relation between the nodes occurs not
more than once. In Fig. 2 we can take A-D-E is a trail but F-E-D
is not a trail since the relation between D and E is already
established once in the trail A-D-E and the graph is undirected.
The length of a trail is calculated based on the total number of
relations in it. Trail supports distance-sensitive tracking of
mobile objects in a network and trail does not partition the
network into a hierarchy of clusters [14].
2.3 Path
A path is a walk where each and every node and each other
relation is used at most one time in a network. The single
exception is carried out to path is closed path where the path
begins and ends with the same node. In Fig. 2 we can see C-D-E
is a path but D-A-B is not a path again since the node D has
already been used. The length of a path can be calculated based
on the total number of its link. There may two paths between the
nodes A and E. Let A is the source node and E is the target node
then the paths will be A-D-E and A-B-C-F-E. If all the nodes
appeared in those two paths are connected based on the social
relationship then we can say both the paths are social trust paths
[15]. There may several social trust paths between the source
node and the target node. Trustworthiness of the target node can
be generated and evaluated by the source node based on the
trust information of all the intermediate nodes along the path.
This process is called as the trust propagation [16][17]. IBM has
launched one online social network for its employee which is
named as Small Blue. There are 16 social paths at maximum
with not more than 6 employees between the source and the
target employees in this system. Peng Huatao [18] has described
the four hypotheses about path selection in a social network.
2.4 Chain
A chain is a walk in a social network which is considered only
in directed graph. Let us consider Fig. 2 is the directed graph. If
there is single flow from the node A to the node C then A-B-C
is a chain but C-B-A is not a chain.
3. COMMUNITY DETECTION ALGORITHMS IN
SOCIAL NETWORKS
There are several community detection algorithms in social
networks. Several methods have been proposed to identify and
analyze the communities in social networks. We have briefly
discussed here some of those algorithms in below:
3.1 Traditional Methods
There are three types of traditional methods to detect
communities in a social network.
3.1.1 Graph Partitioning
Graph partitioning method represents to divide the nodes in g
groups of predefined size, such that the number of edges lying
between the groups is minimal. The number of edges running
between clusters is called cut size. Fig. 3 presents the solution of
the problem for a graph with six nodes, for g = 2 and clusters of
equal size.
Fig 3: Graph partitioning method. The green dashed line shows
the solution of the minimum bisection problem for the graph
illustrated.
Most variants of the graph partitioning problem are NP-hard. If
the solutions are not necessarily optimal, then also there are
several algorithms that can do a good job [19]. Many algorithms
perform a bisection of the graph. Generally, partitions into more
than two groups are achieved by iterative bi-sectioning.
The Kernighan-Lin algorithm [20] is one of the earliest
proposed methods and is still frequently used. The problem of
partitioning electronic circuits onto boards motivated the
authors as the nodes contained in different boards need to be
linked to each other with the least number of connections. The
Kernighan-Lin algorithm was extended to get partitions in any
number of parts [21]; however the run-time and storage costs
increase rapidly with the number of clusters.
1
2
3
3
6
5
4

__________________________________________________________________________________________
There are several efficient routines to compute maximum flows
in graphs, like the algorithm of Goldberg and Tarjan [22]. In the
graph of the World Wide Web, Flake et al. [23][24] have used
maximum flows to identify communities. The web graph is
directed but Flake et al. treated the edges as undirected for the
purposes of the calculation. The internal degree of each node
must not be smaller than its external degree [25] in a
community. So, Web communities are defined to be strong. An
artificial sink t is added to the graph and one calculates the
maximum flows from a source node s to the sink t: the
corresponding minimum cut identities the community of node s,
provided s shares a sufficiently large number of edges with the
other vertices of its community.
It is necessary to provide as input the number of groups and
their sizes in some cases. So, Algorithms for graph partitioning
are not good for community detection. Besides, it is not a
reliable procedure using iterative bi-sectioning to split the graph
in more pieces.
3.1.2 Hierarchical Clustering
Hierarchical clustering is a widely used data analysis tool. The
idea behind this clustering is to build a binary tree of data that
merges similar groups of points. If the graph is split then it is
not easy to know the total number of clusters. If the graph is in
hierarchical structure with small groups included within larger
groups, in that case hierarchical clustering algorithm [26] may
be used.
3.1.3 Spectral Clustering
Donath and Hoffmann [28] contributed first on spectral
clustering in 1973. They used eigen vectors of the adjacency
matrix to partition the graph. Spectral clustering makes use of
eigen values of the similarity matrix of the data. The similarity
matrix is provided as an input and consists of a quantitative
assessment of the relative similarity of each pair of points in the
dataset. Andrew Y. Ng et. al [27] have analysed the algorithm of
spectral clustering as the ideal case and the general case.
3.2 Divisive Algorithm
3.2.1 Newman-Girvan Algorithm [4]
This algorithm follows the steps stated in below:
1. Calculate the betweenness for all edges in the network.
2. Remove the edge with the highest betweenness.
3. Recalculate betweennesses for all edges affected by the
removal.
4. Repeat from step 2 until no edges remain.
If a graph contains groups that are inter-connected each other
and loosely connected by few edges, then all shortest paths
between different groups must go along one of these few edges.
Thus, the edges connecting groups will have high edge
betweenness. Betweennesses can be calculated by using the fast
algorithm of Newman [29], which calculates betweenness for all
m edges in a graph of n vertices in time O(mn). Because this
calculation has to be repeated once for the removal of each
edge, the entire algorithm runs in worst-case time )( 2
nmO .
Rattigan et al. [30] proposed a fast version of Newman-Girvan
algorithm in 2007.
3.3 Modularity-Based Methods
High values of modularity represent good partitions of a graph.
There are four techniques we have discussed in below:
3.3.1 Greedy Techniques
Newman [2] proposed first greedy method to maximise
modularity. It is a hierarchical clustering method where edges
do not contain in the graph initially; edges are added one by one
during the procedure.
3.3.2 Simulated Annealing
To get global optimization, simulated annealing [31] is
probabilistic procedure used in different fields and problems.
This procedure consists of the space of possible states looking
for the maximum global optimum of a function F. Guimera et
al. [32] first applied simulated annealing for modularity
optimization. The standard implementation of them [33]
combines two types of moves: local moves, where a single node
is shifted from one cluster to another randomly; and global
moves, which consist of mergers and splits of communities.
3.3.3 Extremal Optimization
Boettcher and Percus [34] proposed Extremal optimization and
it is a heuristic search procedure.
This technique is based on the optimization of local variables.
Duch and Arenas [35] used this technique for modularity
optimization. Modularity can be measured as a sum over the
nodes in the graph. We can get a fitness measure for each node
by dividing the local modularity of the node by its degree.
Degree of the node does not define the measure.
3.3.4 Spectral Optimization
By using the eigen values and eigen vectors of a spectral matrix,
modularity can be optimized. Wang et al. [36] used community
vectors to achieve high-modularity partitions into a number of
communities smaller than a given maximum. If the eigenvectors
is taken corresponding to the two largest eigenvalues, then we
can obtain a split of the graph in three clusters. In 2009,
Richardson et al. [37] presented a fast technique to achieve
graph tri-partitions with large modularity along these lines.

__________________________________________________________________________________________
3.4 Spectral Algorithms
In the previous sub-section, we have learnt the spectral
properties of graph matrices that are frequently used in finding
the partitions in a graph. In 2005, Slanina and Zhang [38] have
shown that if the graph has a clear community structure, then
eigen vectors of the adjacency matrix may be localized. In 2009,
Mitrovic and Tadic [39] presented a comprehensive analysis of
spectral properties of modular graphs.
In 2007, Alves [40] used eigen values and eigen vectors of the
Laplacian matrix to compute the effective conductances for
pairs of nodes in a graph. We compute the transition
probabilities by enabling the conductances for a random walker
moving on the graph, and from the transition probabilities, we
can build a similarity matrix between the node pairs.
Hierarchical clustering is applied to join nodes in communities.
If we need to compute the whole spectrum of the Laplacian
matrix, the time taken by this algorithm is )( 3
nO , i.e. the
algorithm proposed by Alves [40] is slow.
3.5 Dynamic Algorithms
There are three algorithms we have discussed in this section:
Spin models, Random walk, and Synchronization.
3.5.1 Spin Models
In statistical mechanics, the Potts model [41] is the most popular
models. This model elaborates a system of spins that can be in q
different states. It favours spin alignment such that all spins are
in the same state at zero temperature. That means the interaction
is ferromagnetic in this model. The ground state of the system
may not be the one where all spins are aligned if
antiferromagnetic interactions are also present. But, different
spin values coexist in homogeneous clusters in a state. If Potts
[41] spin variables are assigned to the nodes of a graph with
community structure, then the structural groups could be
recovered from like-valued spin clusters of the system while the
interactions are between neighbouring spins, as there are many
interactions inside communities than outside. Based on Potts
[41] model, in 2004, Reichardt and Bornholdt [42] proposed a
method to detect communities that maps the graph onto a zero-
temperature q-Potts model with nearest-neighbour interactions.
3.5.2 Random Walk
In 1995, Hughes [43] showed that random walk can be useful to
detect the clusters in a graph. If a graph contains several
clusters, a random walker spends a long time inside a cluster
due to the high intra-connections among all the nodes. All of
clustering algorithms based on the random walk can be trivially
extended to the case of weighted graphs.
In 2004, Zhou and Lipowsky [44] used biased random walkers,
where the bias happens to the fact that walkers usually move
towards the nodes sharing a large number of neighbours with
the starting node in a graph. A proximity index is defined to
show that how much a pair of nodes is closer to all other nodes
in the graph. The procedure is called NetWalk to detect the
communities in a graph, where NetWalk is a hierarchical
clustering method, where the proximity defines the similarity
between nodes. The time complexity of this method is O(
3
n ).
In 2008, Weinan et al. [45] described that the best partition of a
graph in k communities, where the chain describing a random
walk on the meta-graph provides the best approximation of the
full random walk dynamics on the whole graph.
3.5.3 Synchronization
Synchronization [46] is an excellent process occurs in the
systems and interacts among the units in nature and technology.
All the units of the system are in the similar state at every
moment while the system is in synchronized state. To detect the
communities in a real world network, synchronization can also
be applied. In 2007, Boccaletti et al. [47] have designed a
method for community detection applying the concept of
synchronization.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have discussed fundamental concepts of
community in social network. Then in the next section, we have
elaborated the existing algorithms to detect the communities in
social networks. In this paper, we have briefly illustrated the
traditional methods, divisive algorithm, modularity based
methods, spectral algorithms and dynamic algorithms to detect
the communities in real world networks. We hope the concepts
demonstrated in this paper to detect the communities in real
world networks will help us to study the community structure in
social networks deeply in future.
REFERENCES
[1] M E J Newman, “Detecting Community Structure in
Networks”, Eur. Phys. J. B 38, pp 321-330 2004.
[2] M.E.J. Newman and M Girman, “Finding and evaluation
community structure in networks”, Physical Review E,
69(2), 2004.
[3] L. Zhubing, W. Jian, and Li yuzhou, “An Overview on
Overlapping Community Detection”, The 7th
International Conference on Computer Science &
Education (ICCSE 2012) , Melbourne, Australia , July
14-17, 2012.
[4] M. Girvan and M. Newman, “Community Structure in
Social and Biological Networks”, Proceedings of the
National Academy of Scinces, vol. 99, no. 12, pp. 7821–
7826, Jun. 2002.
[5] L.C. Huang, T.J Yen, and S.C.T. Chou, “Community
Detection in Dynamic Social Networks”.
[6] G. Kangl, M. Diaz, T. Perennou, P. Senac, and L. Xul,
“Mobility Model Based on Social Community Detection
Scheme”, 2011 Cross Strait Quad-Regional Radio
Science and Wireless Technology Conference.

__________________________________________________________________________________________
[7] J. Jin, L. Pan, C. Wang, and J. Xie, “A Center-based
Community Detection Method In Weighted Networks”,
2011 23rd IEEE International Conference on Tools with
Artificial Intelligence.
[8] Clauset, M. E. J. Newman, and C. Moore, “Finding
community structure in very large networks”, In Phys.
Rev. E 70, 066111, 2004.
[9] G.J. Qi, C. C. Aggarwal, and T. Huang, “Community
Detection with Edge Content in Social Media Networks”,
2012 IEEE 28th International Conference on Data
Engineering.
[10] C.Chira, A. Gog, and D. Icl˘anzan, “Evolutionary
Detection of Community Structures in Complex
Networks: a New Fitness Function”, WCCI 2012 IEEE
World Congress on Computational Intelligence,
Brisbane, Australia, June, 10-15, 2012.
[11] J. Rupnik, “Finding Community Structure in Social
Network Analysis–overview”, Journal of Mathematical
Sociology, 2006.
[12] Gkantsidis, M. Mihail, and A. Saberi, “Random Walks in
Peer-to-Peer Networks”, IEEE INFOCOM, pp. 1–12,
2004.
[13] L. Backstrom and J. Leskovec, “Supervised Random
Walks: Predicting and Recommending Links in Social
Networks”, WSDM '11,Feb. 9-12, 2011.
[14] Kulathumani, A. Arora, M. Sridharan,and M. Demirbas,
“Trail: A Distance-Sensitive Sensor Network Service for
Distributed Object Tracking", ACM Transactions on
Sensor Networks, vol. 5, no. 2, article 15, pp. 1–40, Mar.
2009.
[15] G. Liu, Y. Wang, and M. A. Orgun, “Finding K Optimal
Social Trust Paths for the Selection of Trustworthy
Service Providers in Complex Social Networks”, IEEE
International Conference on Web Services, pp. 41–48,
2011.
[16] R. Guha, R. Kumar, P. Raghavan, and A. Tomkins,
“Propagation of Trust and Distrust”, Proceeding of the
thirteenth International Conference on World Wide Web,
ACM, pp. 403–412, May. 17-22, 2004.
[17] Gray, J. Seigneur, Y. Chen, and C. Jensen, “Trust
Propagation in Small Worlds”, Trust Management, 2003.
[18] P. Huatao, “Path Selection for Social Network Evolution
Map Formation of Start-up Enterprises”, International
Conference on Computer and Communication
Technologies in Agriculture Engineering, IEEE, pp. 47–
50, 2010.
[19] Pothen, “Graph Partitioning Algorithms with
Applications to Scientific Computing”, Technical
Report, Norfolk,VA, USA, 1997.
[20] Kernighan, B. W., and S. Lin, Bell System Tech. J. 49,
291, 1970.
[21] Suaris, P. R., and G. Kedem, IEEE Trans. Circuits
Syst.35, 294, 1988.
[22] Goldberg, A. V., and R. E. Tarjan, Journal of the ACM
35, 921, 1988.
[23] Flake, G. W., S. Lawrence, and C. L. Giles, Sixth ACM
SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge
Discovery and Data Mining (ACM Press, Boston,
USA),pp. 150-160, 2000.
[24] Flake, G. W., S. Lawrence, C. Lee Giles, and F. M.
Coetzee, IEEE Computer 35, 66, 2002.
[25] Radicchi, F., C. Castellano, F. Cecconi, V. Loreto, and
D. Parisi, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 2658, 2004.
[26] Hastie, T., R. Tibshirani, and J. H. Friedman, The
Elements of Statistical Learning (Springer, Berlin,
Germany),ISBN 0387952845, 2001.
[27] A.Y. Ng, M.I. Jordan, Y. Weiss, "On Spectral
Clustering: Analysis and Algorithm", Stanford AI Lab.
[28] Donath, W., and A. Hoffman, IBM Journal of Research
and Development 17(5), 420, 1973.
[29] Newman, M. E. J. Phys. Rev. E 64, 016131, 2001.
[30] Rattigan, M. J., M. Maier, and D. Jensen, ICML '07:
Proceedings of the 24th international conference on
Machine learning (ACM, New York, NY, USA), pp. 783-
790, 2007.
[31] Kirkpatrick, S., C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi, Science
220, 671, 1983.
[32] Guimera, R., M. Sales-Pardo, and L. A. N. Amaral, Phys.
Rev. E 70(2), 025101 (R) , 2004.
[33] Guimera, R., and L. A. N. Amaral, Nature 433, 895,
2005.
[34] Boettcher, S., and A. G. Percus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86,
5211, 2001.
[35] Duch, J., and A. Arenas, Phys. Rev. E 72(2), 027104,
2005.
[36] Wang, G., Y. Shen, and M. Ouyang, Comput. Math.
Appl. 55(12), 2746, 2008.
[37] Richardson, T., P. J. Mucha, and M. A. Porter, Phys.
Rev. E 80(3), 036111, 2009.
[38] Slanina, F., and Y.C. Zhang, Acta Phys. Pol. B 36, 2797,
2005.
[39] Mitrovic, M., and B. Tadic, Phys. Rev. E 80(2), 026123,
2009.
[40] Alves, N. A., Phys. Rev. E 76(3), 036101, 2007.
[41] Wu, F. Y., Rev. Mod. Phys. 54(1), 235, 1982.
[42] Reichardt, J., and S. Bornholdt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93(21),
218701, 2004.
[43] Hughes, B. D., “Random Walks and Random
Environments: Random Walks Vol. 1”, Clarendon Press,
Oxford, UK, 1995.
[44] Zhou, H., and R. Lipowsky, Lect. Notes Comp. Sci. 3038,
1062, 2004.
[45] Weinan, E., T. Li, and E. Vanden-Eijnden, Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 105, 7907, 2008.
[46] Pikovsky, A., M. G. Rosenblum, and J. Kurths,
“Synchronization : A Universal Concept in Nonlinear
Sciences”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,
2001.
[47] Boccaletti, S., M. Ivanchenko, V. Latora, A. Pluchino,
and A. Rapisarda, Phys. Rev. E 75(4), 045102, 2007.

Community detection in social networks an overview

More Related Content

What's hot (16)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Community detection in social networks an overview (20)

More from eSAT Publishing House (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Community detection in social networks an overview