Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Computational results comparing the performance of modularity optimisation methodologies across several network examples.

From: Module detection in complex networks using integer optimisation

Networks iMod EB EIG C3/C4 EO SA QCUT Greedy
Name N L Median Q Best Q M Q
Zachary 34 78 0.420 0.420 4 0.401 0.419 0.417 0.419   0.420 0.419
Dolphin 62 159 0.529 0.529 5 0.520      0.518 0.519
Les Miserables 77 254 0.560 0.560 6 0.540      0.560 0.556
P53 104 226 0.535 0.535 7       0.522 0.531
Jazz 198 2742 0.445 0.445 4 0.405 0.442 0.441 0.445   0.445 0.443
E. coli 418 519 0.780 0.781 19   0.766    0.752 0.776 0.779
S. cerevisiae 688 1079 0.768 0.775 25   0.759    0.740 0.766 0.764
C. elegans 453 2025 0.451 0.453 9 0.403 0.435 0.422 0.434   0.433 0.441
Email 1133 5451 0.575 0.580 9 0.532 0.572 0.567 0.574   0.576 0.543
  1. Best modularity achieved across all methodologies and network examples is denoted in bold.
  2. References: EB [25], EIG [9], C3/C4 [51] EO [32], SA [33], QCUT [34], Greedy [52]