↓ Skip to main content

Deciphering Network Community Structure by Surprise

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
citeulike
7 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Deciphering Network Community Structure by Surprise
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0024195
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rodrigo Aldecoa, Ignacio Marín

Abstract

The analysis of complex networks permeates all sciences, from biology to sociology. A fundamental, unsolved problem is how to characterize the community structure of a network. Here, using both standard and novel benchmarks, we show that maximization of a simple global parameter, which we call Surprise (S), leads to a very efficient characterization of the community structure of complex synthetic networks. Particularly, S qualitatively outperforms the most commonly used criterion to define communities, Newman and Girvan's modularity (Q). Applying S maximization to real networks often provides natural, well-supported partitions, but also sometimes counterintuitive solutions that expose the limitations of our previous knowledge. These results indicate that it is possible to define an effective global criterion for community structure and open new routes for the understanding of complex networks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 3%
Japan 4 3%
India 3 2%
France 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
Turkey 2 1%
Italy 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 123 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 28%
Researcher 27 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 18 12%
Professor 13 9%
Student > Master 11 7%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 14 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 43 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 12%
Physics and Astronomy 17 11%
Mathematics 12 8%
Engineering 10 7%
Other 30 20%
Unknown 20 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2015.
All research outputs
#2,180,190
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#27,464
of 202,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,773
of 126,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#316
of 2,535 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202,026 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 126,519 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,535 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.