Ly connected among themselves, but sparsely connected to the rest of the network. These interconnected groups are often characterised as communities, or in other contexts modules, and occur in a wide variety of networked systems3,4. Detecting communities has grown into a fundamental, and highly relevant problem in network science with multiple applications. First, it allows to unveil the existence of a non-trivial internal network organisation at coarse grain level. This allows further to infer special relationships between the nodes that may not be easily accessible from direct empirical tests5. Second, it helps to better understand the properties of dynamic processes taking place in a network. As paradigmatic examples, spreading processes of epidemics and innovation are considerably affected by the Necrosulfonamide price community structure of the graph6. Taking into account its importance, it is not surprising that many community detection methods have been developed, using tools and techniques from variegated disciplines such as statistical physics, biology, applied mathematics, computer science, and sociology. All these methods aim at improving the identification of meaningful communities, while keeping as low as possible the computational complexity of the underlying algorithm. Clearly, these algorithms are based on slightly different definitions of community, and therefore the results are not always directly comparable. Further, in most real-world applications, a ground truth ?i.e. a unique identification of nodes to communities ?is simply non-existent, which makes it even more difficult to assess the reliability of the community detection procedures. To address these shortcomings and test the algorithms’ reliability, different benchmarks have been developed. Essentially, testing a community detection trans-4-HydroxytamoxifenMedChemExpress (Z)-4-Hydroxytamoxifen algorithm implies analysing computer-generated or real-world networks with a well defined community structure (a known ground truth) in order to obtain the community decomposition. One of the most used techniques is the GN benchmark (for Girvan Newman3), which is aURPP Social Networks, University of Z ich, Andreasstrasse 15, CH-8050 Z ich, Switzerland. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Z.Y. (email: [email protected])received: 31 March 2016 accepted: 07 July 2016 Published: 01 AugustScientific RepoRts | 6:30750 | DOI: 10.1038/srepwww.nature.com/scientificreports/Parameter Number of nodes N Maximum degree Maximum community size Average degree Degree distribution exponent Community size distribution exponent Mixing coefficient Value 233 31948 0.1N 0.1N 20 -2 -1 [0.03, 0.75]Table 1. Parameters of LFR benchmark graphs. To deal with possible discrepancies in the network properties, we have randomly generated 100 network for every set of parameters. Due to the slow computing speed, Spinglass and Edge betweenness algorithms have been tested only on small networks with N 1000.special case of the planted l artition model7 with a prior specification of the number of nodes (128) and equally sized communities (4). When the expected number of links joining a node to others in different groups is smaller than 8, the four groups are strongly defined communities. In these conditions, a well functioning detection algorithm should be able to identify the communities in reasonable time. Different community detection algorithms can be compared based on their performances on the GN benchmark, which has already been done by Danon et.Ly connected among themselves, but sparsely connected to the rest of the network. These interconnected groups are often characterised as communities, or in other contexts modules, and occur in a wide variety of networked systems3,4. Detecting communities has grown into a fundamental, and highly relevant problem in network science with multiple applications. First, it allows to unveil the existence of a non-trivial internal network organisation at coarse grain level. This allows further to infer special relationships between the nodes that may not be easily accessible from direct empirical tests5. Second, it helps to better understand the properties of dynamic processes taking place in a network. As paradigmatic examples, spreading processes of epidemics and innovation are considerably affected by the community structure of the graph6. Taking into account its importance, it is not surprising that many community detection methods have been developed, using tools and techniques from variegated disciplines such as statistical physics, biology, applied mathematics, computer science, and sociology. All these methods aim at improving the identification of meaningful communities, while keeping as low as possible the computational complexity of the underlying algorithm. Clearly, these algorithms are based on slightly different definitions of community, and therefore the results are not always directly comparable. Further, in most real-world applications, a ground truth ?i.e. a unique identification of nodes to communities ?is simply non-existent, which makes it even more difficult to assess the reliability of the community detection procedures. To address these shortcomings and test the algorithms’ reliability, different benchmarks have been developed. Essentially, testing a community detection algorithm implies analysing computer-generated or real-world networks with a well defined community structure (a known ground truth) in order to obtain the community decomposition. One of the most used techniques is the GN benchmark (for Girvan Newman3), which is aURPP Social Networks, University of Z ich, Andreasstrasse 15, CH-8050 Z ich, Switzerland. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Z.Y. (email: [email protected])received: 31 March 2016 accepted: 07 July 2016 Published: 01 AugustScientific RepoRts | 6:30750 | DOI: 10.1038/srepwww.nature.com/scientificreports/Parameter Number of nodes N Maximum degree Maximum community size Average degree Degree distribution exponent Community size distribution exponent Mixing coefficient Value 233 31948 0.1N 0.1N 20 -2 -1 [0.03, 0.75]Table 1. Parameters of LFR benchmark graphs. To deal with possible discrepancies in the network properties, we have randomly generated 100 network for every set of parameters. Due to the slow computing speed, Spinglass and Edge betweenness algorithms have been tested only on small networks with N 1000.special case of the planted l artition model7 with a prior specification of the number of nodes (128) and equally sized communities (4). When the expected number of links joining a node to others in different groups is smaller than 8, the four groups are strongly defined communities. In these conditions, a well functioning detection algorithm should be able to identify the communities in reasonable time. Different community detection algorithms can be compared based on their performances on the GN benchmark, which has already been done by Danon et.