See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/1913681

Fast Unfolding of Communities in Large Networks

Article in Journal of Statistical Mechanics Theory and Experiment · April 2008

DOI: 10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 · Source: arXiv

CITATIONS READS

18,567 29,707

4 authors, including:

Vincent D. Blondel Jean-Loup Guillaume

Université Catholique de Louvain - UCLouvain La Rochelle Université
243 PUBLICATIONS 35,669 CITATIONS 96 PUBLICATIONS 21,258 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Renaud Lambiotte
University of Oxford
298 PUBLICATIONS 34,832 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Renaud Lambiotte on 31 July 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Fast unfolding of communities in large networks

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.

J. Stat. Mech. (2008) P10008

(http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:
IP Address: 138.48.20.157
The article was downloaded on 30/12/2012 at 07:21

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

J ournal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment
An IOP and SISSA journal

Fast unfolding of communities in large

networks

J. Stat. Mech. (2008) P10008

Vincent D Blondel1, Jean-Loup Guillaume1,2,
Renaud Lambiotte1,3 and Etienne Lefebvre1
1 Department of Mathematical Engineering, Université Catholique de Louvain,
4 avenue Georges Lemaitre, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
2 LIP6, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 4 place Jussieu, F-75005 Paris, France
3 Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Imperial College London,

53 Prince’s Gate, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2PG, UK

E-mail: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected] and [email protected]

Received 18 April 2008

Accepted 3 September 2008
Published 9 October 2008

Online at stacks.iop.org/JSTAT/2008/P10008
doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008

Abstract. We propose a simple method to extract the community structure of

large networks. Our method is a heuristic method that is based on modularity
optimization. It is shown to outperform all other known community detection
methods in terms of computation time. Moreover, the quality of the communities
detected is very good, as measured by the so-called modularity. This is shown
first by identifying language communities in a Belgian mobile phone network of
2 million customers and by analysing a web graph of 118 million nodes and more
than one billion links. The accuracy of our algorithm is also verified on ad hoc
modular networks.

Keywords: random graphs, networks, new applications of statistical mechanics

ArXiv ePrint: 0803.0476

2008
c IOP Publishing Ltd and SISSA 1742-5468/08/P10008+12$30.00
 Fast unfolding of communities in large networks

Contents

1. Introduction 2
2. Method 3
3. Application to large networks 6
4. Conclusion and discussion 10
Acknowledgments 11

J. Stat. Mech. (2008) P10008

References 11

1. Introduction

Social, technological and information systems can often be described in terms of complex
networks that have a topology of interconnected nodes combining organization and
randomness [1, 2]. The typical size of large networks such as social network services,
mobile phone networks or the web is now counted in millions, if not billions, of nodes
and these scales demand new methods to retrieve comprehensive information from their
structure. A promising approach consists in decomposing the networks into sub-units
or communities, which are sets of highly interconnected nodes [3]. The identification of
these communities is of crucial importance as they may help to uncover a priori unknown
functional modules such as topics in information networks or cyber-communities in social
networks. Moreover, the resulting meta-network, whose nodes are the communities, may
then be used to visualize the original network structure.
The problem of community detection requires the partition of a network into
communities of densely connected nodes, with the nodes belonging to different
communities being only sparsely connected. Precise formulations of this optimization
problem are known to be computationally intractable. Several algorithms have therefore
been proposed to find reasonably good partitions in a reasonably fast way. This search
for fast algorithms has attracted much interest in recent years due to the increasing
availability of large network datasets and the impact of networks on everyday life. One
can distinguish several types of community detection algorithms: divisive algorithms
detect inter-community links and remove them from the network [4]–[6], agglomerative
algorithms merge similar nodes/communities recursively [7] and optimization methods
are based on the maximization of an objective function [8]–[10]. The quality of the
partitions resulting from these methods is often measured by the so-called modularity
of the partition. The modularity of a partition is a scalar value between −1 and 1
that measures the density of links inside communities as compared to links between
communities [5, 11]. In the case of weighted networks (weighted networks are networks
that have weights on their links, such as the number of communications between two
mobile phone users), it is defined as [12]
1  ki kj 
Q= Aij − δ(ci , cj ), (1)
2m i,j 2m

doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 2
 Fast unfolding of communities in large networks

where Aij represents the weight of the edge between i and j, ki = j Aij is the sum of
the weights of the edges attached to vertex i, ci is the community to which  vertex i is
1
assigned, the δ function δ(u, v) is 1 if u = v and 0 otherwise and m = 2 ij Aij .
Modularity has been used to compare the quality of the partitions obtained by
different methods, but also as an objective function to optimize [13]. Unfortunately,
exact modularity optimization is a problem that is computationally hard [14] and so
approximation algorithms are necessary when dealing with large networks. The fastest
approximation algorithm for optimizing modularity on large networks was proposed by
Clauset et al [8]. That method consists in recurrently merging communities that optimize
the production of modularity. Unfortunately, this greedy algorithm may produce values

J. Stat. Mech. (2008) P10008

of modularity that are significantly lower than what can be found by using, for instance,
simulated annealing [15]. Moreover, the method proposed in [8] has a tendency to produce
super-communities that contain a large fraction of the nodes, even on synthetic networks
that have no significant community structure. This artefact also has the disadvantage
of slowing down the algorithm considerably and makes it inapplicable to networks of
more than a million nodes. This undesired effect has been circumvented by introducing
tricks in order to balance the size of the communities being merged, thereby speeding up
the running time and making it possible to deal with networks that have a few million
nodes [16].
The largest networks that have been dealt with so far in the literature are a protein–
protein interaction network of 30 739 nodes [17], a network of about 400 000 items on sale
on the website of a large on-line retailer [8] and a Japanese social networking system of
about 5.5 million users [16]. These sizes still leave considerable room for improvement [18]
considering that, as of today, the social networking service Facebook has about 64 million
active users, the mobile network operator Vodafone has about 200 million customers and
Google indexes several billion web-pages. Let us also notice that in most large networks
such as those listed above there are several natural organization levels—communities
divide themselves into sub-communities—and it is thus desirable to obtain community
detection methods that reveal this hierarchical structure [19].

2. Method

We now introduce our algorithm that finds high modularity partitions of large networks
in a short time and that unfolds a complete hierarchical community structure for the
network, thereby giving access to different resolutions of community detection. Contrary
to all the other community detection algorithms, the network size limits that we are facing
with our algorithm are due to limited storage capacity rather than limited computation
time: identifying communities in a 118 million nodes network took only 152 min4 .
Our algorithm is divided into two phases that are repeated iteratively. Assume that
we start with a weighted network of N nodes. First, we assign a different community to
each node of the network. So, in this initial partition there are as many communities as
there are nodes. Then, for each node i we consider the neighbours j of i and we evaluate
the gain of modularity that would take place by removing i from its community and by

4
All methods described here have been compiled and tested on the same machine: a bi-opteron 2.2k with 24 GB
of memory. The code is freely available for download on the web-page http://findcommunities.googlepages.com.

doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 3
 Fast unfolding of communities in large networks

placing it in the community of j. The node i is then placed in the community for which
this gain is maximum (in the case of a tie we use a breaking rule), but only if this gain
is positive. If no positive gain is possible, i stays in its original community. This process
is applied repeatedly and sequentially for all nodes until no further improvement can be
achieved and the first phase is then complete. Let us insist on the fact that a node may be,
and often is, considered several times. This first phase stops when a local maxima of the
modularity is attained, i.e. when no individual move can improve the modularity5 . One
should also note that the output of the algorithm depends on the order in which the nodes
are considered. Preliminary results on several test cases seem to indicate that the ordering
of the nodes does not have a significant influence on the modularity that is obtained, while

J. Stat. Mech. (2008) P10008

it may affect the computation time, but the reasons for this dependence are not clear. In
particular, taking the nodes in a natural order related to the community structure itself
(e.g. the order given by a previous community computation, or the postcode) does not
give clear improvement (see section 3). The problem of choosing an order is thus worth
studying since it could give good heuristics to enhance the computation time.
Part of the algorithm’s efficiency results from the fact that the gain in modularity
ΔQ obtained by moving an isolated node i into a community C can easily be computed
by
  2    2  2
in +2k i,in tot +k i in tot ki
ΔQ = − − − − , (2)
2m 2m 2m 2m 2m
 
where in is the sum of the weights of the links inside C, tot is the sum of the weights
of the links incident to nodes in C, ki is the sum of the weights of the links incident to
node i, ki,in is the sum of the weights of the links from i to nodes in C and m is the sum
of the weights of all the links in the network. A similar expression is used in order to
evaluate the change of modularity when i is removed from its community. In practice,
one therefore evaluates the change of modularity by removing i from its community and
then by moving it into a neighbouring community.
The second phase of the algorithm consists in building a new network whose nodes
are now the communities found during the first phase. To do so, the weights of the links
between the new nodes are given by the sum of the weight of the links between nodes
in the corresponding two communities [20]. Links between nodes of the same community
lead to self-loops for this community in the new network. Once this second phase is
completed, it is then possible to reapply the first phase of the algorithm to the resulting
weighted network and to iterate. Let us denote by ‘pass’ a combination of these two
phases. By construction, the number of meta-communities decreases at each pass, and
as a consequence most of the computing time is used in the first pass. The passes are
iterated (see figure 1) until there are no more changes and a maximum of modularity is
attained. The algorithm is reminiscent of the self-similar nature of complex networks [21]
and naturally incorporates a notion of hierarchy, as communities of communities are built
during the process. The height of the hierarchy that is constructed is determined by the
number of passes and is generally a small number, as will be shown in some examples
below.
5
In order to decrease the overall running time of the method it is possible to introduce a threshold and then stop
the first phase as soon as the relative gain in modularity does not exceed this threshold. The numerical results
reported here have been obtained with this minor modification.

doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 4
 Fast unfolding of communities in large networks

J. Stat. Mech. (2008) P10008

Figure 1. Visualization of the steps of our algorithm. Each pass is made of
two phases: one where modularity is optimized by allowing only local changes
of communities; one where the communities found are aggregated in order to
build a new network of communities. The passes are repeated iteratively until
no increase of modularity is possible.

This simple algorithm has several advantages. First, its steps are intuitive and easy to
implement, and the outcome is unsupervised. Moreover, the algorithm is extremely fast,
i.e. computer simulations on large ad hoc modular networks suggest that its complexity
is linear on typical and sparse data. This is due to the fact that the possible gains
in modularity are easy to compute with the above formula and that the number of
communities decreases drastically after just a few passes so that most of the running
time is concentrated on the first iterations. The so-called resolution limit problem of
modularity also seems to be circumvented thanks to the intrinsic multi-level nature of our
algorithm. Indeed, it is well known [22] that modularity optimization fails to identify
communities smaller than a certain scale, thereby inducing a resolution limit on the
community detected by a pure modularity optimization approach. This observation is
only partially relevant in our case because the first phase of our algorithm involves
the displacement of single nodes from one community to another. Consequently, the
probability that two distinct communities can be merged by moving nodes one by one is
very low. These communities may possibly be merged in the later passes, after blocks
of nodes have been aggregated. However, our algorithm provides a decomposition of the
network into communities for different levels of organization. In order to illustrate this
feature, let us focus on the ring of 30 cliques discussed in [22], where the cliques are
composed of 5 nodes and are interconnected through single links. The first pass of the
algorithm finds the natural partition of the network, where each community corresponds
to one clique. The second pass finds the global maximum of modularity where cliques
are combined into groups of 2. Consequently, if the cliques are indeed merged in the final

doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 5
 Fast unfolding of communities in large networks

Table 1. Summary of numerical results. This table gives the performances of the
algorithm of Clauset et al [8], of Pons and Latapy [7], of Wakita and Tsurumi [16]
and of our algorithm for community detection in networks of various sizes. For
each method/network, the table displays the modularity that is achieved and the
computation time. Empty cells correspond to a computation time over 24 h. Our
method clearly performs better in terms of computer time and modularity. It is
also interesting to note the small value of Q found by WT for the mobile phone
network. This bad modularity result may originate from their heuristic which
creates balanced communities, while our approach gives unbalanced communities
in this specific network.

J. Stat. Mech. (2008) P10008

Web
WebBase
Karate Arxiv Internet Web nd.edu Phone Web uk-2005 2001
Nodes/ 34/77 9k/24k 70k/351k 325k/1M 2.04M/5.4M 39M/783M 118M/1B
links
CNM 0.38/0 s 0.772/3.6 s 0.692/799 s 0.927/5034 s —/— —/— —/—
PL 0.42/0 s 0.757/3.3 s 0.729/575 s 0.895/6666 s —/— —/— —/—
WT 0.42/0 s 0.761/0.7 s 0.667/62 s 0.898/248 s 0.553/367 s —/— —/—
Our 0.42/0 s 0.813/0 s 0.781/1 s 0.935/3 s 0.76/44 s 0.979/738 s 0.984/152 mn
algorithm

partition due to the resolution limit, they are distinct after the first pass. This result
suggests that the intermediate solutions found by our algorithm may also be meaningful
and that the uncovered hierarchical structure may allow the end-user to zoom into the
network and to observe its structure with the desired resolution.

3. Application to large networks

In order to verify the validity of our algorithm, we have applied it on a number of test-
case networks that are commonly used for efficiency comparison and we have compared
it with three other community detection algorithms (see table 1). The networks that
we consider include a small social network [23], a network of 9000 scientific papers and
their citations [24], a sub-network of the internet [25] and a web-page network of a few
hundred thousand web-pages (the nd.edu domain, see [26]). In all cases, one can observe
both the rapidity and the large values of the modularity that are obtained. Our method
outperforms all the other methods to which it is compared. We also have applied our
method on two web networks of unprecedented sizes: a sub-network of the.uk domain
of 39 million nodes and 783 million links [27] and a network of 118 million nodes and 1
billion links obtained by the Stanford WebBase crawler [27, 28]. Even for these very large
networks, the computation time is small (12 min and 152 min, respectively) and makes
networks of still larger size, perhaps a billion nodes, accessible to computational analysis.
It is also interesting to note that the number of passes is usually very small. In the case
of the Karate Club [23], for instance, there are only 3 passes: during the first one, the 34
nodes of the network are partitioned into 6 communities; after the second one, only four
communities remain; during the third one, nothing happens and the algorithm therefore
stops. In the above examples, the number of passes is always smaller than 5.

doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 6
 Fast unfolding of communities in large networks

We have also tested the sensitivity of our algorithm by applying it on ad hoc networks
that have a known community structure. To do so, we have used networks composed of
128 nodes which are split into 4 communities of 32 nodes each [29]. Pairs of nodes
belonging to the same community are linked with probability pin while pairs belonging
to different communities are linked with probability pout . The accuracy of the method
is evaluated by measuring the fraction of correctly identified nodes and the normalized
mutual information. In the benchmark proposed in [29], the fraction of correctly identified
nodes is 0.67 for zout = 8, 0.92 for zout = 7 and 0.98 for zout = 6, i.e. an accuracy similar
to that of the algorithm of Pons and Latapy [7] and of the algorithm of Reichardt and
Bornholdt [30]. To our knowledge, only two algorithms have a better accuracy than ours,

J. Stat. Mech. (2008) P10008

the algorithm of Duch and Arenas [31] and the simulated annealing method first proposed
in [15], but their computational cost limits their applicability to much smaller networks
than the ones considered here. Our algorithm has also been successfully tested on other
benchmarks, such as the ones proposed in [19, 32]. In the case [32], the normalized mutual
information is nearly 1 for the macro-communities with a mixing parameter k3 up to 35.
It reaches 0.5 when the mixing parameter is around 55.
To validate the communities obtained we have also applied our algorithm to a large
network constructed from the records of a Belgian mobile phone company. This network is
described in detail in [33] where it is shown to exhibits typical features of social networks,
such as a high clustering coefficient and a fat-tailed degree distribution. The network is
composed of 2.6 million customers, between whom weighted links are drawn that account
for their total number of phone calls during a 6 month period. In this paper, we have
focused on a subset of 2.04 million customers for whom several entries are associated,
such as their age, sex, language and the postcode of the place where they live. This
large social network is exceptional due to the particular situation of Belgium where two
main linguistic communities (French and Dutch) coexist and which provides an excellent
way to test the validity of our community detection method by looking at the linguistic
homogeneity of communities [34]. From a more sociological point of view, the possibility to
highlight the linguistic, religious or ethnic homogeneity of communities opens perspectives
for describing the social cohesion and the potential fragility of a country [35].
On this particular network, our community detection algorithm has identified a
hierarchy of 6 levels. At the bottom level every customer is a community of its own
and at the top level there are 261 communities that have more than 100 customers. These
communities account for about 75% of all customers. We have performed a language
analysis of these 261 communities (see figure 2). The homogeneity of a community
is characterized by the percentage of those speaking the dominant language in that
community; this quantity goes to 1 when the community tends to be monolingual. Our
analysis reveals that the network is strongly segregated, with most communities almost
monolingual. There are 36 communities with more than 10 000 customers and, except for
one community at the interface between the two language clusters, all these communities
have more than 85% of their members speaking the same language (see figure 3 for a
complete distribution). It is interesting to analyse more closely the only community
that has a more equilibrate distribution of languages. Our hierarchy-revealing algorithm
allows us to do this by considering the sub-communities provided by the algorithm at
the lower level. As shown in figure 3, these sub-communities are closely connected
to each other and are themselves composed of heterogeneous groups of people. These

doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 7
 Fast unfolding of communities in large networks

J. Stat. Mech. (2008) P10008

Figure 2. Graphical representation of the network of communities extracted from
a Belgian mobile phone network. About 2 million customers are represented on
this network. The size of a node is proportional to the number of individuals in the
corresponding community and its colour on a red–green scale represents the main
language spoken in the community (red for French and green for Dutch). Only the
communities composed of more than 100 customers have been plotted. Notice
the intermediate community of mixed colours between the two main language
clusters. A zoom at higher resolution reveals that it is made of several sub-
communities with less apparent language separation.

groups of people, where language ceases to be a discriminating factor, might possibly

play a crucial role for the integration of the country and for the emergence of consensus
between the communities [36]. One may indeed wonder what would happen if the
community at the interface between the two language clusters in figure 2 was to be
removed.

doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 8
 Fast unfolding of communities in large networks

J. Stat. Mech. (2008) P10008

Figure 3. For the largest communities in the Belgian mobile phone network
we represent the size of the community and the proportion of customers in the
community that speak the dominant language of the community. For all but one
community of more than 10 000 members the dominant language is spoken by
more than 85% of the community members.

Another interesting observation is related to the presence of other languages. There

are actually four possible language declarations for the customers of this particular mobile
phone operator: French, Dutch, English or German. It is interesting to note that, whereas
English-speaking customers disperse themselves quite evenly in all communities, more
than 60% of the German speaking customers are concentrated in just one community.
This is probably due to the fact that German-speaking people are mainly concentrated in
a small region close to Germany, while English-speaking people are spread over the whole
country. Let us finally observe that, as can be visually noticed in figure 2, French-speaking
communities are much more densely connected than their Dutch-speaking counterparts:
on average, the strength of the links between French-speaking communities is 54%
stronger than those between Dutch-speaking communities. This difference of structure
between the two sub-networks seems to indicate that the two linguistic communities
are characterized by different social behaviours and therefore suggests to search other
topological characteristics for the communities.
We have also focused on this mobile phone network in order to elucidate the role
played by the ordering of the nodes on the output of the method. To do so, we have
first performed 100 analyses where the ordering of the nodes is chosen randomly. From
the modularity Qi and computation time Ti evaluated at each run i, we have computed
the average and variance of these variables. In the case of modularity, the value is almost
constant over all the runs with Q = 0.76 and a deviation of σQ ≡ Q2  − Q2 = 10−2 .
The fluctuations of the computation time are more important, as T  = 44.2 s and

doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 9
 Fast unfolding of communities in large networks

σT = 3.2 s but remain reasonably small as this is only a 7% variation. The smallest
and largest values of T among the 100 runs are 39 and 55 s. This interval suggests that a
good choice for the ordering of the nodes may substantially accelerate the dynamics. We
have therefore checked if an order related to the community structure would accelerate
the computation time. To do so, we have ordered the nodes by their postcodes, but this
choice did not lead to any improvement as compared to a random ordering, as Qzip = 0.76
and Tzip = 44 s.

4. Conclusion and discussion

J. Stat. Mech. (2008) P10008

We have introduced an algorithm for optimizing modularity that allows us to study
networks of unprecedented size. The limitation of the method for the experiments that we
performed was the storage of the network in main memory rather than the computation
time. This change of scales, i.e. from around 5 millions nodes for previous methods
to more than 100 million nodes in our case, opens exciting perspectives as the modular
structure of complex systems such as whole countries or huge parts of the Internet can
now be unravelled. The accuracy of our method has also been tested on ad hoc modular
networks and is shown to be excellent in comparison with other (much slower) community
detection methods. It is interesting to note that the speed of our algorithm can still be
substantially improved by using some simple heuristics, for instance by stopping the first
phase of our algorithm when the gain of modularity is below a given threshold or by
removing the nodes of degree 1 (leaves) from the original network and adding them back
after the community computation. The impact of these heuristics on the final partition
of the network should be studied further, as well as the role played by the ordering of the
nodes during the first phase of the algorithm.
By construction, our algorithm unfolds a complete hierarchical community structure
for the network, each level of the hierarchy being given by the intermediate partitions found
at each pass. In this paper, however, we have only verified the accuracy of the top level of
this hierarchy, namely the final partition found by our algorithm, and the accuracy of the
intermediate partitions has still to be shown. Several points suggest, however, that these
intermediate partitions make sense. First, intermediate partitions correspond to local
maxima of modularity, maxima in the sense that it is not possible to increase modularity
by moving one single ‘entity’ from one community to a neighbouring one. In the first pass
of the algorithm, these entities are nodes, but at subsequent passes, they correspond to
larger and larger sets of nodes. Intermediate partitions may therefore be viewed as local
maxima of modularity at different scales. It is the agglomeration of nodes during the
second phase of the algorithm which allows us to uncover larger and larger communities,
thereby taking advantage of the self-similar structure of many complex networks. Second,
the final partition found by our algorithm has a very high value of modularity for a broad
range of system sizes (for instance, as shown in table 1, our algorithm performs better
in terms of modularity than those of Clauset et al [8], of Pons and Latapy [7] and of
Wakita and Tsurumi [16]). Finally, it is instructive to consider a community C found at
the last pass of our algorithm. In order to test the validity of the sub-communities found
at the penultimate pass, it is tempting to look at community C as a new network, thereby
neglecting links going from C to the rest of the network. By reapplying our algorithm on
the isolated community C, one expects to find very similar sub-communities due to the

doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 10
 Fast unfolding of communities in large networks

local optimization involved at each step. These are, however, very qualitative arguments
and the multi-resolution of our algorithm will only be confirmed after looking in detail at
the hierarchies found in ad hoc networks with known hierarchical structure [19] or without
community structure (e.g. Erdös–Renyi random graphs), or after comparing with other
methods incorporating a tunable resolution [32, 37, 38].

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Communauté Française de Belgique through a grant
ARC and by the Belgian Network DYSCO, funded by the Interuniversity Attraction Poles

J. Stat. Mech. (2008) P10008

Programme, initiated by the Belgian State, Science Policy Office. J-LG is also supported
in part by MAPAP SIP-2006-PP-221003 and ANR MAPE projects.

References
[1] Albert R and Barabási A-L, 2002 Rev. Mod. Phys. 74 4797
[2] Newman M E J, Barabási A-L and Watts D J, 2006 The Structure and Dynamics of Networks (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press)
[3] Fortunato S and Castellano C, 2007 arXiv:0712.2716
[4] Girvan M and Newman M E J, 2002 Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 99 7821
[5] Newman M E J and Girvan M, 2004 Phys. Rev. E 69 026113
[6] Radicchi F, Castellano C, Cecconi F, Loreto V and Parisi D, 2004 Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 101 2658
[7] Pons P and Latapy M, 2006 J. Graph Algorithms Appl. 10 191
[8] Clauset A, Newman M E J and Moore C, 2004 Phys. Rev. E 70 066111
[9] Wu F and Huberman B A, 2004 Eur. Phys. J. B 38 331
[10] Newman M E J, 2006 Phys. Rev. E 74 036104
[11] Newman M E J, 2006 Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 103 8577
[12] Newman M E J, 2004 Phys. Rev. E 70 056131
[13] Newman M E J, 2004 Phys. Rev. E 69 066133
[14] Brandes U, Delling D, Gaertler M, Goerke R, Hoefer M, Nikoloski Z and Wagner D, 2006
arXiv:physics/0608255
[15] Guimera R, Sales M and Amaral L A N, 2004 Phys. Rev. E 70 025101
[16] Wakita K and Tsurumi T, 2007 Proc. IADIS Int. Conf. on WWW/Internet 2007 p 153
[17] Palla G, Derényi I, Farkas I and Vicsek T, 2005 Nature 435 814
[18] Raghavan U N, Albert R and Kumara S, 2007 Phys. Rev. E 76 036106
[19] Sales-Pardo M, Guimera R, Moreira A A and Amaral L A N, 2007 Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 104 15224
[20] Arenas A, Duch J, Fernández A and Gómez S, 2007 New J. Phys. 9 176
[21] Song C, Havlin S and Makse H A, 2005 Nature 433 392
[22] Fortunato S and Barthélemy M, 2007 Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 104 36
[23] Zachary WW, 1977 J. Anthropol. Res. 33 452
[24] http://www.cs.cornell.edu/projects/kddcup/ (Cornell KDD Cup)
[25] Hoerdt M and Magoni D, 2003 Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Software, Telecommunications and Computer
Networks p 257
[26] Albert R, Jeong H and Barabási A-L, 1999 Nature 401 130
[27] http://law.dsi.unimi.it/ (Laboratory for Web Algorithmics)
[28] http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8091/∼testbed/doc2/WebBase/ (Stanford WebBase Project)
[29] Danon L, Dı́az-Guilera A, Duch J and Arenas A, 2005 J. Stat. Mech. P09008
[30] Reichardt J and Bornholdt S, 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 218701
[31] Duch J and Arenas A, 2005 Phys. Rev. E 72 027104
[32] Lancichinetti A, Fortunato S and Kertesz J, 2008 arXiv:0802.1218
[33] Lambiotte R, Blondel V D, de Kerchove C, Huens E, Prieur C, Smoreda Z and Van Dooren P, 2008
Physica A 387 5317
[34] Palla G, Barabási A-L and Vicsek T, 2007 Nature 446 664
[35] Onnela J-P, Saramäki J, Hyvönen J, Szabó G, Lazer D, Kaski K, Kertész J and Barabási A-L, 2007 Proc.
Nat. Acad. Sci. 104 7332

doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 11
 Fast unfolding of communities in large networks

[36] Lambiotte R, Ausloos M and Holyst J A, 2007 Phys. Rev. E 75 030101(R)

[37] Arenas A, Fernández A and Gómez S, 2008 New J. Phys. 10 053039
[38] Delvenne J-C, Yaliraki S and Barahona M, 2008 in preparation

J. Stat. Mech. (2008) P10008

doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 12

View publication stats