Parallel Louvain Algorithm with Efficient Handling of Internally-Disconnected Communities

Core Concepts

A parallel implementation of the Louvain algorithm, called GSP-Louvain, that effectively addresses the issue of internally-disconnected communities while achieving significantly faster processing speeds compared to existing alternatives.

Abstract

The content presents a parallel implementation of the Louvain algorithm, called GSP-Louvain, that addresses the problem of internally-disconnected communities. The key highlights are: The Louvain algorithm, a widely used method for community detection, can sometimes produce internally-disconnected communities. To mitigate this issue, the authors propose the GSP-Louvain algorithm. GSP-Louvain employs a Split Pass (SP) approach, where disconnected communities are identified and split after the local-moving phase in each iteration of the Louvain algorithm, using a parallel Breadth-First Search (BFS) technique. Evaluated on a system with two 16-core Intel Xeon Gold 6226R processors, GSP-Louvain achieves a processing rate of 328M edges/s on a 3.8B edge graph, outperforming the original Leiden, igraph Leiden, and NetworKit Leiden algorithms by 341x, 83x, and 6.1x, respectively. The communities identified by GSP-Louvain are of similar quality to the Leiden and igraph Leiden implementations, and 25% higher in quality than NetworKit Leiden. GSP-Louvain exhibits a performance improvement rate of 1.5x for every doubling of threads, demonstrating good scalability.

Stats

On a 3.8B edge graph, GSP-Louvain achieves a processing rate of 328M edges/s. GSP-Louvain outperforms the original Leiden, igraph Leiden, and NetworKit Leiden algorithms by 341x, 83x, and 6.1x, respectively.

Quotes

None

Key Insights Distilled From

An Approach for Addressing Internally-Disconnected Communities in Louvain Algorithm

by Subhajit Sah... at arxiv.org 03-29-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.11454.pdf

Deeper Inquiries

How can the splitting phase of GSP-Louvain be further optimized to improve its scalability

To further optimize the splitting phase of GSP-Louvain for improved scalability, several strategies can be implemented: Parallelization: Implementing parallel algorithms for the splitting phase can help distribute the workload across multiple threads or cores, reducing the overall execution time. Optimized Data Structures: Using efficient data structures, such as priority queues or hash tables, can enhance the performance of the splitting phase by reducing lookup times and improving memory management. Load Balancing: Implementing load balancing techniques can ensure that the workload is evenly distributed among threads, preventing bottlenecks and maximizing resource utilization. Reducing Communication Overhead: Minimizing communication overhead between threads or processes during the splitting phase can help improve scalability by reducing latency and improving overall efficiency. Algorithmic Improvements: Fine-tuning the splitting algorithm to reduce redundant computations, optimize memory usage, and streamline the overall process can lead to better scalability and performance.

What are the potential limitations of the modularity-based approach used in GSP-Louvain, and how could alternative quality metrics be incorporated

The modularity-based approach used in GSP-Louvain may have some limitations, including: Resolution Limit: Modularity optimization methods may face the resolution limit problem, where they struggle to identify smaller communities within larger ones. Sensitivity to Community Size: Modularity can be sensitive to the size of communities, potentially favoring larger communities over smaller ones. Overlapping Communities: Modularity-based approaches may struggle to handle overlapping communities, where nodes belong to multiple communities simultaneously. Subjectivity to Parameter Selection: The modularity metric relies on parameters like resolution and threshold values, which can impact the quality of the detected communities. To address these limitations and enhance the quality of community detection, alternative quality metrics can be incorporated, such as: Normalized Mutual Information (NMI): NMI measures the similarity between two sets of communities, providing a more robust evaluation of community detection algorithms. Adjusted Rand Index (ARI): ARI quantifies the similarity between two clusterings, considering both pairs of points that are or are not in the same cluster in the true and predicted clusterings. Entropy-based Metrics: Entropy-based metrics like Normalized Mutual Entropy (NME) can offer insights into the information gain or loss when moving from ground truth communities to detected communities. Coverage and Modularity Trade-off: Incorporating metrics that balance coverage (ability to detect all communities) and modularity (quality of community structure) can provide a more comprehensive evaluation of community detection algorithms.

Can the techniques used in GSP-Louvain be extended to other community detection algorithms beyond the Louvain method

The techniques used in GSP-Louvain can be extended to other community detection algorithms beyond the Louvain method by: Adapting Splitting Strategies: Implementing the splitting phase with techniques like Label Propagation or Breadth-First Search can be applied to other community detection algorithms to address disconnected communities. Parallelization Methods: Utilizing parallelization strategies for community detection algorithms can improve scalability and performance, similar to the approach taken in GSP-Louvain. Quality Metric Integration: Incorporating alternative quality metrics beyond modularity, such as NMI or ARI, can enhance the evaluation of communities detected by different algorithms. Algorithmic Enhancements: Applying algorithmic improvements like load balancing, optimized data structures, and parallel processing can be beneficial for various community detection algorithms to achieve better scalability and efficiency.