Search

The modularity index (Q) is an important criterion for many community detection heuristics used in network psychometrics and its subareas (e.g., exploratory graph analysis). Some heuristics seek to directly maximize Q, whereas others, such as the walktrap algorithm, only use the modularity index post hoc to determine the number of communities. Researchers in network psychometrics have typically not employed methods that are guaranteed to find a partition that maximizes Q, perhaps because of the complexity of the underlying mathematical programming problem. In this paper, for networks of the size commonly encountered in network psychometrics, we explore the utility of finding the partition that maximizes Q via formulation and solution of a clique partitioning problem (CPP). A key benefit of the CPP is that the number of communities is naturally determined by its solution and, therefore, need not be prespecified in advance. The results of two simulation studies comparing maximization of Q to two other methods that seek to maximize modularity (fast greedy and Louvain), as well as one popular method that does not (walktrap algorithm), provide interesting insights as to the relative performances of the methods with respect to identification of the correct number of communities and the recovery of underlying community structure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Ising model has received significant attention in network psychometrics during the past decade. A popular estimation procedure is IsingFit, which uses nodewise l1-regularized logistic regression along with the extended Bayesian information criterion to establish the edge weights for the network. In this paper, we report the results of a simulation study comparing IsingFit to two alternative approaches: (1) a nonregularized nodewise stepwise logistic regression method, and (2) a recently proposed global l1-regularized logistic regression method that estimates all edge weights in a single stage, thus circumventing the need for nodewise estimation. MATLAB scripts for the methods are provided as supplemental material. The global l1-regularized logistic regression method generally provided greater accuracy and sensitivity than IsingFit, at the expense of lower specificity and much greater computation time. The stepwise approach showed considerable promise. Relative to the l1-regularized approaches, the stepwise method provided better average specificity for all experimental conditions, as well as comparable accuracy and sensitivity at the largest sample size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]