Comparing methods for comparing networks.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 11 2019
26 11 2019
Historique:
received:
16
07
2019
accepted:
25
10
2019
entrez:
28
11
2019
pubmed:
28
11
2019
medline:
28
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
With the impressive growth of available data and the flexibility of network modelling, the problem of devising effective quantitative methods for the comparison of networks arises. Plenty of such methods have been designed to accomplish this task: most of them deal with undirected and unweighted networks only, but a few are capable of handling directed and/or weighted networks too, thus properly exploiting richer information. In this work, we contribute to the effort of comparing the different methods for comparing networks and providing a guide for the selection of an appropriate one. First, we review and classify a collection of network comparison methods, highlighting the criteria they are based on and their advantages and drawbacks. The set includes methods requiring known node-correspondence, such as DeltaCon and Cut Distance, as well as methods not requiring a priori known node-correspondence, such as alignment-based, graphlet-based, and spectral methods, and the recently proposed Portrait Divergence and NetLSD. We test the above methods on synthetic networks and we assess their usability and the meaningfulness of the results they provide. Finally, we apply the methods to two real-world datasets, the European Air Transportation Network and the FAO Trade Network, in order to discuss the results that can be drawn from this type of analysis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31772246
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-53708-y
pii: 10.1038/s41598-019-53708-y
pmc: PMC6879644
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
17557Références
Bioinformatics. 2004 Dec 12;20(18):3508-15
pubmed: 15284103
Sci Rep. 2017 Nov 2;7(1):14890
pubmed: 29097661
Nucleic Acids Res. 2004 Jul 1;32(Web Server issue):W83-8
pubmed: 15215356
Cancer Inform. 2010 Jun 30;9:121-37
pubmed: 20628593
Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2008 Oct;78(4 Pt 2):046110
pubmed: 18999496
Bioinformatics. 2018 Feb 1;34(3):530-532
pubmed: 29028902
Sci Rep. 2014 Apr 01;4:4547
pubmed: 24686408
Bioinformatics. 2014 Sep 1;30(17):i430-7
pubmed: 25161230
Bioinformatics. 2009 Jun 15;25(12):i253-8
pubmed: 19477996
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 29;13(11):e0208265
pubmed: 30496279
Bioinformatics. 2014 Feb 15;30(4):559-65
pubmed: 24336411
J R Soc Interface. 2010 Sep 6;7(50):1341-54
pubmed: 20236959
Bioinformatics. 2001;17 Suppl 1:S22-9
pubmed: 11472989
Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2012 Sep;86(3 Pt 2):036104-36104
pubmed: 23030977
Genome Res. 2006 Sep;16(9):1169-81
pubmed: 16899655
Bioinformatics. 2007 Jan 15;23(2):e177-83
pubmed: 17237089
Sci Rep. 2013;3:1344
pubmed: 23446838
Sci Rep. 2016 Oct 13;6:35098
pubmed: 27734973
Nat Commun. 2015 Apr 23;6:6864
pubmed: 25904309
Appl Netw Sci. 2018;3(1):2
pubmed: 30839726
Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2009 Jul;80(1 Pt 2):016118
pubmed: 19658785
Bioinformatics. 2011 May 15;27(10):1390-6
pubmed: 21414992
Integr Biol (Camb). 2012 Jul;4(7):734-43
pubmed: 22234340
Science. 1999 Oct 15;286(5439):509-12
pubmed: 10521342
Sci Rep. 2018 Mar 23;8(1):5134
pubmed: 29572479
Cancer Inform. 2008;6:257-73
pubmed: 19259413
Bioinformatics. 2015 Aug 15;31(16):2697-704
pubmed: 25810431
Bioinformatics. 2015 Jul 1;31(13):2182-9
pubmed: 25725498