Figure 4
From: Critical analysis of (Quasi-)Surprise for community detection in complex networks
(A) For Quasi-Surprise and Modularity, relation between critical r-values and x for different pout/pin-values (lines + symbol for Quasi-Surprise, while the corresponding lines for Modularity) in single-level networks. (B) For Quasi-Surprise and Modularity, relation between critical r-values and pout/pin for different x-values in single-level networks. The inset graph is for more explicitly comparison. (lines + symbol for Quasi-Surprise, while the corresponding lines for Modularity (Mod)). “(1 group)” denotes community partitions where there are just several (e.g. x = 2 or 3) “dense subgraphs” merging into 1 group, generating a community with 2 or 3 “dense subgraphs”, and other “dense subgraphs” are still considered as independent communities. (C) For comparison of different methods (Sq, Sp, Sg and Mod), the critical r-values in partition transition as a function of pout/pin in single-level networks. (D) For comparison of different methods, the critical r-values in partition transition as a function of pout1/pin in double-level networks.
