The Computer Science and Physics of Community Detection: Landscapes, Phase Transitions, and Hardness

TL;DR

This paper explores the theoretical and computational aspects of community detection in graphs, focusing on phase transitions, problem hardness, and the interplay between physics and computer science insights.

Contribution

It synthesizes recent advances in understanding the phase transitions and computational hardness of community detection, bridging physics, probability, and algorithms.

Findings

Existence of phase transitions in detectability

Identification of thresholds for algorithm success and failure

Insights into the landscapes and hardness of community detection

Abstract

Community detection in graphs is the problem of finding groups of vertices which are more densely connected than they are to the rest of the graph. This problem has a long history, but it is undergoing a resurgence of interest due to the need to analyze social and biological networks. While there are many ways to formalize it, one of the most popular is as an inference problem, where there is a "ground truth" community structure built into the graph somehow. The task is then to recover the ground truth knowing only the graph. Recently it was discovered, first heuristically in physics and then rigorously in probability and computer science, that this problem has a phase transition at which it suddenly becomes impossible. Namely, if the graph is too sparse, or the probabilistic process that generates it is too noisy, then no algorithm can find a partition that is correlated with the planted one---or even tell if there are communities, i.e., distinguish the graph from a purely random one with high probability. Above this information-theoretic threshold, there is a second threshold beyond which polynomial-time algorithms are known to succeed; in between, there is a regime in which community detection is possible, but conjectured to require exponential time. For computer scientists, this field offers a wealth of new ideas and open questions, with connections to probability and combinatorics, message-passing algorithms, and random matrix theory. Perhaps more importantly, it provides a window into the cultures of statistical physics and statistical inference, and how those cultures think about distributions of instances, landscapes of solutions, and hardness.