leiden_clsutering is distributed under a BSD 3-Clause License (see LICENSE). Clustering with the Leiden Algorithm in R This package allows calling the Leiden algorithm for clustering on an igraph object from R. See the Python and Java implementations for more details: https://github.com/CWTSLeiden/networkanalysis https://github.com/vtraag/leidenalg Install The Leiden algorithm is considerably more complex than the Louvain algorithm. The solution proposed in smart local moving is to alter how the local moving step in Louvain works. Lancichinetti, A. Guimer, R. & Nunes Amaral, L. A. Functional cartography of complex metabolic networks. For higher values of , Leiden finds better partitions than Louvain. E 76, 036106, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.76.036106 (2007). 8, 207218, https://doi.org/10.17706/IJCEE.2016.8.3.207-218 (2016). Higher resolutions lead to more communities, while lower resolutions lead to fewer communities. In this stage we essentially collapse communities down into a single representative node, creating a new simplified graph. Google Scholar. When a disconnected community has become a node in an aggregate network, there are no more possibilities to split up the community. The nodes that are more interconnected have been partitioned into separate clusters. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41695-z. It identifies the clusters by calculating the densities of the cells. Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. MathSciNet The Louvain algorithm starts from a singleton partition in which each node is in its own community (a). J. Stat. The triumphs and limitations of computational methods for - Nature If we move the node to a different community, we add to the rear of the queue all neighbours of the node that do not belong to the nodes new community and that are not yet in the queue. Introduction The Louvain method is an algorithm to detect communities in large networks. Modularity is a scale value between 0.5 (non-modular clustering) and 1 (fully modular clustering) that measures the relative density of edges inside communities with respect to edges outside communities. Four popular community detection algorithms are explained . We abbreviate the leidenalg package as la and the igraph package as ig in all Python code throughout this documentation. and JavaScript. Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1469357 https://github.com/vtraag/leidenalg. We gratefully acknowledge computational facilities provided by the LIACS Data Science Lab Computing Facilities through Frank Takes. PubMed Central CPM has the advantage that it is not subject to the resolution limit. Crucially, however, the percentage of badly connected communities decreases with each iteration of the Leiden algorithm. The problem of disconnected communities has been observed before19,20, also in the context of the label propagation algorithm21. How many iterations of the Leiden clustering algorithm to perform. http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.08473. Communities in \({\mathscr{P}}\) may be split into multiple subcommunities in \({{\mathscr{P}}}_{{\rm{refined}}}\). For all networks, Leiden identifies substantially better partitions than Louvain. E 72, 027104, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.72.027104 (2005). However, nodes 16 are still locally optimally assigned, and therefore these nodes will stay in the red community. Louvain pruning keeps track of a list of nodes that have the potential to change communities, and only revisits nodes in this list, which is much smaller than the total number of nodes. Natl. Discov. In doing so, Louvain keeps visiting nodes that cannot be moved to a different community. After a stable iteration of the Leiden algorithm, the algorithm may still be able to make further improvements in later iterations. 2008. There is an entire Leiden package in R-cran here One may expect that other nodes in the old community will then also be moved to other communities. Each point corresponds to a certain iteration of an algorithm, with results averaged over 10 experiments. Higher resolutions lead to more communities and lower resolutions lead to fewer communities, similarly to the resolution parameter for modularity. First iteration runtime for empirical networks. Soft Matter Phys. We also suggested that the Leiden algorithm is faster than the Louvain algorithm, because of the fast local move approach. From Louvain to Leiden: guaranteeing well-connected communities, $$ {\mathcal H} =\frac{1}{2m}\,{\sum }_{c}({e}_{c}-{\rm{\gamma }}\frac{{K}_{c}^{2}}{2m}),$$, $$ {\mathcal H} ={\sum }_{c}[{e}_{c}-\gamma (\begin{array}{c}{n}_{c}\\ 2\end{array})],$$, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41695-z. The Louvain algorithm10 is very simple and elegant. Soft Matter Phys. Iterating the Louvain algorithm can therefore be seen as a double-edged sword: it improves the partition in some way, but degrades it in another way. This aspect of the Louvain algorithm can be used to give information about the hierarchical relationships between communities by tracking at which stage the nodes in the communities were aggregated. The Louvain algorithm is illustrated in Fig. Louvain - Neo4j Graph Data Science conda install -c conda-forge leidenalg pip install leiden-clustering Used via. igraph R manual pages Additionally, we implemented a Python package, available from https://github.com/vtraag/leidenalg and deposited at Zenodo24). In particular, benchmark networks have a rather simple structure. A structure that is more informative than the unstructured set of clusters returned by flat clustering. The corresponding results are presented in the Supplementary Fig. The Leiden algorithm is typically iterated: the output of one iteration is used as the input for the next iteration. Number of iterations until stability. For example an SNN can be generated: For Seurat version 3 objects, the Leiden algorithm has been implemented in the Seurat version 3 package with Seurat::FindClusters and algorithm = "leiden"). Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. We then remove the first node from the front of the queue and we determine whether the quality function can be increased by moving this node from its current community to a different one. It only implies that individual nodes are well connected to their community. Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter what matters in science, free to your inbox daily. The fast local move procedure can be summarised as follows. Faster unfolding of communities: Speeding up the Louvain algorithm. They identified an inefficiency in the Louvain algorithm: computes modularity gain for all neighbouring nodes per loop in local moving phase, even though many of these nodes will not have moved. Cluster cells using Louvain/Leiden community detection Description. 10008, 6, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 (2008). Fortunato, S. Community detection in graphs. Nodes 16 have connections only within this community, whereas node 0 also has many external connections. (2) and m is the number of edges. Rotta, R. & Noack, A. Multilevel local search algorithms for modularity clustering. In this post, I will cover one of the common approaches which is hierarchical clustering. 4, in the first iteration of the Louvain algorithm, the percentage of badly connected communities can be quite high. Then the Leiden algorithm can be run on the adjacency matrix. Waltman, Ludo, and Nees Jan van Eck. PubMedGoogle Scholar. An overview of the various guarantees is presented in Table1. We consider these ideas to represent the most promising directions in which the Louvain algorithm can be improved, even though we recognise that other improvements have been suggested as well22. Int. ADS In this way, the constant acts as a resolution parameter, and setting the constant higher will result in fewer communities. In the Louvain algorithm, an aggregate network is created based on the partition \({\mathscr{P}}\) resulting from the local moving phase. We first applied the Scanpy pipeline, including its clustering method (Leiden clustering), on the PBMC dataset. Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. MATH Hence, the Leiden algorithm effectively addresses the problem of badly connected communities. Article The Leiden algorithm guarantees all communities to be connected, but it may yield badly connected communities. Clustering with the Leiden Algorithm in R scanpy.tl.leiden Scanpy 1.9.3 documentation - Read the Docs In contrast, Leiden keeps finding better partitions in each iteration. Agglomerative clustering is a bottom-up approach. The classic Louvain algorithm should be avoided due to the known problem with disconnected communities. This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository. We use six empirical networks in our analysis. Random moving is a very simple adjustment to Louvain local moving proposed in 2015 (Traag 2015). Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1466831 https://github.com/CWTSLeiden/networkanalysis. In fact, for the Web of Science and Web UK networks, Fig. All communities are subpartition -dense. On Modularity Clustering. Rev. Knowl. 2 represent stronger connections, while the other edges represent weaker connections. In that case, some optimal partitions cannot be found, as we show in SectionC2 of the Supplementary Information. Speed of the first iteration of the Louvain and the Leiden algorithm for benchmark networks with increasingly difficult partitions (n=107). N.J.v.E. IEEE Trans. The steps for agglomerative clustering are as follows: This is well illustrated by figure 2 in the Leiden paper: When a community becomes disconnected like this, there is no way for Louvain to easily split it into two separate communities. Rev. Reichardt, J. Rather than progress straight to the aggregation stage (as we would for the original Louvain), we next consider each community as a new sub-network and re-apply the local moving step within each community. Nature 433, 895900, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03288 (2005). In fact, although it may seem that the Louvain algorithm does a good job at finding high quality partitions, in its standard form the algorithm provides only one guarantee: the algorithm yields partitions for which it is guaranteed that no communities can be merged. The authors act as bibliometric consultants to CWTS B.V., which makes use of community detection algorithms in commercial products and services. In fact, if we keep iterating the Leiden algorithm, it will converge to a partition without any badly connected communities, as discussed earlier. Each of these can be used as an objective function for graph-based community detection methods, with our goal being to maximize this value. The new algorithm integrates several earlier improvements, incorporating a combination of smart local move15, fast local move16,17 and random neighbour move18. Agglomerative Clustering: Also known as bottom-up approach or hierarchical agglomerative clustering (HAC). This will compute the Leiden clusters and add them to the Seurat Object Class. The difference in computational time is especially pronounced for larger networks, with Leiden being up to 20 times faster than Louvain in empirical networks. sign in To address this problem, we introduce the Leiden algorithm. By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. Fortunato, Santo, and Marc Barthlemy. Disconnected community. A score of -1 means that there are no edges connecting nodes within the community, and they instead all connect nodes outside the community. The horizontal axis indicates the cumulative time taken to obtain the quality indicated on the vertical axis. Nat. 63, 23782392, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748 (2012). The constant Potts model tries to maximize the number of internal edges in a community, while simultaneously trying to keep community sizes small, and the constant parameter balances these two characteristics. To find an optimal grouping of cells into communities, we need some way of evaluating different partitions in the graph. Modularity is a measure of the structure of networks or graphs which measures the strength of division of a network into modules (also called groups, clusters or communities). In later stages, most neighbors will belong to the same community, and its very likely that the best move for the node is to the community that most of its neighbors already belong to. If material is not included in the articles Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Leiden consists of the following steps: Local moving of nodes Partition refinement Network aggregation The refinement step allows badly connected communities to be split before creating the aggregate network. In the worst case, almost a quarter of the communities are badly connected. leidenalg. HiCBin: binning metagenomic contigs and recovering metagenome-assembled We therefore require a more principled solution, which we will introduce in the next section. Uniform -density means that no matter how a community is partitioned into two parts, the two parts will always be well connected to each other. This enables us to find cases where its beneficial to split a community. This continues until the queue is empty. The percentage of disconnected communities even jumps to 16% for the DBLP network. The Leiden algorithm consists of three phases: (1) local moving of nodes, (2) refinement of the partition and (3) aggregation of the network based on the refined partition, using the non-refined partition to create an initial partition for the aggregate network. In general, Leiden is both faster than Louvain and finds better partitions. Use Git or checkout with SVN using the web URL. In practical applications, the Leiden algorithm convincingly outperforms the Louvain algorithm, both in terms of speed and in terms of quality of the results, as shown by the experimental analysis presented in this paper. bioRxiv, https://doi.org/10.1101/208819 (2018). However, the initial partition for the aggregate network is based on P, just like in the Louvain algorithm. After running local moving, we end up with a set of communities where we cant increase the objective function (eg, modularity) by moving any node to any neighboring community. Node optimality is also guaranteed after a stable iteration of the Louvain algorithm. Such algorithms are rather slow, making them ineffective for large networks. Using the fast local move procedure, the first visit to all nodes in a network in the Leiden algorithm is the same as in the Louvain algorithm. Moreover, the deeper significance of the problem was not recognised: disconnected communities are merely the most extreme manifestation of the problem of arbitrarily badly connected communities. Knowl. We conclude that the Leiden algorithm is strongly preferable to the Louvain algorithm. Node mergers that cause the quality function to decrease are not considered. The reasoning behind this is that the best community to join will usually be the one that most of the nodes neighbors already belong to. This method tries to maximise the difference between the actual number of edges in a community and the expected number of such edges. More subtle problems may occur as well, causing Louvain to find communities that are connected, but only in a very weak sense. In this paper, we show that the Louvain algorithm has a major problem, for both modularity and CPM. Nonetheless, some networks still show large differences. The main ideas of our algorithm are explained in an intuitive way in the main text of the paper. Note that the object for Seurat version 3 has changed. I tracked the number of clusters post-clustering at each step. This amounts to a clustering problem, where we aim to learn an optimal set of groups (communities) from the observed data. Basically, there are two types of hierarchical cluster analysis strategies - 1. One of the best-known methods for community detection is called modularity3. The horizontal axis indicates the cumulative time taken to obtain the quality indicated on the vertical axis. 9, the Leiden algorithm also performs better than the Louvain algorithm in terms of the quality of the partitions that are obtained. The docs are here. Resolution Limit in Community Detection. Proc. In this way, Leiden implements the local moving phase more efficiently than Louvain. E 78, 046110, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.78.046110 (2008). This function takes a cell_data_set as input, clusters the cells using . Electr. The Leiden algorithm starts from a singleton partition (a). The resulting clusters are shown as colors on the 3D model (top) and t -SNE embedding . Faster Unfolding of Communities: Speeding up the Louvain Algorithm. Phys. Lancichinetti, A., Fortunato, S. & Radicchi, F. Benchmark graphs for testing community detection algorithms. Even worse, the Amazon network has 5% disconnected communities, but 25% badly connected communities. Rev. Traag, V. A. leidenalg 0.7.0. Phys. Neurosci. https://leidenalg.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reference.html. The inspiration for this method of community detection is the optimization of modularity as the algorithm progresses. & Arenas, A. Nodes 13 should form a community and nodes 46 should form another community. Publishers note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. There are many different approaches and algorithms to perform clustering tasks. As far as I can tell, Leiden seems to essentially be smart local moving with the additional improvements of random moving and Louvain pruning added. Removing such a node from its old community disconnects the old community. Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands, You can also search for this author in MathSciNet An iteration of the Leiden algorithm in which the partition does not change is called a stable iteration. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the articles Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. For this network, Leiden requires over 750 iterations on average to reach a stable iteration. In all experiments reported here, we used a value of 0.01 for the parameter that determines the degree of randomness in the refinement phase of the Leiden algorithm. Ronhovde, Peter, and Zohar Nussinov. However, values of within a range of roughly [0.0005, 0.1] all provide reasonable results, thus allowing for some, but not too much randomness. Leiden is faster than Louvain especially for larger networks. The smart local moving algorithm (Waltman and Eck 2013) identified another limitation in the original Louvain method: it isnt able to split communities once theyre merged, even when it may be very beneficial to do so. modularity) increases. Porter, M. A., Onnela, J.-P. & Mucha, P. J. S3. Hence, for lower values of , the difference in quality is negligible. The algorithm moves individual nodes from one community to another to find a partition (b), which is then refined (c). Soc. Louvain algorithm. Acad. The algorithm moves individual nodes from one community to another to find a partition (b). We here introduce the Leiden algorithm, which guarantees that communities are well connected. Moreover, when no more nodes can be moved, the algorithm will aggregate the network. Finally, we demonstrate the excellent performance of the algorithm for several benchmark and real-world networks. First, we show that the Louvain algorithm finds disconnected communities, and more generally, badly connected communities in the empirical networks. The Leiden algorithm consists of three phases: (1) local moving of nodes, (2) refinement of the partition and (3) aggregation of the network based on the refined partition, using the non-refined. That is, one part of such an internally disconnected community can reach another part only through a path going outside the community. Slider with three articles shown per slide. As such, we scored leiden-clustering popularity level to be Limited. In fact, when we keep iterating the Leiden algorithm, it will converge to a partition for which it is guaranteed that: A community is uniformly -dense if there are no subsets of the community that can be separated from the community. We demonstrate the performance of the Leiden algorithm for several benchmark and real-world networks. Phys. In the worst case, communities may even be disconnected, especially when running the algorithm iteratively. Community detection in complex networks using extremal optimization. Note that communities found by the Leiden algorithm are guaranteed to be connected. The property of -connectivity is a slightly stronger variant of ordinary connectivity. Detecting communities in a network is therefore an important problem. Rev. ISSN 2045-2322 (online). Based on project statistics from the GitHub repository for the PyPI package leiden-clustering, we found that it has been starred 1 times. Each point corresponds to a certain iteration of an algorithm, with results averaged over 10 experiments. AMS 56, 10821097 (2009). Sci. Large network community detection by fast label propagation, Representative community divisions of networks, Gausss law for networks directly reveals community boundaries, A Regularized Stochastic Block Model for the robust community detection in complex networks, Community Detection in Complex Networks via Clique Conductance, A generalised significance test for individual communities in networks, Community Detection on Networkswith Ricci Flow, https://github.com/CWTSLeiden/networkanalysis, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.11.002, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.69.026113, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.74.016110, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.70.066111, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.72.027104, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.74.036104, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.80.056117, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.84.016114, https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2013-40829-0, https://doi.org/10.17706/IJCEE.2016.8.3.207-218, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.92.032801, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.76.036106, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.78.046110, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.81.046106, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, A robust and accurate single-cell data trajectory inference method using ensemble pseudotime, Batch alignment of single-cell transcriptomics data using deep metric learning, ViralCC retrieves complete viral genomes and virus-host pairs from metagenomic Hi-C data, Community detection in brain connectomes with hybrid quantum computing. In other words, modularity may hide smaller communities and may yield communities containing significant substructure. Again, if communities are badly connected, this may lead to incorrect inferences of topics, which will affect bibliometric analyses relying on the inferred topics. Below we offer an intuitive explanation of these properties. For example, the red community in (b) is refined into two subcommunities in (c), which after aggregation become two separate nodes in (d), both belonging to the same community. & Girvan, M. Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. In single-cell biology we often use graph-based community detection methods to do this, as these methods are unsupervised, scale well, and usually give good results. We now show that the Louvain algorithm may find arbitrarily badly connected communities. CPM does not suffer from this issue13. Segmentation & Clustering SPATA2 - GitHub Pages The Leiden algorithm is clearly faster than the Louvain algorithm. E 81, 046106, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.81.046106 (2010). In this iterative scheme, Louvain provides two guarantees: (1) no communities can be merged and (2) no nodes can be moved. By creating the aggregate network based on \({{\mathscr{P}}}_{{\rm{refined}}}\) rather than P, the Leiden algorithm has more room for identifying high-quality partitions. We study the problem of badly connected communities when using the Louvain algorithm for several empirical networks. It was found to be one of the fastest and best performing algorithms in comparative analyses11,12, and it is one of the most-cited works in the community detection literature. Nonlin. wrote the manuscript. Hence, the problem of Louvain outlined above is independent from the issue of the resolution limit. & Fortunato, S. Community detection algorithms: A comparative analysis. Yang, Z., Algesheimer, R. & Tessone, C. J. Klavans, R. & Boyack, K. W. Which Type of Citation Analysis Generates the Most Accurate Taxonomy of Scientific and Technical Knowledge? Traag, V A. The Leiden algorithm is partly based on the previously introduced smart local move algorithm15, which itself can be seen as an improvement of the Louvain algorithm. The second iteration of Louvain shows a large increase in the percentage of disconnected communities. A tag already exists with the provided branch name. However, Leiden is more than 7 times faster for the Live Journal network, more than 11 times faster for the Web of Science network and more than 20 times faster for the Web UK network. This is the crux of the Leiden paper, and the authors show that this exact problem happens frequently in practice. However, focussing only on disconnected communities masks the more fundamental issue: Louvain finds arbitrarily badly connected communities. We prove that the new algorithm is guaranteed to produce partitions in which all communities are internally connected. However, so far this problem has never been studied for the Louvain algorithm. Second, to study the scaling of the Louvain and the Leiden algorithm, we use benchmark networks, allowing us to compare the algorithms in terms of both computational time and quality of the partitions. These nodes are therefore optimally assigned to their current community. Random moving can result in some huge speedups, since Louvain spends about 95% of its time computing the modularity gain from moving nodes. V.A.T. Later iterations of the Louvain algorithm only aggravate the problem of disconnected communities, even though the quality function (i.e. The quality improvement realised by the Leiden algorithm relative to the Louvain algorithm is larger for empirical networks than for benchmark networks. Internet Explorer). This will compute the Leiden clusters and add them to the Seurat Object Class. Rep. 486, 75174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.11.002 (2010). Here is some small debugging code I wrote to find this. The algorithm is run iteratively, using the partition identified in one iteration as starting point for the next iteration. Ozaki, N., Tezuka, H. & Inaba, M. A Simple Acceleration Method for the Louvain Algorithm. Although originally defined for modularity, the Louvain algorithm can also be used to optimise other quality functions. Communities in Networks. Google Scholar. Because the percentage of disconnected communities in the first iteration of the Louvain algorithm usually seems to be relatively low, the problem may have escaped attention from users of the algorithm. Figure4 shows how well it does compared to the Louvain algorithm. Sci. Leiden is both faster than Louvain and finds better partitions. Google Scholar. These steps are repeated until no further improvements can be made. This is because Louvain only moves individual nodes at a time. (We implemented both algorithms in Java, available from https://github.com/CWTSLeiden/networkanalysis and deposited at Zenodo23. The algorithm may yield arbitrarily badly connected communities, over and above the well-known issue of the resolution limit14. After the refinement phase is concluded, communities in \({\mathscr{P}}\) often will have been split into multiple communities in \({{\mathscr{P}}}_{{\rm{refined}}}\), but not always. Nevertheless, depending on the relative strengths of the different connections, these nodes may still be optimally assigned to their current community. We name our algorithm the Leiden algorithm, after the location of its authors. where >0 is a resolution parameter4. In terms of the percentage of badly connected communities in the first iteration, Leiden performs even worse than Louvain, as can be seen in Fig. The increase in the percentage of disconnected communities is relatively limited for the Live Journal and Web of Science networks. Hence, no further improvements can be made after a stable iteration of the Louvain algorithm.