In the following, we will analyze the result of our NILP algorithm on a real DBLP coauthorship
network. Since the network DBLP does not provide a standard result which can be used kinase inhibitor to compare, we assess the correctness of the obtained communities by referring to the data source of the network. The proposed method detected 3,466 communities of different sizes in this network. Table 3 lists the five real communities detected. Due to the limitation of space of our paper, only seven members are listed for each community. As can be seen from Table 3, the Community  and Community  are experts and scholars in the field of data mining in which Philip S. Yu and Jiawei Han are regarded as their leading figures, respectively. Community  is composed of the experts and scholars in database who are from InfoLab laboratory at Stanford University. Community  comprises experts and scholars from CMU in the field of machine learning and Community  is constituted by experts and scholars in the field of information retrieval. It can be observed that scientists from one community, detected by our algorithm, are often in the same realm of research, which accounts for their frequent academic collaboration. In the same field, usually there are multiple communities which are formed from different work teams. In a team, often there is a common
or similar research direction and long-term cooperation, while different work teams will rarely have chance to collaborate. Consequently, the community detection result obtained from DBLP via the proposed algorithm is sound and accurate. Table 3 The accuracy comparison of various label propagation algorithms in networks with ground truth of community structure. 4.4. Evaluation on Synthetic Networks We also evaluate the performance of our algorithm on synthetic networks. Figure 6 illustrates the comparison of accuracy for community detection of four label propagation
based algorithms LPA, LPAm, LHLC, and 2-NILP. The mixing coefficients of the 1000-node synthetic networks in Figure 6(a) and 10000-node networks in Figure 6(b) both range from 0.1 to 0.8. It can be observed that the accuracy of LHLC is relatively low compared with the other three algorithms. Algorithms LPA, LPAm, and NILP have higher values of NMI. When the number of GSK-3 nodes is 1000, as shown in Figure 6(a), the accuracy of 2-NILP is obviously better than that of the algorithm LPA. When mixing coefficient is less than 0.55, 2-NILP has equal accuracy with the algorithm LPAm, while when mixing coefficient is greater than 0.55, 2-NILP is significantly better than LPAm. When the number of nodes is 10000, as shown in Figure 6(b), the accuracy of our algorithm 2-NILP is superior to the other three algorithms. Figure 6 The NMI values varying with the mixing coefficient achieved by four label propagation algorithms on the synthetic networks. 4.5.