Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Benchmarking for Graph Clustering and Partitioning

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining

Synonyms

Algorithm evaluation; Graph repository; Test instances.

Glossary

Benchmarking:

Performance evaluation for comparison to the state of the art.

Benchmark suite:

Set of instances used for benchmarking.

Definition

Benchmarking refers to a repeatable performance evaluation as a means to compare somebody’s work to the state of the art in the respective field. As an example, benchmarking can compare the computing performance of new and old hardware.

In the context of computing, many different benchmarks of various sorts have been used. A prominent example is the Linpack benchmark of the TOP500 list of the fastest computers in the world, which measures the performance of the hardware by solving a dense linear algebra problem. Different categories of benchmarks include sequential versus parallel, microbenchmark versus application, or fixed code versus informal problem description. See, e.g., (Weicker 2002) for a more detailed treatment of hardware evaluation.

When it comes to...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aiello W, Chung F, Lu L (2001) A random graph model for power law graphs. Exp Math 10(1):53–66

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Alam M, Khan M (2017) Parallel algorithms for generating random networks with given degree sequences. Int J Parallel Prog 45(1):109–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert R, Barabási AL (2002) Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev Mod Phys 74(1):47

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Aloise D, Caporossi G, Perron S, Hansen P, Liberti L, Ruiz M (2012) Modularity maximization in networks by variable neighborhood search. In: Proceedings of graph partitioning and graph clustering, 10th DIMACS implementation challenge workshop, 2012. Contemporary mathematics, vol 588. American Mathematical Society

    Google Scholar 

  • Arenas A. Network data sets. http://deim.urv.cat/~aarenas/data/welcome.htm. Online. Accessed 28 Sept 2012

  • Bader DA, Berry J, Kahan S, Murphy R, Jason Riedy E, Will-cock J (2010) Graph 500 benchmark 1 (“search”), version 1.1. Technical report, Graph 500

    Google Scholar 

  • Bader D, Meyerhenke H, Sanders P, Wagner D (2012) 10th DIMACS implementation challenge. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/dimacs10/. Online. Accessed 17 Apr 2016

  • Barabási A-L, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286:509–512

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer R, Delling D, Sanders P, Schieferdecker D, Schultes D, Wagner D (2010) Combining hierarchical and goal-directed speed-up techniques for Dijkstra’s algorithm. ACM J Exp Algorithmics 152.3:2.1–2.3:2.31

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry JW, Hendrickson B, LaViolette RA, Phillips CA (2011) Tolerating the community detection resolution limit with edge weighting. Phys Rev E 83:056119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollobás B (1985) Random graphs. Academic Press, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Çatalyürek ÜV, Aykanat C (1996) Decomposing irregularly sparse matrices for parallel matrix-vector multiplication. In: Ferreira A, Rolim J, Saad Y, Yang T (eds) Parallel algorithms for irregularly structured problems. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1117. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 75–86. doi:10.1007/BFb0030098

  • Çatalyürek ÜV, Kaya K, Langguth J, Ucar B (2012) A divisive clustering technique for maximizing the modularity. In: Proceedings of graph partitioning and graph clustering, 10th DIMACS implementation challenge workshop, 2012. Contemporary mathematics, vol 588. American Mathematical Society

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarti D, Zhan Y, Faloutsos C (2004) R-MAT: A recursive model for graph mining. In: Proceedings of the 4th SIAM international conference on Data Mining (SDM), Orlando. SIAM

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis T (2016) The University of Florida Sparse Matrix Collection. http://www.cise.ufl.edu/ research/sparse/matrices. Online. Accessed 17 Apr2016

  • van Dongen SM (2000) Graph clustering by flow simulation. PhD thesis, University of Utrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorogovtsev SN, Mendes JFF (2003) Evolution of networks: from biological nets to the internet and WWW. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagginger Auer BO, Bisseling RH (2012) Graph coarsening and clustering on the GPU. In: Proceedings of graph partitioning and graph clustering, 10th DIMACS implementation challenge workshop, 2012. Contemporary mathematics, vol 588. American Mathematical Society

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortunato S, Barthelemy M (2007) Resolution limit in community detection. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:36–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert H (1959) Random graphs. Ann Math Stat 30(4):1141–1144

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Good BH, de Montjoye Y-A, Clauset A (2010) Performance of modularity maximization in practical contexts. Phys Rev E 81:046106

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Holtgrewe M, Sanders P, Schulz C (2010) Engineering a Scalable High Quality Graph Partitioner. In: 24th IEEE international parallal and distributed processing symposium, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Kannan R, Vempala S, Vetta A (2004) On clusterings: good, bad, spectral. J ACM 51(3):497–515

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Karypis G, Kumar V (1999) A fast and high quality multilevel scheme for partitioning irregular graphs. SIAM J Sci Comput 20:359–392

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kolda TG, Pinar A, Plantenga T, Seshadhri C (2013) A scalable generative graph model with community structure. arXiv preprint arXiv:1302.6636

    Google Scholar 

  • Krioukov D, Papadopoulos F, Kitsak M, Vahdat A, Boguna M (2010) Hyperbolic geometry of complex networks. Phys Rev E 82(3):036106

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kunegis J (2013) KONECT: the koblenz network collection. In: Carr L, Laen-der AHF, Lóscio BF, King I, Fontoura M, Vrandecic D, Aroyo L, de Oliveira JPM, Lima F, Wilde E (eds) 22nd International World Wide Web conference, WWW ‘13, Rio de Janeiro 13–17 May 2013, Companion Volume, pp 1343–1350. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee/ACM

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambiotte R (2010) Multi-scale modularity in complex networks. In: 8th International symposium on modeling and optimization in mobile, ad-hoc and wireless networks (WiOpt 2010), 31 May–4 June. University of Avignon, Avignon, pp 546–553. IEEE

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancichinetti A, Fortunato S (2009) Community detection algorithms: a comparative analysis. Phys Rev E 80(5)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancichinetti A, Fortunato S (2011) Limits of modularity maximization in community detection. Phys Rev E 84:066122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancichinetti A, Fortunato S, Radicchi F (2008) Benchmark graphs for testing community detection algorithms. Phys Rev E 78(4):046110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaSalle D, Karypis G (2015) Multi-threaded modularity based graph clustering using the multilevel paradigm. J Parallel Distrib Comput 76:66–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leskovec J. Stanford Network Analysis Package (SNAP). http://snap.stanford.edu/index.html. Online. Accessed 17 Apr 2016

  • von Looz M, Meyerhenke H, Prutkin R (2015) Generating random hyperbolic graphs in subquadratic time. In: Elbassioni KM, Makino K (eds) Algorithms and computation – 26th international symposium, ISAAC 2015, Nagoya 9–11 Dec 2015, Proceedings. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 9472. Springer, pp 467–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer U, Penschuck M (2016) Generating massive scale-free networks under resource constraints. In: Goodrich MT, Mitzenmacher M (eds) Proceedings of the eighteenth workshop on algorithm engineering and experiments, ALENEX 2016, Arlington, pp 39–52. SIAM 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman M. Network data. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/netdata/. Online. Accessed 28 Sept 2012

  • Ovelgönne M, Geyer-Schulz A (2012) An ensemble learning strategy for graph clustering. In: Proceedings of graph partitioning and graph clustering, 10th DIMACS implementation challenge workshop, 2012. Contemporary mathematics, vol 588. American Mathematical Society

    Google Scholar 

  • Riedy EJ, Meyerhenke H, Ediger D, Bader DA (2012) Parallel community detection for massive graphs. In: Proceedings of graph partitioning and graph clustering, 10th DIMACS implementation challenge workshop, 2012. Contemporary mathematics, vol 588. American Mathematical Society

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders P, Schulz C (2016) Scalable generation of scale-free graphs. Inform Process Lett 116(7):489–491

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Seshadhri C, Kolda TG, Pinar A (2012) Community structure and scale-free collections of Erdős-Rényi graphs. Phys Rev E 85(5)

    Google Scholar 

  • Soper AJ, Walshaw C, Cross M (2004) A combined evolutionary search and multilevel optimisation approach to graph-partitioning. J Glob Optim 29(2):225–241

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Staudt CL, Meyerhenke H (2016) Engineering parallel algorithms for community detection in massive networks. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 27(1):171–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staudt C, Sazonovs A, Meyerhenke H (2015) Networkit: A tool suite for large-scale complex network analysis. CoRR, abs/1403.3005

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature 393:440–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weicker R (2002) Benchmarking. In: Calzarossa M, Tucci S (eds) Performance evaluation of complex systems: techniques and tools, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2459. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 231–242

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all contributors to the 10th DIMACS Implementation Challenge graph collection. Tim Davis provided valuable guidelines for preprocessing the data. Financial support by the sponsors DIMACS, the Command, Control, and Interoperability Center for Advanced Data Analysis (CCICADA), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Intel Corporation, and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computational Science and Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 30332, GA, USA

    David A. Bader

  2. Institute of Theoretical Informatics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), 76128, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Andrea Kappes, Henning Meyerhenke, Peter Sanders, Christian Schulz & Dorothea Wagner

Authors
  1. David A. Bader
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Kappes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Henning Meyerhenke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Sanders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christian Schulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dorothea Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Bader .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    Reda Alhajj

  2. University of Calgary Computer Science, Calgary, Canada

    Jon Rokne

Section Editor information

  1. Yahoo Inc, London, UK

    Fabrizio Silvestri

  2. University of Calabria, Via Pietro Bucci, 42C, 87036, Arcavacata di Rende, Italy

    Andrea Tagarelli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry

Bader, D.A., Kappes, A., Meyerhenke, H., Sanders, P., Schulz, C., Wagner, D. (2017). Benchmarking for Graph Clustering and Partitioning. In: Alhajj, R., Rokne, J. (eds) Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7163-9_23-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7163-9_23-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7163-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7163-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Computer SciencesReference Module Computer Science and Engineering

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation