You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
In this paper, we present a novel way to summarize the structure of large graphs, based on non-parametric estimation of edge density in directed multigraphs. Following coclustering approach, we use a clustering of the vertices, with a piecewise constant estimation of the density of the edges across the clusters, and address the problem of automatically and reliably inferring the number of clusters, which is the granularity of the coclustering. We use a model selection technique with data-dependent prior and obtain an exact evaluation criterion for the posterior probability of edge density estimation models. We demonstrate, both theoretically and empirically, that our data-dependent modeling technique is consistent, resilient to noise, valid non asymptotically and asymptotically behaves as an universal approximator of the true edge density in directed multigraphs. We evaluate our method using artificial graphs and present its practical interest on real world graphs. The method is both robust and scalable. It is able to extract insightful patterns in the unsupervised learning setting and to provide state of the art accuracy when used as a preparation step for supervised learning.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: We propose and study a set of algorithms for discovering community structure in networks-natural divisions of network nodes into densely connected subgroups. Our algorithms all share two definitive features: first, they involve iterative removal of edges from the network to split it into communities, the edges removed being identified using any one of a number of possible "betweenness" measures, and second, these measures are, crucially, recalculated after each removal. We also propose a measure for the strength of the community structure found by our algorithms, which gives us an objective metric for choosing the number of communities into which a network should be divided. We demonstrate that our algorithms are highly effective at discovering community structure in both computer-generated and real-world network data, and show how they can be used to shed light on the sometimes dauntingly complex structure of networked systems.

[2]: We propose a simple method to extract the community structure of large networks. Our method is a heuristic method that is based on modularity optimization. It is shown to outperform all other known community detection methods in terms of computation time. Moreover, the quality of the communities detected is very good, as measured by the so-called modularity. This is shown first by identifying language communities in a Belgian mobile phone network of 2 million customers and by analysing a web graph of 118 million nodes and more than one billion links. The accuracy of our algorithm is also verified on ad hoc modular networks.

[3]: Graph clustering, the process of discovering groups of similar vertices in a graph, is a very interesting area of study, with applications in many different scenarios. One of the most important aspects of graph clustering is the evaluation of cluster quality, which is important not only to measure the effectiveness of clustering algorithms, but also to give insights on the dynamics of relationships in a given network. Many quality evaluation metrics for graph clustering have been proposed in the literature, but there is no consensus on how do they compare to each other and how well they perform on different kinds of graphs. In this work we study five major graph clustering quality metrics in terms of their formal biases and their behavior when applied to clusters found by four implementations of classic graph clustering algorithms on five large, real world graphs. Our results show that those popular quality metrics have strong biases toward incorrectly awarding good scores to some kinds of clusters, especially seen in larger networks. They also indicate that currently used clustering algorithms and quality metrics do not behave as expected when cluster structures are different from the more traditional, clique-like ones.

[4]: A method is given for visually assessing the cluster tendency of a set of Objects O = o sub 1 , . . . ,o sub n when they are represented either as object vectors or by numerical pairwise dissimilarity values. The objects are reordered and the reordered matrix of pair wise object dissimilarities is displayed as an intensity image. Clusters are indicated by dark blocks of pixels along the diagonal.

[5]: The modern science of networks has brought significant advances to our understanding of complex systems. One of the most relevant features of graphs representing real systems is community structure, or clustering, i.e. the organization of vertices in clusters, with many edges joining vertices of the same cluster and comparatively few edges joining vertices of different clusters. Such clusters, or communities, can be considered as fairly independent compartments of a graph, playing a similar role like, e.g., the tissues or the organs in the human body. Detecting communities is of great importance in sociology, biology and computer science, disciplines where systems are often represented as graphs. This problem is very hard and not yet satisfactorily solved, despite the huge effort of a large interdisciplinary community of scientists working on it over the past few years. We will attempt a thorough exposition of the topic, from the definition of the main elements of the problem, to the presentation of most methods developed, with a special focus on techniques designed by statistical physicists, from the discussion of crucial issues like the significance of clustering and how methods should be tested and compared against each other, to the description of applications to real networks.

[6]: The discovery and analysis of community structure in networks is a topic of considerable recent interest within the physics community, but most methods proposed so far are unsuitable for very large networks because of their computational cost. Here we present a hierarchical agglomeration algorithm for detecting community structure which is faster than many competing algorithms: its running time on a network with n vertices and m edges is O(m d log n) where d is the depth of the dendrogram describing the community structure. Many real-world networks are sparse and hierarchical, with m n and d log n, in which case our algorithm runs in essentially linear time, O(n log^2 n). As an example of the application of this algorithm we use it to analyze a network of items for sale on the web-site of a large online retailer, items in the network being linked if they are frequently purchased by the same buyer. The network has more than 400,000 vertices and 2 million edges. We show that our algorithm can extract meaningful communities from this network, revealing large-scale patterns present in the purchasing habits of customers.

[7]:
Many approaches have been studied for the problem of graph clustering, including hierarchical clustering, divisive clustering, spectral methods, random walk (for a survey, see [7] [5] ). To evaluate the quality of a clustering [3] regardless of the cluster number, the modularity criterion [1] is now widely accepted in the literature and has even been treated as an objective function in clustering algorithms [6] [2] . This criterion aims to obtain dense clusters where the within-cluster edge density is significantly above the expected edge density in case of random edges following the same vertex degree distribution. Actually, not all graphs follow a [4] , with a structure consisting of natural clusters. Yet, all clustering algorithms output a partition into clusters for any input graph. While the clustering setting is relevant in many domains, our approach does not rely of such cluster tendency assumption and may have a wider range of application. This is illustrated experimentally in .