Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 116 references

How Cohesive Are Community Search Results on Online Social Networks?: An Experimental Evaluation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Community search algorithms fail to return psychologically cohesive groups, an experimental evaluation finds.

desk verdict A genuinely interdisciplinary evaluation paper that brings social-psychology cohesion measures into community search, with a thought-provoking negative result that is, however, somewhat stronger than the validation behind it. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19489 v4 pith:VXEOF5QB submitted 2025-04-28 cs.IR cs.SI

Yining Zhao , Sourav S Bhowmick , Nastassja L. Fischer , SH Annabel Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IRcs.SI
keywords communitysearchgroupcohesionsocialpsychologycohesivenessmeasuresonlinenetworkssentimentanalysisexperimentalevaluationgraphalgorithms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper experimentally tests whether community search algorithms—methods that retrieve a dense subgraph around query nodes—actually return groups that hang together in the psychological sense. Drawing on group-cohesion theory, it builds five questionnaire-inspired measures of enjoyment, friendship, comparative enjoyment, interaction preference, and interaction density, then evaluates eight representative algorithms on four Twitter-derived networks under a framework called CHASE. The central finding is negative: structural metrics such as k-core and k-truss do not clearly correlate with psychological cohesion, and none of the tested algorithms consistently recovers communities that score well on the psychology-informed measures. If the findings hold, they matter because community search is used in applications where human group dynamics are the point, yet the field's core measure of success may be measuring the wrong thing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a set of five psychology-informed cohesiveness measures derived from adapted items of the Group Environment Questionnaire: Enjoyment Index (cumulative sentiment-weighted interactions), Sentimental Interaction Tendency (reciprocal sentiment exchange between mutual interaction partners), Comparative Enjoyment Degree (inside-minus-outside enjoyment), Group Interaction Preference (share of activities that are interactions), and Group Interaction Density (interaction frequency per pair per time unit). The formulas embed a sentiment-aware excitation function with time decay, so each measure turns the questionnaire's wording into a computable graph statistic. The measures do the work of translating psychological cohesion into an evaluation yardstick that existing structural metrics cannot provide.

What would settle it

Collect self-reported cohesion ratings from the members of communities returned by these algorithms on the same datasets, then correlate those ratings with the five measures and with k-core or k-truss density. A strong positive correlation between human ratings and structural density would directly contradict the no-correlation claim, while a strong correlation with the proposed measures would support them as operationalizations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that no current community search algorithm effectively identifies psychologically cohesive communities in online social networks, and that there is no clear correlation between structural cohesiveness and psychological cohesiveness. To reach this conclusion, it adapts the social-psychology construct of group cohesion into five quantitative measures and applies them to communities returned by eight algorithms for the same query nodes across four real-world networks. The evaluation shows that algorithms differ sharply in what they retrieve for one query, that learning-based methods often return weak or disconnected results, and that high structural density does not translate into high psychological cohesion.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's conclusion assumes that its five formulas faithfully capture what people mean when they say a group feels cohesive; if the questionnaire items are not actually represented by sentiment-weighted interaction counts, then the failure belongs to the measures rather than to the algorithms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If structural and psychological cohesion are uncorrelated, then optimizing k-core, k-truss, or similar density objectives will not by itself produce communities people experience as cohesive.
  • Evaluation frameworks for community search should include psychology-grounded measures in addition to structural quality and ground-truth overlap.
  • Learning-based community search needs richer features than user identifiers; current representations lack the interaction and sentiment signals these measures rely on.
  • Future algorithms could treat the five measures as optimization objectives or constraints when searching for human-centered communities.
  • Creating ground-truth communities annotated using group-cohesion theory would allow direct validation of both the measures and the algorithms.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The five measures could be validated against human ratings: ask members of retrieved communities how cohesive they feel, then compare those ratings with EI, SIT, CED, GIP, and GID; this would tell whether the negative result is real or an artifact of the mapping.
  • Because the measures depend on sentiment labels, switching the sentiment model changes some polarity scores; using richer sentiment models or emotion dimensions might alter which algorithms look cohesive.
  • The same psychology-informed measures could be repurposed as supervision signals for community detection, not just evaluation, turning the finding into a design principle.
  • The absence of ground truth built on cohesion theory is itself a finding: existing benchmark communities are structural, which may systematically bias algorithm comparisons.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents CHASE, a framework for evaluating community search algorithms using five newly proposed "psychology-informed" cohesiveness measures derived from an adaptation of the Group Environment Questionnaire. The authors evaluate eight representative community search algorithms—three k-core-based, three k-truss-based, and two learning-based variants of the same framework—on four Twitter/X datasets with LLM-assigned sentiment labels. Their headline findings are that different algorithms return widely divergent communities for the same query, that learning-based methods produce weak structural results or fail outright, that structural and psychological cohesiveness show no clear correlation, and that no algorithm effectively identifies psychologically cohesive communities. A codebase is provided.

Significance. If the negative findings hold, the paper would provide a valuable challenge to the community-search field by showing that structural density metrics do not automatically capture group cohesion as conceptualized in social psychology. The manuscript's strengths include a reproducible codebase, a concrete adaptation workflow from a recognized psychological instrument, multiple real-world datasets, and robustness checks with a second sentiment tool (VADER) and two decay families. However, the central conclusions depend on the unvalidated construct validity of the five proposed measures and on a very narrow evidential basis for the general no-correlation claim; both need to be addressed before the findings can be accepted as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5, Definitions 5.2–5.6; §8] Definitions 5.2–5.6 introduce EI, SIT, CED, GIP, and GID as quantitative proxies for the adapted GEQ items in Table 1, but the paper provides no evidence that these proxies correspond to the psychological construct they claim to measure. The GEQ is a self-report instrument about members' perceptions, whereas the proposed measures are graph formulas over LLM sentiment labels, interaction counts, and decay parameters; the mapping is asserted rather than validated. The authors themselves note in §8 that validation of the measures would require ground-truth datasets grounded in cohesion theories and acknowledge that no such datasets are used. Because the central claim that 'no algorithm effectively identifies psychologically cohesive communities' presupposes that the five measures faithfully operationalize group cohesion, the negative result may be an artifact of the operationalization. I recommend adding a validation component—for example, collecting adapted-GEQ ratings from human annotators for a sample of returned communities and reporting correlations with the five measures, or at minimum an expert face-validity assessment—or, absent that, substantially softening the claims.
  2. [§7.5, Figures 10–11; Abstract; §8] The general claim in the Abstract and §8 that 'there is no clear correlation between structural and psychological cohesiveness' is supported only by the case study in §7.5, which examines a single query node ('158') and five returned communities (Figures 10–11). That is too narrow an evidential basis for a blanket conclusion across algorithms, queries, datasets, and parameter settings. The paper should report a quantitative analysis across all 100 queries per dataset and, where applicable, across parameter combinations—for example, Spearman rank correlations between the structural metrics (diameter, size, minimum degree, k-core/k-truss values) and each of the five psychology-informed measures, with significance tests or confidence intervals—rather than relying on one visual comparison.
  3. [§7.2; §8] The blanket statement that 'no algorithm effectively identifies psychologically cohesive communities' is not fully supported by the paper's own reported results. Section 7.2 states that 'communities identified by CSD mostly exhibit positive EI values across all datasets' and that 'users within communities from CSD, ST-Exa, and I2ACSM generally engage more with each other' on the GID measure (Figure 7). The paper never defines a threshold or criterion for 'effectively identifies' (e.g., a minimum fraction of queries with positive EI/CED/SIT, a minimum GIP/GID value, or robustness across decay parameters), so the conclusion conflates 'no algorithm succeeds on every measure' with 'no algorithm succeeds on any measure.' The authors should either define and justify a performance criterion or revise the conclusion to reflect the mixed evidence.
  4. [§6.2, Table 4; §7.1, Table 6] The second key finding—that 'recent learning-based algorithms tend to produce communities with low structural cohesiveness or fail to identify valid communities' (Section 1)—is based on only two variants of the same unsupervised framework, TransZero-LS and TransZero-GS, with TransZero-GS returning disconnected node sets in all datasets. Two variants from one framework are too narrow a sample to support a generalization about learning-based community search methods, especially given the authors' own observation that insufficient node features may explain the poor performance. The claim should be restricted to the tested methods or supported with additional learning-based baselines.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§7] The sentence 'The reader may refer to [?] for detailed results' contains an unresolved reference that must be fixed.
  2. [§7.4–§7.5] The abbreviation 'CC' is used for the dataset without being defined; it should be introduced as Chicago_COVID at first use.
  3. [§4.2] The stray '13.' before 'While strong topological connections may suggest users’ enjoyment...' appears to be a numbering error and should be removed.
  4. [§7.3] The claim that 'the cohesiveness scores are largely unaffected by sentiment analysis techniques' is followed by examples of polarity switches and obvious changes (ST-Exa's EI on BTW, CED values on C144); the sentence should be qualified to indicate which measures and datasets are stable.
  5. [Table 2] Table 2 marks Item 13 as fully captured ('✓') by k-core, k-truss, k-clique, and k-ECC, but the GEQ item refers to frequency of interaction; degree-based measures do not in themselves capture interaction frequency or temporality, so the '✓' appears overgenerous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the evaluation is an external test of eight existing algorithms against new psychology-inspired measures; the negative findings are empirical, not definitional.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The five measures (EI, SIT, CED, GIP, GID; Definitions 5.2-5.6) are constructed from the adapted GEQ items in Table 1, but the eight algorithms under test are existing community-search methods that optimize k-core, k-truss, temporal-proximity, or ESG objectives (Section 6.2). The conclusion that no algorithm yields psychologically cohesive communities and that structural and psychological cohesiveness are uncorrelated (Abstract; Section 8) is an experimental outcome of applying these external measures to those algorithms; it is not a quantity fitted from the measures, and no equation in the paper makes the result hold by construction. The measures do embed structural ingredients - GIP is an interaction-activity ratio and GID a temporal interaction density - so the absence of correlation with structural metrics is a contingent empirical finding, not a tautology. The only self-citation, Bhowmick et al. [79] in Related Work, is background context and is not load-bearing. Section 8's limitation that no cohesion-theory ground truth is available is an acknowledged validity caveat about the operationalization of psychological cohesion, not evidence that the predictions reduce to their inputs. Accordingly, the paper is self-contained with respect to circularity concerns.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The evaluation depends on several domain assumptions about how Twitter activity reflects social-psychological constructs, plus modeling choices in the decay functions and sentiment scoring. No fitted parameters are used to produce the central negative result, but the measures' construction involves arbitrary normalizations and choices that affect the reported scores.

free parameters (3)
  • Exponential decay rate lambda = selected from {0.0001, 0.0005, 0.001, 0.005, 0.01}, default 0.0001
    Applied to EI, SIT, and CED to weight recent interactions. The default is a modeling choice, not estimated from data. The paper tests sensitivity, but no principled selection is given.
  • Polynomial decay exponent mu = varied from 0.5 to 2 in steps of 0.5
    Alternative decay function for EI, SIT, and CED. The value alters recency weighting and is not fitted, but affects the reported cohesiveness scores.
  • Baseline sentiment perception level lambda0 = 1
    Set to 1 so that elicited sentiment equals original sentiment in the absence of prior interactions. This is an arbitrary normalization that scales all sentiment-based measures.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Carron's multidimensional conceptualization of group cohesion and the four-construct GEQ model apply to online social networks
    Used in Section 4.1 to ground the five measures. The paper does not empirically verify that these psychological constructs transfer to Twitter/X communities.
  • domain assumption Sentiment polarity labels from Llama3-8B (mapped to 1, 0, -1) accurately reflect the valence of users' experiences
    Section 6.1 uses a prompt-based LLM classifier without reporting accuracy on the four datasets. A VADER comparison in Section 7.3 is the only cross-check.
  • domain assumption Twitter reply interactions and self-posts are valid proxies for social interaction and group membership
    Network construction in Section 6.1 relies on reply relationships. This ignores other interaction channels (e.g., likes, retweets, direct messages) and platform-specific behavior.
  • domain assumption Time-decay functions model the recency of social influence on current sentiment
    Both exponential and polynomial decay functions are standard modeling choices, but the specific forms and parameters are not derived from psychological theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How Cohesive Are Community Search Results on Online Social Networks?: An Experimental Evaluation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VXEOF5QB

@misc{pith2026250419489,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How Cohesive Are Community Search Results on Online Social Networks?: An Experimental Evaluation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VXEOF5QB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19489}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, numerous community search methods for large graphs have been proposed, at the core of which is defining and measuring cohesion. This paper experimentally evaluates the effectiveness of these community search algorithms w.r.t. cohesiveness in the context of online social networks. Social communities are formed and developed under the influence of group cohesion theory, which has been extensively studied in social psychology. However, current generic methods typically measure cohesiveness using structural or attribute-based approaches and overlook domain-specific concepts such as group cohesion. We introduce five novel psychology-informed cohesiveness measures, based on the concept of group cohesion from social psychology, and propose a novel framework called CHASE for evaluating eight representative community search algorithms w.r.t. these measures on online social networks. Our analysis reveals that there is no clear correlation between structural and psychological cohesiveness, and no algorithm effectively identifies psychologically cohesive communities in online social networks. This study provides new insights that could guide the development of future community search methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19489 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Workflow for adapting cohesiveness measures. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Prompt for sentiment analysis. over 200k original tweets for each dataset. For all four datasets, we extracted metadata for each user, including user_id. The tweet meta￾data includes conversation_id, tweet_id, user_id, in_reply_to_user_id, tweet_text, and timestamp. The number of users and tweet data elements varied across datasets. We retained only English tweets, removed retweets, quoted tweets, duplicates, and em… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. presents our framework coined CHASE (CoHesiveness evAluation for Social nEtworks) for evaluating CS algorithms, which includes query generation, parameter selection, graph transforma￾tion, community mapping, and cohesiveness evaluation. We first generate 𝑄 queries (𝑄 = 100 in our study) per dataset, each with a single query node. Queries are randomly selected from nodes in the top 50% by degree. Next, for each algor… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: EI of communities (top row: community cohesiveness; bottom row: impact of time-decay functions). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SIT of communities (top row: community cohesiveness; bottom row: impact of time-decay functions). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CED of communities (top row: community cohesiveness; bottom row: impact of time-decay functions). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: GIP and GID of CS communities. The poor performance of ALS may stem from the smaller time scales used in our datasets, which hinder its ability to find nodes with greater temporal proximity. However, the original paper does not discuss the time scale and its impact on …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Impact of sentiment analysis techniques on ATG-S measures. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Impact of parameter selection. unaffected by sentiment analysis techniques. However, when the labeling technique changes to VADER, the ST-Exa and I2ACSM com￾munities respond more strongly, with their values either switch￾ing polarity (e.g., ST-Exa’s EI value on BTW) or…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Case study on the CC dataset with the query node marked in red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of two types of cohesiveness. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    AI@Meta. 2024. Llama 3 Model Card. (2024). https://github.com/meta-llama/ llama3/blob/main/MODEL_CARD.md

    2024

  2. [2]

    Esra Akbas and Peixiang Zhao. 2017. Truss-based community search: a truss- equivalence based indexing approach. Proc. VLDB Endow. 10, 11 (Aug. 2017), 1298–1309. doi:10.14778/3137628.3137640

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Fatima Alsalem. 2019. Why do they post? Motivations and uses of snapchat, Instagram and twitter among Kuwait college students. Media Watch 10, 3 (2019), 550–567

    2019

  4. [4]

    Yair Amichai-Hamburger, Mila Kingsbury, and Barry H Schneider. 2013. Friend- ship: An old concept with a new meaning? Computers in Human Behavior 29, 1 (2013), 33–39

    2013

  5. [5]

    Arden J Anderson and Stacy Warner. 2017. Social network analysis as a com- plimentary tool to measuring team cohesion. Journal of Sport Behavior 40, 1 (2017), 3

    2017

  6. [6]

    Nicola Barbieri, Francesco Bonchi, Edoardo Galimberti, and Francesco Gullo

  7. [7]

    Liad Bareket-Bojmel and Golan Shahar. 2011. Emotional and interpersonal consequences of self-disclosure in a lived, online interaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 30, 7 (2011), 732–759

    2011

  8. [8]

    Roy F Baumeister and Mark R Leary. 2017. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Interpersonal development (2017), 57–89

    2017

Show all 116 references
  1. [9]

    Punam Bedi and Chhavi Sharma. 2016. Community detection in social networks. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: Data mining and knowledge discovery 6, 3 (2016), 115–135

    2016

  2. [10]

    Ali Behrouz, Farnoosh Hashemi, and Laks V. S. Lakshmanan. 2022. FirmTruss Community Search in Multilayer Networks. Proc. VLDB Endow. 16, 3 (Nov. 2022), 505–518. doi:10.14778/3570690.3570700

    2022

  3. [11]

    Thomas J Berndt. 1982. Fairness and friendship. In Peer relationships and social skills in childhood. Springer, 253–278

    1982

  4. [12]

    Anol Bhattacherjee. 2012. Social science research: Principles, methods, and prac- tices. USA. How Cohesive Are Community Search Results on Online Social Networks?: An Experimental Evaluation Conference acronym ’XX, xx, xx

    2012

  5. [13]

    Amy Blackstone. 2018. Principles of sociological inquiry: Qualitative and quanti- tative methods. Saylor Academy Open Textbooks

    2018

  6. [14]

    Chris Blanchard, Pauline Poon, Wendy Rodgers, and Bruce Pinel. 2000. Group environment questionnaire and its applicability in an exercise setting. Small group research 31, 2 (2000), 210–224

    2000

  7. [15]

    Kenneth A Bollen and Rick H Hoyle. 1990. Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social forces 69, 2 (1990), 479–504

    1990

  8. [16]

    Yuejun Lawrance Cai. 2023. Strengthening perceptions of virtual team cohesive- ness and effectiveness in new normal: A hyperpersonal communication theory perspective. Asian Business & Management (2023), 1

    2023

  9. [17]

    Albert V Carron. 1982. Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport psychology 4, 2 (1982), 123–138

    1982

  10. [18]

    Albert V Carron and Lawrence R Brawley. 2000. Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small group research 31, 1 (2000), 89–106

    2000

  11. [19]

    Albert V Carron, Lawrence R Brawley, Mark A Eys, Steven Bray, Kim Dorsch, Paul Estabrooks, Craig R Hall, James Hardy, Heather Hausenblas, Ralph Madison, et al. 2003. Do individual perceptions of group cohesion reflect shared beliefs? An empirical analysis. Small group research...

    2003

  12. [20]

    Albert V Carron, W Neil Widmeyer, and Lawrence R Brawley. 1985. The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise psychology 7, 3 (1985), 244–266

    1985

  13. [21]

    Gloria Hong-Yee Chan and T Wing Lo. 2014. Do friendship and intimacy in virtual communications exist? An investigation of online friendship and intimacy in the context of hidden youth in Hong Kong. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala 47 (2014), 117

    2014

  14. [22]

    Lijun Chang, Xuemin Lin, Lu Qin, Jeffrey Xu Yu, and Wenjie Zhang. 2015. Index- based optimal algorithms for computing steiner components with maximum connectivity. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data . 459–474

    2015

  15. [23]

    Yu, Qiang Yang, and Xing Xie

    Yupeng Chang, Xu Wang, Jindong Wang, Yuan Wu, Linyi Yang, Kaijie Zhu, Hao Chen, Xiaoyuan Yi, Cunxiang Wang, Yidong Wang, Wei Ye, Yue Zhang, Yi Chang, Philip S. Yu, Qiang Yang, and Xing Xie. 2024. A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models. 15, 3, Article 39 (March 2024), ...

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Jiazun Chen, Yikuan Xia, and Jun Gao. 2023. CommunityAF: An Example-Based Community Search Method via Autoregressive Flow. Proc. VLDB Endow. 16, 10 (June 2023), 2565–2577. doi:10.14778/3603581.3603595

    2023

  17. [25]

    Lu Chen, Chengfei Liu, Rui Zhou, Jianxin Li, Xiaochun Yang, and Bin Wang

  18. [26]

    Yankai Chen, Jie Zhang, Yixiang Fang, Xin Cao, and Irwin King. 2021. Effi- cient community search over large directed graphs: An augmented index-based approach. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on Inter- national Joint Conferences on Artificial Intel...

    2021

  19. [27]

    Graham Cormode, Vladislav Shkapenyuk, Divesh Srivastava, and Bojian Xu

  20. [28]

    Wanyun Cui, Yanghua Xiao, Haixun Wang, and Wei Wang. 2014. Local search of communities in large graphs. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD Inter- national Conference on Management of Data (Snowbird, Utah, USA) (SIGMOD ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,...

    2014

  21. [29]

    Badhan Chandra Das, Md Musfique Anwar, Md Al-Amin Bhuiyan, Iqbal H Sarker, Salem A Alyami, and Mohammad Ali Moni. 2021. Attribute driven temporal active online community search. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 93976–93989

    2021

  22. [30]

    Muhterem Dindar and Nihal Dulkadir Yaman. 2018. # IUseTwitterBecause: content analytic study of a trending topic in Twitter. Information Technology & People 31, 1 (2018), 256–277

    2018

  23. [31]

    Shuheng Fang, Kangfei Zhao, Yu Rong, Zhixun Li, and Jeffrey Xu Yu. 2024. Inductive Attributed Community Search: To Learn Communities Across Graphs. Proc. VLDB Endow. 17, 10 (Aug. 2024), 2576–2589. doi:10.14778/3675034.3675048

    2024

  24. [32]

    Yixiang Fang, Reynold Cheng, Yankai Chen, Siqiang Luo, and Jiafeng Hu. 2017. Effective and efficient attributed community search. The VLDB Journal 26, 6 (Dec. 2017), 803–828. doi:10.1007/s00778-017-0482-5

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Yixiang Fang, Reynold Cheng, Siqiang Luo, and Jiafeng Hu. 2016. Effective community search for large attributed graphs. Proc. VLDB Endow. 9, 12 (8 2016), 1233–1244. doi:10.14778/2994509.2994538

    2016

  26. [34]

    Yixiang Fang, Xin Huang, Lu Qin, Ying Zhang, Wenjie Zhang, Reynold Cheng, and Xuemin Lin. 2020. A survey of community search over big graphs. The VLDB Journal 29 (2020), 353–392

    2020

  27. [35]

    Leon Festinger. 1950. Informal social communication. Psychological review 57, 5 (1950), 271

    1950

  28. [36]

    Donelson R Forsyth. 2021. Recent advances in the study of group cohesion. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 25, 3 (2021), 213

    2021

  29. [37]

    Santo Fortunato. 2010. Community detection in graphs. Physics reports 486, 3-5 (2010), 75–174

    2010

  30. [38]

    Charles E Galyon, Eleanore CT Heaton, Tiffany L Best, and Robert L Williams

  31. [39]

    Jun Gao, Jiazun Chen, Zhao Li, and Ji Zhang. 2021. ICS-GNN: lightweight interactive community search via graph neural network. Proc. VLDB Endow. 14, 6 (Feb. 2021), 1006–1018. doi:10.14778/3447689.3447704

    2021

  32. [40]

    David Garcia, Arvid Kappas, Dennis Küster, and Frank Schweitzer. 2016. The dynamics of emotions in online interaction.Royal Society open science 3, 8 (2016), 160059

    2016

  33. [41]

    Michelle Girvan and Mark EJ Newman. 2002. Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 99, 12 (2002), 7821–7826

    2002

  34. [42]

    Rachel Gordon. 2023. Chicago COVID-19 Twitter Data. doi:10.7910/DVN/ TPHAQM

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Farnoosh Hashemi, Ali Behrouz, and Milad Rezaei Hajidehi. 2023. CS-TGN: Community Search via Temporal Graph Neural Networks. In Companion Pro- ceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 (Austin, TX, USA) (WWW ’23 Com- panion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

    2023

  36. [44]

    Russell K Hobbie, Bradley J Roth, Russell K Hobbie, and Bradley J Roth. 2007. Exponential growth and decay. Intermediate physics for medicine and biology (2007), 31–47

    2007

  37. [45]

    Jiafeng Hu, Xiaowei Wu, Reynold Cheng, Siqiang Luo, and Yixiang Fang. 2016. Querying Minimal Steiner Maximum-Connected Subgraphs in Large Graphs. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (Indianapolis, Indiana, USA) (CI...

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    Jiafeng Hu, Xiaowei Wu, Reynold Cheng, Siqiang Luo, and Yixiang Fang. 2017. On minimal steiner maximum-connected subgraph queries. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 29, 11 (2017), 2455–2469

    2017

  39. [47]

    Xin Huang, Hong Cheng, Lu Qin, Wentao Tian, and Jeffrey Xu Yu. 2014. Query- ing k-truss community in large and dynamic graphs. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (Snowbird, Utah, USA) (SIGMOD ’14). Association for Computing Mac...

    2014

  40. [48]

    Clayton Hutto and Eric Gilbert. 2014. Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media , Vol. 8. 216–225

    2014

  41. [49]

    Muhammad Aqib Javed, Muhammad Shahzad Younis, Siddique Latif, Junaid Qadir, and Adeel Baig. 2018. Community detection in networks: A multidis- ciplinary review. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 108 (2018), 87–111

    2018

  42. [50]

    Yuli Jiang, Yu Rong, Hong Cheng, Xin Huang, Kangfei Zhao, and Junzhou Huang. 2022. Query driven-graph neural networks for community search: from non-attributed, attributed, to interactive attributed. Proc. VLDB Endow. 15, 6 (Feb. 2022), 1243–1255. doi:10.14778/3514061.3514070

    2022

  43. [51]

    Thomas Karagiannis, Jean-Yves Le Boudec, and Milan Vojnović. 2007. Power law and exponential decay of inter contact times between mobile devices. InProceed- ings of the 13th Annual ACM International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (Montréal, Québec, Canada) (Mobi...

    2007

  44. [52]

    Hiroaki Kawamichi, Sho K Sugawara, Yuki H Hamano, Kai Makita, Takanori Kochiyama, and Norihiro Sadato. 2016. Increased frequency of social interac- tion is associated with enjoyment enhancement and reward system activation. Scientific reports 6, 1 (2016), 24561

    2016

  45. [53]

    Kiana Kheiri and Hamid Karimi. 2023. Sentimentgpt: Exploiting gpt for advanced sentiment analysis and its departure from current machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10234 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Johanna Kissler, Cornelia Herbert, Irene Winkler, and Markus Junghofer. 2009. Emotion and attention in visual word processing—An ERP study. Biological psychology 80, 1 (2009), 75–83

    2009

  47. [55]

    Christine Klymko, David Gleich, and Tamara G Kolda. 2014. Using trian- gles to improve community detection in directed networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.5874 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Nane Kratzke. 2017. The #BTW17 Twitter Dataset - Recorded Tweets of the Federal Election Campaigns of 2017 for the 19th German Bundestag . doi:10.5281/zenodo. 835735

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    Jure Leskovec, Jon Kleinberg, and Christos Faloutsos. 2007. Graph evolution: Densification and shrinking diameters. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data 1, 1 (March 2007), 2–es. doi:10.1145/1217299.1217301

    2007

  50. [58]

    Jure Leskovec and Andrej Krevl. 2014. SNAP Datasets: Stanford Large Network Dataset Collection. http://snap.stanford.edu/data

    2014

  51. [59]

    Jianxin Li, Xinjue Wang, Ke Deng, Xiaochun Yang, Timos Sellis, and Jeffrey Xu Yu. 2017. Most influential community search over large social networks. In 2017 IEEE 33rd international conference on data engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 871–882

    2017

  52. [60]

    Ling Li, Siqiang Luo, Yuhai Zhao, Caihua Shan, Zhengkui Wang, and Lu Qin

  53. [61]

    Xuankun Liao, Qing Liu, Xin Huang, and Jianliang Xu. 2024. Truss-Based Community Search over Streaming Directed Graphs. Proc. VLDB Endow. 17, 8 (May 2024), 1816–1829. doi:10.14778/3659437.3659440

    2024

  54. [62]

    Aleck Lin, Shirley Gregor, and Michael Ewing. 2009. Understanding the nature of online emotional experiences: a study of enjoyment as a web experience. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Electronic Commerce. 259–268

    2009

  55. [63]

    Longlong Lin, Pingpeng Yuan, Rong-Hua Li, Chunxue Zhu, Hongchao Qin, Hai Jin, and Tao Jia. 2024. QTCS: Efficient Query-Centered Temporal Community Search. Proc. VLDB Endow. 17, 6 (May 2024), 1187–1199. doi:10.14778/3648160. 3648163

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    Guimei Liu, Limsoon Wong, and Hon Nian Chua. 2009. Complex discovery from weighted PPI networks. Bioinformatics 25, 15 (2009), 1891–1897

    2009

  57. [65]

    Qing Liu, Minjun Zhao, Xin Huang, Jianliang Xu, and Yunjun Gao. 2020. Truss- based Community Search over Large Directed Graphs. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (Portland, OR, USA) (SIGMOD ’20). Association for Computing Mach...

    2020

  58. [66]

    Luo Lu. 2015. Building trust and cohesion in virtual teams: the developmental approach. Journal of organizational effectiveness: People and performance 2, 1 (2015), 55–72

    2015

  59. [67]

    Zhao Lu, Yuanyuan Zhu, Ming Zhong, and Jeffrey Xu Yu. 2022. On time-optimal (k, p)-core community search in dynamic graphs. In2022 IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 1396–1407

    2022

  60. [68]

    Annmarie A Lyles, Colleen Loomis, Scherezade K Mama, Sameer Siddiqi, and Rebecca E Lee. 2018. Longitudinal analysis of virtual community perceptions of cohesion: The role of cooperation, communication, and competition. Journal of Health Psychology 23, 13 (2018), 1677–1688

    2018

  61. [69]

    Omid Madani, Sai Ankith Averineni, and Shashidhar Gandham. 2022. A Dataset of Networks of Computing Hosts. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM on International Workshop on Security and Privacy Analytics . 100–104

    2022

  62. [70]

    Janet McLeod and Kathryn Von Treuer. 2013. Towards a cohesive theory of cohesion. (2013)

    2013

  63. [71]

    Xiaoye Miao, Yue Liu, Lu Chen, Yunjun Gao, and Jianwei Yin. 2022. Reliable com- munity search on uncertain graphs. In 2022 IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 1166–1179

    2022

  64. [72]

    Paula M Niedenthal and Marc B Setterlund. 1994. Emotion congruence in perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20, 4 (1994), 401–411

    1994

  65. [73]

    Ravi Paul, John R Drake, and Huigang Liang. 2016. Global virtual team perfor- mance: The effect of coordination effectiveness, trust, and team cohesion. IEEE transactions on professional communication 59, 3 (2016), 186–202

    2016

  66. [74]

    Pamela Paxton and James Moody. 2003. Structure and sentiment: Explaining emotional attachment to group. Social Psychology Quarterly (2003), 34–47

    2003

  67. [75]

    Anthony T Pescosolido and Richard Saavedra. 2012. Cohesion and sports teams: A review. Small Group Research 43, 6 (2012), 744–758

    2012

  68. [76]

    X Developer Platform. 2022. Twitter Academic Research API. https://docs.x. com/x-api/introduction. Accessed: 2022-12

    2022

  69. [77]

    Mohammad Masoud Rahimi, Elham Naghizade, Mark Stevenson, and Stephan Winter. 2023. SentiHawkes: a sentiment-aware Hawkes point process to model service quality of public transport using Twitter data. Public Transport 15, 2 (2023), 343–376

    2023

  70. [78]

    Karen A Roberto and Priscilla J Kimboko. 1989. Friendships in later life: Defini- tions and maintenance patterns. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development 28, 1 (1989), 9–19

    1989

  71. [79]

    Sourav S Bhowmick, Hui Li, S. H. Annabel Chen, and Yining Zhao. 2024. Social Psychology Meets Social Computing: State of the Art and Future Directions. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024 (Singapore, Singa- pore) (WWW ’24). Association for Computing Machine...

    2024

  72. [80]

    Eduardo Salas, Rebecca Grossman, Ashley M Hughes, and Chris W Coultas

  73. [81]

    Jessica M Santoro, Aurora J Dixon, Chu-Hsiang Chang, and Steve WJ Kozlowski

  74. [82]

    Iqbal H Sarker, Alan Colman, and Jun Han. 2019. Recencyminer: mining recency- based personalized behavior from contextual smartphone data. Journal of Big Data 6, 1 (2019), 1–21

    2019

  75. [83]

    John J Shaughnessy, Eugene B Zechmeister, and Jeanne S Zechmeister. 2000. Research methods in psychology . McGraw-Hill

    2000

  76. [84]

    Kelly G Shaver. 2015. Principles of social psychology . Psychology Press

    2015

  77. [85]

    Dong-Hee Shin. 2010. Analysis of online social networks: A cross-national study. Online Information Review 34, 3 (2010), 473–495

    2010

  78. [86]

    Human factors 57, 3 (2015), 365–374

    Measuring team cohesion: Observations from the science. Human factors 57, 3 (2015), 365–374

    2015

  79. [87]

    Kevin S Spink and Albert V Carron. 1994. Group cohesion effects in exercise classes. Small Group Research 25, 1 (1994), 26–42

    1994

  80. [88]

    In Team cohesion: Advances in psychological theory, methods and practice

    Measuring and monitoring the dynamics of team cohesion: Methods, emerging tools, and advanced technologies. In Team cohesion: Advances in psychological theory, methods and practice . Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, 115–145

  81. [89]

    Javier Suárez Álvarez, Ignacio Pedrosa, Luis M Lozano, Eduardo García Cueto, Marcelino Cuesta Izquierdo, José Muñiz Fernández, et al. 2018. Using reversed items in Likert scales: A questionable practice. Psicothema, 30 (2018)

    2018

  82. [90]

    Sue Yeon Syn and Sanghee Oh. 2015. Why do social network site users share information on Facebook and Twitter? Journal of Information Science 41, 5 (2015), 553–569

    2015

  83. [91]

    Chenhao Tan and Lillian Lee. 2015. All who wander: On the prevalence and characteristics of multi-community engagement. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web. 1056–1066

    2015

  84. [92]

    Yifu Tang, Jianxin Li, Nur Al Hasan Haldar, Ziyu Guan, Jiajie Xu, and Chengfei Liu. 2022. Reliable community search in dynamic networks. Proc. VLDB Endow. 15, 11 (July 2022), 2826–2838. doi:10.14778/3551793.3551834

    2022

  85. [93]

    Mauro Sozio and Aristides Gionis. 2010. The community-search problem and how to plan a successful cocktail party. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Washington, DC, USA) (KDD ’10). Association for Computing Ma...

    2010

  86. [94]

    Jianwei Wang, Kai Wang, Xuemin Lin, Wenjie Zhang, and Ying Zhang. 2024. Efficient Unsupervised Community Search with Pre-Trained Graph Transformer. Proc. VLDB Endow. 17, 9 (Aug. 2024), 2227–2240. doi:10.14778/3665844.3665853

    2024

  87. [95]

    Juliette Stehlé, Alain Barrat, and Ginestra Bianconi. 2010. Dynamical and bursty interactions in social networks. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 81, 3 (2010), 035101

    2010

  88. [96]

    Stanley Wasserman and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. (1994)

    1994

  89. [97]

    Carolyn Weisz and Lisa F Wood. 2005. Social identity support and friendship outcomes: A longitudinal study predicting who will be friends and best friends 4 years later. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22, 3 (2005), 416–432

    2005

  90. [98]

    Barry Wellman. 2001. Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized networking. International journal of urban and regional research 25, 2 (2001), 227–252

    2001

  91. [99]

    Xiaoqin Xie, Mingjie Song, Chiming Liu, Jiaming Zhang, and Jiahui Li. 2021. Effective influential community search on attributed graph. Neurocomputing 444 (2021), 111–125

    2021

  92. [100]

    David Vinson, Marta Ponari, and Gabriella Vigliocco. 2014. How does emotional content affect lexical processing? Cognition & emotion 28, 4 (2014), 737–746

    2014

  93. [101]

    Jaewon Yang and Jure Leskovec. 2012. Defining and evaluating network commu- nities based on ground-truth. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Mining Data Semantics (Beijing, China) (MDS ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 3, 8 pages. ...

    2012

  94. [102]

    Yuxiang Wang, Xiaoxuan Gou, Xiaoliang Xu, Yuxia Geng, Xiangyu Ke, Tianxing Wu, Zhiyuan Yu, Runhuai Chen, and Xiangying Wu. 2024. Scalable Community Search over Large-scale Graphs based on Graph Transformer. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Resea...

    2024 doi

  95. [103]

    Kai Yao and Lijun Chang. 2021. Efficient size-bounded community search over large networks. Proc. VLDB Endow. 14, 8 (April 2021), 1441–1453. doi:10.14778/ 3457390.3457407

    2021

  96. [104]

    Benson, Jure Leskovec, and David F

    Hao Yin, Austin R. Benson, Jure Leskovec, and David F. Gleich. 2017. Local Higher-Order Graph Clustering. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD In- ternational Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Halifax, NS, Canada) (KDD ’17). Association for Computing Machiner...

    2017

  97. [105]

    Long Yuan, Lu Qin, Wenjie Zhang, Lijun Chang, and Jianye Yang. 2017. Index- based densest clique percolation community search in networks. IEEE Transac- tions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 30, 5 (2017), 922–935

    2017

  98. [106]

    Andrew Zamecnik, Cristina Villa-Torrano, Vitomir Kovanović, Georg Gross- mann, Srećko Joksimović, Yannis Dimitriadis, and Abelardo Pardo. 2022. The cohesion of small groups in technology-mediated learning environments: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Revie...

    2022

  99. [107]

    Tianyang Xu, Zhao Lu, and Yuanyuan Zhu. 2022. Efficient triangle-connected truss community search in dynamic graphs.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 16, 3 (2022), 519–531

    2022

  100. [108]

    How Cohesive Are Community Search Results on Online Social Networks?: An Experimental Evaluation

    Yining Zhao. 2025. Codebase for the paper "How Cohesive Are Community Search Results on Online Social Networks?: An Experimental Evaluation". https: //yningg.github.io/PIANO/

    2025

  101. [109]

    Suyong Yang, Wenbo Luo, Xiangru Zhu, Lucas S Broster, Taolin Chen, Jinzhen Li, and Yuejia Luo. 2014. Emotional content modulates response inhibition and perceptual processing. Psychophysiology 51, 11 (2014), 1139–1146

    2014

  102. [114]

    Fan Zhang, Haicheng Guo, Dian Ouyang, Shiyu Yang, Xuemin Lin, and Zhihong Tian. 2023. Size-constrained community search on large networks: An effective and efficient solution. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 36, 1 (2023), 356–371

    2023

  103. [116]

    Philip G Zimbardo, Robert Lee Johnson, Vivian McCann, and Carol Carter. 2003. Psychology: core concepts. Allyn and Bacon Boston

    2003

  104. [2009]

    In 2009 IEEE 25th international conference on data engineering

    Forward decay: A practical time decay model for streaming systems. In 2009 IEEE 25th international conference on data engineering . IEEE, 138–149

    2009

  105. [2015]

    Data mining and knowledge discovery 29 (2015), 1406–1433

    Efficient and effective community search. Data mining and knowledge discovery 29 (2015), 1406–1433

    2015

  106. [2016]

    Social Psychology of Education 19 (2016), 61–76

    Comparison of group cohesion, class participation, and exam performance in live and online classes. Social Psychology of Education 19 (2016), 61–76

    2016

  107. [2018]

    Maximum co-located community search in large scale social networks. Proc. VLDB Endow. 11, 10 (June 2018), 1233–1246. doi:10.14778/3231751.3231755

    2018

  108. [2023]

    In 2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE)

    COCLEP: Contrastive Learning-based Semi-Supervised Community Search. In 2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 2483–2495. Conference acronym ’XX, xx, xx Yining Zhao, Sourav S Bhowmick, Nastassja L. Fischer, and SH Annabel Chen

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.