Matt Stabeler

I re-ran the simulations for a simplified set of paramets for MIT-NOV and Cambridge, to make better sense of the data, I ranked each parameter to HGCE (which correspond to different hierarchichal structures) for each metric – see table below:

[TABLE=5]

This table shows the relative rankings for Delivery Ratio, Cost, Hops and Latency for each parameter of M to HGCE (values were derived from the optimum parameters to KCLIQUE based on structure of its output communities, the same parameters were used for each CFA). (Table columns can be sorted by clicking on column headings).

Below is an image of the associated Community Hierarchies

MIT-NOV, HGCE Communities for different threshold values (parameter M to HGCE)

Show below are the four metrics in barchart form, for comparison of actual values:

Delivery Ratio vs Cost, and Hops vs Latency for MIT-NOV, HGCE, BubbleH

From the above we can see that generally, delivery ratio improves with more depth to the hierarchy, however, in this instance a shallow, broad structure does best overall. When ranking by latency, it appears that broad shallow structures perform best.

thought: should we run HGCE multiple times on the same data to see what the range of different structures it comes up with are? Also, we should get another hierarchical CFA (e.g. the other version of link clustering): Did this, and will post results soon.

thought: is there a way of scoring heirarchy based on depth, width and population of communities?