We introduce a metric space of clusterings, where clusterings are described by a binary vector indexed by the vertex-pairs. We extend this geometry to a hypersphere and prove that maximizing modularity is equivalent to minimizing the angular distance to some modularity vector over the set of clustering vectors. In that sense, modularity-based community detection methods can be seen as a subclass of a more general class of projection methods, which we define as the community detection methods that adhere to the following two-step procedure: first, mapping the network to a point on the hypersphere; second, projecting this point to the set of clustering vectors. We show that this class of projection methods contains many interesting community detection methods. Many of these new methods cannot be described in terms of null models and resolution parameters, as is customary for modularity-based methods. We provide a new characterization of such methods in terms of meridians and latitudes of the hypersphere. In addition, by relating the modularity resolution parameter to the latitude of the corresponding modularity vector, we obtain a new interpretation of the resolution limit that modularity maximization is known to suffer from.

Many cluster similarity indices are used to evaluate clustering algorithms, and choosing the best one for a particular task remains an open problem. We demonstrate that this problem is crucial: there are many disagreements among the indices, these disagreements do affect which algorithms are preferred in applications, and this can lead to degraded performance in real-world systems. We propose a theoretical framework to tackle this problem: we develop a list of desirable properties and conduct an extensive theoretical analysis to verify which indices satisfy them. This allows for making an informed choice: given a particular application, one can first select properties that are desirable for the task and then identify indices satisfying these. Our work unifies and considerably extends existing attempts at analyzing cluster similarity indices: we introduce new properties, formalize existing ones, and mathematically prove or disprove each property for an extensive list of validation indices. This broader and more rigorous approach leads to recommendations that considerably differ from how validation indices are currently being chosen by practitioners. Some of the most popular indices are even shown to be dominated by previously overlooked ones.

Several performance measures can be used for evaluating classification results: accuracy, F-measure, and many others. Can we say that some of them are better than others, or, ideally, choose one measure that is best in all situations? To answer this question, we conduct a systematic analysis of classification performance measures: we formally define a list of desirable properties and theoretically analyze which measures satisfy which properties. We also prove an impossibility theorem: some desirable properties cannot be simultaneously satisfied. Finally, we propose a new family of measures satisfying all desirable properties except one. This family includes the Matthews Correlation Coefficient and a so-called Symmetric Balanced Accuracy that was not previously used in classification literature. We believe that our systematic approach gives an important tool to practitioners for adequately evaluating classification results.