abstract: An efficient and relatively fast algorithm for the detection of communities in complex networks is introduced. The method exploits spectral properties of the graph Laplacian matrix combined with hierarchical-clustering techniques, and includes a procedure to maximize the "modularity" of the output. Its performance is compared with that of other existing methods, as applied to different well-known instances of complex networks with a community-structure, both computer-generated and from the real-world. Our results are in all the tested cases, at least as good as the best ones obtained with any other methods, and faster in most of the cases than methods providing similar-quality results. This converts the algorithm in a valuable computational tool for detecting and analyzing communities and modular structures in complex networks.
author: Luca Donetti; Miguel A. Muñoz
date: 2024-10-01
title: Detecting Network Communities: a new systematic and efficient algorithm

# Introduction

The outburst of activity in the field of Complex Networks in recent years has been rather spectacular and amazing. Networks of any thinkable (and sometimes "unthinkable") type, including social, biological and technological ones have been described, and their topological as well as dynamical features studied. A whole line of research has emerged and a new perspective to tackle complex problems created. See for reviews from different perspectives and for exhaustive lists of references.

One particular aspect, which has drawn much attention, is the existence of subsets of nodes highly linked among themselves but loosely connected to the rest of the network, *i.e. communities*. These are believed to play a central role in the functional properties of complex structures . Identifying communities and analyzing their nature is an important task in some fields as, for instance, computer science , sociology , biochemistry , bibliometrics , taxonomy, or, as a more specific instance, in the development of efficient search-engines for the WWW. According to Flake *et al.* , "as the web is self-organized into communities, search-engines implementing such a concept, would help surfers to find what they look for and avoid other contents".

The concept of "community" may be retained as rather vague and phenomenological. Indeed, depending on the network under scrutiny, it might be quite an artificial one, while, in other cases, it emerges as a very natural and useful structure-analysis tool. A way to make the concept more clear-cut and practical is through the definition of the *modularity*, $Q$ (see below and ), a quantity which provides a way to quantify the community-structure of a given network. Other quantities have been proposed with the same purpose .

The problem of finding communities is not new and is closely related to the problem of graph-partitioning, profusely studied in the context of computer science . A review of some used techniques, including further references, can be found in . Related problems are image processing and pattern recognition, or more generically data-clustering: in these cases there is no underlying network, but instead some relation or similarity between existing elements can be estabilished .

In recent years many algorithms for detecting communities have been proposed, starting with the seminal work by Girvan and Newman . These authors proposed an iterative, *divisive* (as opposed to *agglomerative*) method based on the progressive removal of links with the largest *betweenness*, a quantity proportional to the number of shortest paths passing through a given edge . The edges (or links) with the largest betweenness have the most prominent role in connecting different parts of the graph and, therefore, by removing them recursively a good separation of the network into its components or communities can be found. This method generates very good results and has been employed by different authors in studies of various kinds . Unluckily, as already pointed out by the authors themselves, it has a main disadvantage: its computational demand is very high. For instance, for sparse networks with $N$ nodes, the computation-time grows like $N^3$. In order to deal with large networks, for which the previous algorithm turns out to be not viable, Newman himself developed a faster method (of the order $N^2$). It is based on the iterative agglomeration of small communities, starting from isolated nodes, by locally optimizing the modularity. This method generates worse results than the previous one.

Some alternative algorithms both divisive and agglomerative (which we do not attempt to exhaustively overview here) have been proposed in the last months. Some of them are listed here in chronological order (see for a more critical discussion of some of them):

-   The method by Radicchi-Castellano-Cecconi-Loreto-Parisi is of order $N^2$. It is a divisive algorithm that works nicely whenever triangular (or higher order) loops are present in the network.

-   Wu-Huberman algorithm . It is a fast method (linear in $N$), based on the idea of voltage drops, which visualizes the network as an electric circuit. It can be used to locate the community to which one specific node belongs, but it requires successive iterations of the method in order to provide a global network division in communities.

-   Reichardt-Bornholdt method . In this recent paper the authors introduce an algorithm inspired in the celebrated *super-paramagnetic clustering* algorithm devised by Blatt, Wiseman and Domany . It is based on a $q$-state Potts Hamiltonian, and allows, for the first time, for the identification of fuzzy communities.

-   Capocci-Servedio-Colaiori-Caldarelli method . This algorithm combines the use of spectral properties (which are nicely reviewed and generalized to study different types of networks as, for instance, directed ones) with the use of correlation measurements to determine community closeness.

-   Fortunato-Latora-Marchiori method . This is a variation of the method by Girvan and Newman, in which the betweenness is substituted by the alternative concept of *information centrality*, as a way to measure edge-centrality. The method generates good results but its performance ($N^4$ for a sparse graph) is rather poor.

Apart from these techniques recently introduced in the field of complex networks, many other algorithms have been developed mainly in the context of computer science. Most of them employ spectral analysis, which provides, in a very natural way (using the first non-trivial eigenmode) a tool for bi-partitioning as will be illustrated along this paper. By iterative applications of bi-partitioning more elaborated divisions into communities or components can be achieved . Alternatively, some other spectral methods employ more than one eigenmode leading directly to a splitting .

Without neglecting any of these algorithms, which can be applicable depending on the situation under consideration, this paper introduces yet a new method, allowing for a systematic analysis and detection of communities. It combines the following features: **i**) the generation of good results in all the tested cases, **ii**) it is relatively fast, as compared with methods providing comparable results, **iii**) it includes a way to optimize the output, as will be explained in what follows.

The method proposed in this paper combines spectral methods with clustering techniques, and uses the concept of modularity in order to develop a working algorithm. More precisely, the main lines of the algorithm are as follows: spectral analysis of the Laplacian matrix allows us to project the network-nodes into an *eigenvector-space* of variable (tunable) dimensionality. Afterwards, a *metric* is introduced in various possible fashions, and then, finally, by applying standard clustering techniques a *dendrogram* is built up. The modularity of possible groupings (sections of the dendrogram) is maximized for every considered dimension of the eigenvector-space and finally, the global maximum over all possible number of eigenvectors (*i.e* dimensions of the space) is found.

In the forthcoming sections we review some basic ideas and definitions of spectral analysis and we introduce our algorithm step by step. Then we apply it to different workbench networks, comparing its performance with that of other existing methods and, finally, the conclusions are presented.

# Using the Laplacian eigenvectors to detect communities

## Spectral analysis: Laplacian eigenvectors

The topology of a network with $N$ vertices can be expressed through a symmetric $N \times N$ matrix $\boldsymbol{L}$, the *Laplacian* matrix . The diagonal elements $L_{ii}$ are given by the degree $k_i$ of the corresponding vertex $i$, while off-diagonal elements $L_{ij}$ are equal to $-1$ if an edge between the corresponding vertices $i$ and $j$ exists and $0$ otherwise. The sum of elements over every fixed row or column is, trivially, equal to zero. Therefore, a "constant vector" (with all its components taking the same value) is an eigenvector with eigenvalue $0$. Furthermore, since the quadratic form $$\sum_{i,j=1}^n L_{ij} x_i x_j$$ can be written as $$\sum_{\rm{links}} (x_i  - x_j)^2,$$ which is positive semidefinite, the eigenvalues of $\boldsymbol{L}$ are either zero or positive . The use of other matrices, employed to study network spectral properties has been recently considered in .

If the graph under analysis is connected, there is only one zero eigenvalue corresponding to a constant eigenvector. On the contrary, for non-connected graphs (composed by $m$ connected components) the Laplacian matrix is block diagonal. Each block is the Laplacian of a subgraph and it admits a constant eigenvector with eigenvalue $0$. Therefore, the Laplacian of the whole graph has $m$ degenerate eigenvectors (corresponding to eigenvalue zero), each of them having nonzero constant components for nodes in the associated subgraph and $0$ in the rest.

If the subgraphs are not fully disconnected but, instead, a few links exist between them, the degeneration disappears. This leaves only one trivial eigenvector with eigenvalue $0$ and $m-1$ approximate linear combinations of the old ones with slightly non-vanishing eigenvalues . As the Laplacian matrix is real-symmetric, with orthogonal eigenvectors, and since the first of them has equal components, all the other ones must have components whose total sum vanishes. In order to illustrate how these ideas can be applied to identify communities, let us take, as a particular example, the number of subgraphs to be $2$. In this case, the components of the second (first nontrivial) eigenvector are positive for one subgraph and have to be negative for the other, providing a clear-cut criterion to bisect the graph . If the two subgraphs are not very well separated, then this distinction between positive and negative values becomes fuzzier. In such cases, more elaborated criteria to decide how to separate into two subgroups have been profusely studied in the specialized literature. Some of them optimize purposely defined quantities as the *normalized cut* or the *conductance* , which are defined as functions of the number of links that exist between the two components and their sizes . By iterating successive bisections, techniques to obtain more elaborate splittings can be constructed .

An alternative strategy is to assume that if there are more than two weakly-connected blocks it should be somehow possible to find them all by inspecting the eigenvalue spectrum more accurately, instead of considering just the first non-trivial eigenmode . Let us explore this idea, which is the one we will exploit, in more detail.

Figure a shows the components of the first nontrivial eigenvector of a computer-generated graph including 4 communities, each composed by 32 nodes (see forthcoming sections for details). The group structure is clear, even if the two communities at the bottom are very near to each other and some nodes could be mis-classified. In other examples, with a number of inter-group connections larger than here, the communities become more entangled, and the prospective of extracting clear-cut subdivisions using this type of one-dimensional plot worsens. This difficulty can be circumvented by taking into account some more eigenvectors, *i.e.* by enlarging the projection-space. This is illustrated in figure b, where the nodes of the same graph are plotted using the components on the first two nontrivial eigenvectors as coordinates. Simple eye-inspection shows that all communities are distinctly separated now. Actually, using three eigenvectors the nodes of the different groups fall around the vertices of a (slightly distorted) tetrahedron, with some further improvement in inter-community separation. Generalizing this idea, *each vertex in the graph is represented by a point in a $D$-dimensional space in which the coordinates are given by its projections on the first $D$ nontrivial eigenvectors*.

## Introducing a metric

Aimed at turning "eye-inspection" of communities into a more quantitative measure, the explicit introduction of a metric (or similarity measure) is required. The most straightforward choice would be the Euclidean distance. However, this is *not* the only possibility; another one is to consider the *angular distance*, defined as the angle between the vectors joining the origin of the $D$-dimensional space with the two points under consideration. This possibility is inspired by empirical observations: loosely connected nodes could be quite "Euclideanly" far from each other within a community, but still lying in the same "direction" in the eigenvector-space . Moreover, when networks are large, nodes in the same community form a roughly one-dimensional "bundle" (see for example figure 3 in ). Note also, that using angular distances is tantamount to normalizing the position-vectors in the corresponding space and then measuring the Euclidean distance, similarly to what proposed in . As will be shown, the angular metric generates, as a matter of fact, better results than the Euclidean one.

## Cluster analysis

Having introduced a way to measure distances in the eigenvector space, a method to group nodes into communities is required. Such a method is provided by standard clustering techniques as, for example, *hierarchical clustering*. Starting from $N$ clusters, composed by individual nodes, the two closest ones are iteratively joined together. In order to define cluster-to-cluster distance or "closeness" (for a given metric) different criteria can be employed, generating among others, the following clustering algorithms :

-   All possible pairs of nodes, taking one from each of the two clusters under examination, are considered. The minimum possible node-to-node distance is declared to be the cluster-to-cluster closeness. This leads to *single-linkage clustering*.

-   Proceeding as before, but replacing the "minimum possible node-to-node distance" between pairs by the "maximum" one, *complete-linkage clustering* is defined.

-   Another possibility consists in taking the average distance between all possible pairs. This leads to *group-average clustering*.

-   A cluster is represented by a single point located at its "center of mass"; the cluster-to-cluster distance is defined as the node-to-node distance between these two points. This leads to *centroid clustering*.

All these criteria have been broadly studied and applied. None of them can be proved to be generically more efficient than the others. In particular, the single-linkage method, being very simple, can be useful to analyze large data sets, and possesses some further mathematical advantages . On the contrary, it has a tendency to cluster together, at a relatively low level, distant nodes linked successively by a series of intermediates. This is usually called *chaining property*, which constitutes in some cases a serious drawback.

On the other hand, a convenient advantage of both, single and complete-linkage clusterings, is that only the ordering of the similarity measure is important: every other metric which produces the same ordering of distances leads to the same results.

The output of these algorithms can be represented by a hierarchical tree usually called *dendrogram*. The starting single-node communities are the branch-tips of such a tree, which are repeatedly joined until the whole network has been reconstructed as a single component (see, for instance, figure 2 in ). Each level of the tree represents a possible splitting of the network into a set of communities, obtained by halting the clustering process at the corresponding level. However, the clustering algorithm gives no hint about the "goodness" of such a partition.

## Modularity

In order to quantify the validity of possible sub-divisions (obtained as explained above) and to optimize the chosen splitting, we use, following , the concept of *modularity*. It is defined as follows: given a network division, let $e_{ii}$ be the fraction of edges in the network between any two vertices in the subgroup $i$, and $a_i$ the total fraction of edges with one vertex in group $i$ (where edges "internal" to each group have weight $1$ while inter-group links are weighted $1/2$). The modularity, $Q$, is then defined as $$\label{eq:modularity}
  Q = \sum_i (e_{ii} - a_i)^2.$$ It measures the fraction of edges that fall between communities minus the expected value of same quantity in a random graph with the same community division.

The maximization of modularity has been proposed as a possible way to detect communities; since a full maximization is not possible in practice (the algorithm would take an amount of time exponential in the number of nodes to explore all possible splittings) an approximate algorithm has been suggested . In our case, modularity measurements are simply used to find the best splitting among all the possible partitions of the dendrogram obtained following the previous steps .

Other indeces quantifying the quality of splittings have been also proposed in the literature. Some of them are the "conductance", the "performance", and the "coverage" to name but a few (see and references therein for more details). None of these taken by itself, provides a fully useful criterion; they have to be combined somehow. It seems that the modularity is a better, more efficient, choice.

## Implementing a functioning algorithm

Summarizing the ideas introduced in the previous sub-sections, our algorithm can be synthesized and implemented to build up a functioning algorithm as follows. First *a few* eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the network Laplacian matrix are computed. The question of what "a few" means will be tackled afterwards. Since the Laplacian is usually a sparse matrix and not all eigenpairs are required (that will require a time $N^3$) the relatively fast Lanczos method can be employed. Nonetheless, the eigenvector computation is still the most computationally expensive step of the algorithm.

For any given number $D$ of eigenvectors (*i.e.* for a fixed dimension of the space) a similarity measure (or metric) is chosen, providing a basis to apply one of the previously introduced clustering techniques. Typically, Euclidean or, better, angular distances are employed.

Among the various hierarchical clustering methods available, we test single- and complete-linkage clustering algorithms. These two have the advantage that no new distances have to be calculated during cluster formation: when two subgroups merge to form a larger one, its distance to any other cluster is given by the shortest (single-linkage) or by the largest (complete-linkage) of the distances from the two original components. As said before, single-linkage performs poorly in many cases owing to the previously discussed "chaining" property, converting complete-linkage in the preferential choice. Other linkage methods will be explored in the future; in particular, group-average linkage could be suitable when studying tree-like graphs .

An important difference between the way we apply clustering techniques and other standard applications is that we know in advance the underlying network structure. Using this knowledge we implement the constraint that *two clusters are susceptible to be merged only if there exists a link between them in the original network*.

At every step of the clustering process the modularity is computed. Once the whole dendrogram is completed, the splitting with the maximum modularity is chosen as the output for the corresponding $D$.

The optimal value of $D$ to be taken is not known *a priori*, but since the eigenvalue calculation is the slowest part of the algorithm, we can repeat the hierarchical clustering using all possible values of $D$, and look up for the largest value of the modularity. Typically the largest-modularity vs. $D$ curve exhibits a maximum whose corresponding splitting provides the algorithm final output. If, instead, the curve keeps on growing up to the largest $D$, the number of computed eigenpairs has to be enlarged, in order to extend the range of the curve, until a clear-cut maximum is pin-pointed.

# Tests of the method

## Artificial community networks

To prove the algorithm we first test it on computer-generated random graphs with a well-known pre-determined community structure . Each graph has $N=128$ nodes divided into $4$ communities of $32$ nodes each. Edges between two nodes are introduced with different probabilities depending on whether the two nodes belong to the same group or not: every node has $k_{\rm{in}}$ links on average to its fellows in the same community, and $k_{\rm{out}}$ links to the outer-world, keeping $k_{\rm{in}}+k_{\rm{out}}=16$.

In figures  and we plot the modularity corresponding to the best splitting identified by the algorithm normalized by the one of the known answer, and the average number of correctly classified vertices, respectively. Data for both, Euclidean and angular measures, and both, single- and complete-linkage algorithms, are shown. The number of eigenvalues leading to the largest modularity is between $3$ and $5$ for the angular distance, and between $2$ and $4$ for the Euclidean one. Let us remark that these are roughly equal to the number of communities and that the performance is much better using the angular distance.

Summing up: on these computer-generated networks, our algorithm (equipped with the angular distance and complete-linkage) generates excellent results as compared with other methods (see, for instance, figure 1 in and figure 3 in ).

## Zachary karate club

Now we consider the well-known karate club friendship network studied by Zachary , which has become a commonly used workbench for community-finding algorithms testing .

|                  | angular | Euclidean |
|-----------------:|--------:|----------:|
|   single-linkage |   0.412 |     0.319 |
| complete-linkage |   0.412 |     0.368 |

Modularity of the best splitting of the Zachary club network obtained for different metrics and clustering algorithms.

Table  shows the maximum modularity found by the algorithm: the best value is again obtained using angular distances combined with either single or complete-linkage clustering.

The best splitting is shown in figure ; it is different from the "actual" breakdown of the club; *i.e.* the two groups reported by Zachary are further subdivided. Let us stress the presence of a single-node community (node $12$), and the fact that the modularity value of this splitting is larger than Zachary's one ($0.371$), and larger that the ones found using other methods .

In this case single and complete-linkage give the same best splitting. Nevertheless, the hierarchical structure given by the dendrogram in the two cases are quite different. Figure  shows how clusters merge after the best splitting is identified, as well as the modularity value corresponding to each division. For complete-linkage the modularity value remains close to the best one until the whole network is merged in one community. On the other hand, for single-linkage it falls down rather abruptly right after the first merging, owing to the chaining problem. Moreover, in the former case, the two Zachary communities are first reconstructed and then joined together, while in the latter the merging proceeds differently. Therefore, even if the best splitting is the same one in both cases, complete-linkage produces a more reliable dendrogram, describing more accurately the hierarchical structure.

## Scientific collaboration networks

In order to test the method performance on larger networks we consider two scientific-collaboration networks first analyzed by Newman . The vertices are the authors of the papers appeared in the `cond-mat` and `hep-th` archives at `ArXiv.org` between $1995$ and $1999$. Two authors are linked if they have co-authored a paper together.

The `cond-mat` network contains $16726$ nodes, but we focus on its largest connected component, which contains only $13861$ authors. The computation of the first $1000$ eigenvectors takes about two hours on a personal computer. The modularity curve computation, calculated using up to $999$ eigenvectors, lasts around 15 minutes. Results for angular distance and complete-linkage clustering are plotted in figure .

The largest value of the modularity, $Q=0.736$, achieved for a splitting in $229$ communities, corresponds to a $602$-dimensional space. Obviously, we cannot compare the final splitting with a "true" one, which is not defined. As the curve in figure is rather flat in its tail, one can legitimately wonder how does the best splitting compare to other ones obtained for similar dimensionalities. This question is difficult to answer in a rigorous way, and will deserve further analysis, which will eventually lead to a functional definition of the *community-structure robustness*.

Analogously, the `hep-th` network has $8361$ authors with a connected component of $5835$. The largest modularity value, $Q = 0.707$, is produced by a division into $114$ communities, obtained using $416$ eigenvectors. The computation of the first $1000$ eigenvectors takes around $30$ minutes and the search of the largest modularity value about $8$ minutes. In this case, the initial number of eigenvectors could have been taken much smaller than $1000$, without affecting the final output, with the consequent time saving.

As in previous cases, the number of eigenvectors used to produce the best splitting is of the order of magnitude of the number of found communities. In these cases, comparison with previous community studies is not feasible, as modularity measurements have not been (to the best of our knowledge) reported in literature.

# Conclusions

We have introduced a new algorithm aimed at detecting community structure in complex networks in an efficient and systematic way. The method combines spectral techniques, cluster analysis, and the recently introduced concept of modularity.

The nodes of the network are projected into a $D$-dimensional space, where $D$ is a number of first non-trivial eigenvectors of the Laplacian matrix; their coordinates are the node-projections on each eigenvector. Then a metric (either Euclidean or angular) is introduced in such an eigenvector space. Once distances are computed, standard hierarchical clustering techniques (as, for instance, complete-linkage clustering) are employed to generate a dendrogram. The subdivision of this dendrogram giving the maximum modularity is taken as the output of the algorithm for a fixed $D$. Then, also $D$ is allowed to vary (from $1$ to some arbitrary, maximum value) providing a way to maximize the modularity and enhance the performance of the method.

The best results are obtained using the angular distance and complete-linkage clustering; however, other types of distances, other clustering algorithms, or even other means to quantify the goodness of a division could be used to improve the results. In this sense our algorithm is a "block-modular" one: modifications of any of its ingredients could possibly lead to an overall improvement.

Even if spectral methods have been profusely used before to analyze similar problems, we believe that our algorithm represents a step forward in studying complex-network communities, as it combines spectral techniques with (i) the novel concept of modularity, which provides a very adequate estimate of the quality of a given splitting and (ii) a way to optimize the number of eigenmodes taken into consideration.

The weakest part of the method is that the maximum number of eigenvectors to be computed in order to find the one generating the maximum modularity is not known a priori. Being the calculation of eigenvectors the slowest part of the algorithm, what we do is to take a reasonable number of them and, afterwards, verify that the maximum-modularity curve as a function of $D$ decreases at its tail; *i.e.* we make sure that a maximum of the modularity function is located. If this is not the case, the number of eigenvectors needs to be enlarged, at the cost of higher computational effort. In the absence of a general criterion to establish the monotonicity of the modularity curve, the only possible way to decide whether the identified local maximum is the global one, would be to compute all possible eigenvalues. In practice, in all the studied cases, the best splitting is found with a relatively small number of eigenvectors, converting the algorithm in a reliable, relatively fast, and very efficient one.

An open challenge would be identifying a systematic criterion to estimate, a priori, what is the order of magnitude of the number of eigenvalues to be computed to further optimize the output and efficiency.

We hope that this new algorithm will be employed with success in the search and study of communities in complex networks, and will help to uncover new interesting properties.


abstract: New York City faces the challenge of an ever-increasing homeless population with almost 60,000 people currently living in city shelters. In 2015, approximately 25% of families stayed longer than 9 months in a shelter, and 17% of families with children that exited a homeless shelter returned to the shelter system within 30 days of leaving. This suggests that "long-term" shelter residents and those that re-enter shelters contribute significantly to the rise of the homeless population living in city shelters and indicate systemic challenges to finding adequate permanent housing. Women in Need (Win) is a non-profit agency that provides shelter to almost 10,000 homeless women and children (10% of all homeless families of NYC), and is the largest homeless shelter provider in the City. This paper focuses on our preliminary work with Win to understand the factors that affect the rate of readmission of homeless families at Win shelters, and to predict the likelihood of re-entry into the shelter system on exit. These insights will enable improved service delivery and operational efficiencies at these shelters. This paper describes our recent efforts to integrate Win datasets with city records to create a unified, comprehensive database of the homeless population being served by Win shelters. A preliminary classification model is developed to predict the odds of readmission and length of shelter stay based on the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the homeless population served by Win. This work is intended to form the basis for establishing a network of "smart shelters" through the use of data science and data technologies.
author:
Constantine Kontokosta

Boyeong Hong

Awais Malik

;
Ira M. Bellach
Xueqi Huang

Kristi Korsberg

;
Dara Perl

Avikal Somvanshi

bibliography: references.bib
title: Predictors of Re-admission for Homeless Families in New York City: The Case of the Win Shelter Network

# Introduction

New York City faces the challenge of an ever-increasing homeless population with almost 60,000 people currently living in city shelters . A New York City Department of Investigation (DOI) probe of Department of Homeless Services (DHS) shelters in 2015 found "serious deficiencies" in the shelters for families with children, citing unsafe and unhealthy living conditions, and recommending aggressive and immediate reforms . Consequently, the city plans to spend \$2.3 billion on efforts to improve the quality of life of the homeless population in the fiscal year 2017 . In 2015, 17% of families with children that exited a homeless shelter returned to the shelter system within 30 days of leaving . This highlights the problem that the sharp increase in the homeless population residing in the shelter system is exacerbated by long-term residents and those that re-enter shelters, as much as (if not more than) new homeless families .

Women in Need (Win) is a non-profit agency that provides shelter to almost 10,000 homeless women and children (10% of all homeless families in NYC), and is the city's largest homeless shelter provider . Win's goal is to enable homeless women to become self-sufficient as they transition from a Win shelter into permanent housing. In order to deliver better services and reduce the overall homeless population, Win has provided us with anonymized sociodemographic data for its residents for the past five years. Our goal in this paper is to understand the factors that significantly affect the rate of readmission into Win shelters after initial exit, a key positive indicator.

This paper begins with a brief review of previous studies focused on the state of homelessness in New York City and predictors of homeless family outcomes. The next section describes the data provided by Win, and our recent efforts to integrate these datasets to create a unified database of the homeless population served by Win shelters. We proceed to develop a predictive model of homeless family outcomes, starting with the odds of readmission back into the shelter system. Considering the nature of the data, we discuss some of salient ethical and privacy concerns associated with working with such data, and how we will address these concerns. Since this is a work in progress, we discuss our next steps and future research, including predicting length of stay for each homeless family. This paper concludes with our vision of creating a network of "smart shelters" in New York City, and offers suggestions for how our work can serve as a starting point for implementing such a network.

# Background

Homelessness in New York City has reached its highest levels since the Great Depression, with more than 127,000 people sleeping in the NYC shelter system at some point during the fiscal year 2016 . The New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) provides temporary emergency shelter to the homeless, and assists in their transition into permanent housing. One of DHS's main partners is Women-in-Need, Inc. (Win) - the City's largest homeless shelter provider, serving more than 10,000 homeless people (10% of all homeless families in NYC), including more than 800 families and 6,000 children . According to the data provided by Win, their shelter network houses close to 4,700 people every night. The data also show that in March 2017 46% of Win's clients were employed, making approximately \$1,420 per month, only slightly more than the federal poverty line.

A few studies have examined the factors associated with homeless families returning to the shelter system. Wong et al. researched readmission patterns of New York City's homeless population, and analyzed certain demographic characteristics, time variables, and reasons for homelessness with respect to the likelihood of readmission. The authors used eight years of client data from the Homeless Emergency Referral System (HOMES) database, and found that five demographic features (age, family size, race and ethnicity, pregnancy status, and receiving public assistance) were the most significant predictors of shelter readmission . Additionally, the study found that families that exited into subsidized housing stayed in the shelter system for a longer time, but had a lower rate of readmission.

Shinn et al. examined predictors of entry into homeless shelters and subsequent housing stability. The authors surveyed 266 New York City families as they requested shelter, and compared them with a random sample of 298 families from the welfare caseload . The responding families were reinterviewed five years later to evaluate their housing stability, and families with prior history of shelter use were removed from the follow-up study . The authors found that demographic characteristics and housing conditions were the most significant risk factors affecting shelter entry, with 'enduring poverty' and 'disruptive social experiences' also important conditions. Access to subsidized housing was the most crucial factor in long-term housing stability: the odds of housing stability were 20 times greater for recipients of housing subsidies or tenants in subsidized housing .

Recently, the Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness provided an in-depth analysis of demographic patterns and social dynamics of family homelessness in New York City. The institute suggests that the growing population of the shelter system is primarily caused by long-term staying clients and repeated entries, not by new homeless families . The is supported by the fact that 17% of families with children that exited a homeless shelter returned to the shelter system within 30 days of leaving . This report suggests that in order to reduce homelessness in New York City, the families returning immediately to homeless shelters need to be provided more stable housing solutions upon exiting shelters , such as receiving subsidized housing . This study provides an important foundation for our analysis.

# Data & Methodology

Win provided anonymized social and demographic data on the homeless population that entered and exited its shelters over the past five years (FY 2013 - FY 2017). The data were split into three different files: the first dataset included information about client demographics (Demographic Data) such as gender, race and ethnicity, education level, employment status, income etc.; the second identified reasons for client exit (Exits Data); and the third summarized incidents involving clients that occurred while in the shelter (Incidents Data).

A significant challenge in merging these datasets was the presence of three separate identifiers representing the individual (CARES ID), the individual's family (FAMILY ID), and the individual's current case number (CASE ID). We created a new identifier for each unique individual ('ID combo') concatenating the three identifiers associated with each record. It is worth noting that potential Win clients undergo a 14 day case review to determine eligibility when they apply to the shelter network. Those cases that were not admitted to the Win system were removed from the unified dataset for the purpose of this analysis.

The total length of stay for each individual was calculated by summing the lengths of stay for each distinct period of residence for the same individual. An individual with more than one distinct period of residence was considered a multi-entry client. The integrated dataset featured 6,779 unique individuals with 1,289 (19%) classified as multi-entry clients, i.e. they were readmitted to the shelter more than once in the last five years. Eviction, discord, domestic violence and overcrowding were the top four reasons that Win clients needed shelter, while 48-hour curfew violations, family reunification, and independent living were the predominant reasons for Win clients exits.

Table 1 lists the predictors extracted from the unified dataset for our preliminary estimation of the odds of reentry for Win clients. The income variable was excluded from our models because nearly half of the individuals had missing values for this field, and thus we were unable to determine if the client had no income or the value was missing. The target variable is coded as a binary (readmit = 0 for single entry client, and readmit = 1 for multi-entry). 81% of the individuals in the integrated dataset were single-entry clients (readmit = 0). A logistic regression model was used to establish a benchmark for the predictive power of selected features. Subsequently, a Gradient Boosting Classifier was applied using various ratios for minority oversampling to improve model performance.

| **Predictor**           | **Description**                                |
|:------------------------|:-----------------------------------------------|
| Age                     | Continuous Variable                            |
| Income                  | Continuous Variable Nearly 50% of data missing |
| Race                    | Categoric Variable                             |
|                         | 0: White                                       |
|                         | 1: Black                                       |
|                         | 2: Hispanic                                    |
|                         | 3: Other                                       |
| Family Type             | Categoric Variable                             |
|                         | 0: Single                                      |
|                         | 1: Adult Families                              |
|                         | 2: Families with Children                      |
| Reason for Homelessness | Categoric Variable                             |
|                         | 0: Eviction                                    |
|                         | 1: Discord                                     |
|                         | 2: Domestic Violence                           |
|                         | 3: Overcrowding                                |
|                         | 4: Other                                       |
| Employment Status       | Categoric Variable                             |
|                         | 0: Unemployed                                  |
|                         | 1: Employed                                    |
|                         | 2: Unknown                                     |
| Citizenship Status      | Categoric Variable                             |
|                         | 0: Unknown                                     |
|                         | 1: Citizen                                     |
|                         | 2: Non-Resident                                |
|                         | 3: Undocumented                                |

Description of Extracted Predictors

# Preliminary Results

Figure 1 shows the ROC curve for the logistic regression model. The AUC is very low (0.57), which suggests the need for a non-parametric model to deal with non-linear relationships. Therefore, a Gradient Boosting Classifier is applied to the dataset. Since 81% of the dataset is single entry clients, we need a sample-balancing mechanism, so we apply the Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) with various SMOTE ratios ranging from the original distribution of the data to 1.0.

Figure 2 shows the ROC curve for the Gradient Boosting Classifier with a SMOTE ratio of 1.0. This is the best performing model (see Table 2) because it has the highest recall (sensitivity). We use recall as our model performance evaluation metric because our priority is to reduce the number of False Negatives (homeless individuals classified as single entry by the model, but who actually return to the shelter after their first exit). An AUC of 0.72 is a reasonable starting point, and the addition of more suitable indicators (such as the length of stay during first visit) may further enhance the model performance.

```latex
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Performance Evaluation Metrics of Gradient Boosting Classifier using Various SMOTE Ratios}
\smallskip
\def\arraystretch{1.5}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{|l|XXXXXXXXX|}
\hline
SMOTE Ratio & Original & 0.3 & 0.4 & 0.5 & 0.6 & 0.7 & 0.8 & 0.9 & 1.0 \\
\hline
Accuracy & 0.83 & 0.81 & 0.79 & 0.78 & 0.78 & 0.78 & 0.78 & 0.79 & 0.79 \\
True Positives & 128 & 83 & 127 & 171 & 230 & 357 & 448 & 549 & 588 \\
False Negatives & 1161 & 1206 & 1162 & 1118 & 1059 & 932 & 841 & 740 & 701 \\
False Positives & 14 & 6 & 59 & 102 & 223 & 496 & 700 & 958 & 1037 \\
True Negatives & 5476 & 5484 & 5431 & 5388 & 5267 & 4994 & 4790 & 4532 & 4453 \\
AUC & 0.79 & 0.76 & 0.75 & 0.74 & 0.73 & 0.73 & 0.73 & 0.73 & 0.72 \\
Sensitivity & 0.099 & 0.064 & 0.099 & 0.133 & 0.178 & 0.277 & 0.348 & 0.426 & 0.456 \\
\hline
\end{tabularx}
\end{table*}
```

# Conclusions & Next Steps

We have presented our preliminary findings for predicting readmission of homeless families back into Win shelters in New York City. Predictors include age, race, family type, employment status, citizenship status, and reason for homelessness. Our model of choice is a Gradient Boosting Classifier with SMOTE ratio of 1.0, which gives an AUC of 0.72 and recall of 0.456. Model performance is evaluated using recall, since we want to reduce the number of false negatives, or at least have the number of false negatives relatively lower than the number of false positives.

Further improvements in the model include accounting for the interactions between continuous variables (such as age) and the categorical predictors, as well as extracting more relevant indicators from the Win datasets (such as length of stay during first period of residence and whether the client experienced a traumatic incident during their initial residency). We also want to predict the length of stay for both single entry clients and multi-entry clients independently. Current attempts at predicting length of stay for the unified dataset using linear regression methods did not yield insightful results, and were, therefore, not presented in this paper.

Finally, we believe our work with Win will serve as a benchmark for establishing data-driven operations within the largest homeless shelter provider in New York City. Furthermore, our currnet work with Win is foundation for a long-term partnership to form a network of "smart shelters" across the City. This network will serve to support improved outcomes for homeless families both during and after their time in the shelter system by appropriately using data and technology to address persistent challenges.

# Acknowledgments

Our thanks to Win for their partnership in this research, especially to Ira M. Bellach and Meghan Linehan for their assistance and guidance. This work is supported, in part, by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. This research has been conducted in accordance with NYU Institutional Review Board approval IRB-FY2017-1135. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any supporting institution. All errors remain the responsibility of the authors.


abstract: This document is a supplement to the general instructions for \*ACL authors. It contains instructions for using the LaTeX style file for EMNLP 2022. The document itself conforms to its own specifications, and is, therefore, an example of what your manuscript should look like. These instructions should be used both for papers submitted for review and for final versions of accepted papers.
author: First Author
Affiliation / Address line 1
Affiliation / Address line 2
Affiliation / Address line 3
`email@domain`
Second Author
Affiliation / Address line 1
Affiliation / Address line 2
Affiliation / Address line 3
`email@domain`
bibliography: anthology.bib; custom.bib
title: Instructions for EMNLP 2022 Proceedings

# Introduction

These instructions are for authors submitting papers to EMNLP 2022 using LaTeX. They are not self-contained. All authors must follow the general instructions for \*ACL proceedings,[^1] as well as guidelines set forth in the EMNLP 2022 call for papers. This document contains additional instructions for the LaTeX style files. The templates include the LaTeX source of this document (`EMNLP2022.tex`), the LaTeX style file used to format it (`EMNLP2022.sty`), an ACL bibliography style (`acl_natbib.bst`), an example bibliography (`custom.bib`), and the bibliography for the ACL Anthology (`anthology.bib`).

# Engines

To produce a PDF file, pdfLaTeX is strongly recommended (over original LaTeX plus dvips+ps2pdf or dvipdf). XeLaTeX also produces PDF files, and is especially suitable for text in non-Latin scripts.

| **Command** | **Output** |
|:------------|:----------:|
| `{\"a}`     |     ä      |
| `{\^e}`     |     ê      |
| `` {\`i} `` |     ì      |
| `{\.I}`     |     İ      |
| `{\o}`      |     ø      |
| `{\'u}`     |     ú      |
| `{\aa}`     |     å      |

Example commands for accented characters, to be used in, *e.g.*, BibTeX entries.

| **Command** | **Output** |
|:------------|:----------:|
| `{\c c}`    |     ç      |
| `{\u g}`    |     ğ      |
| `{\l}`      |     ł      |
| `{\~n}`     |     ñ      |
| `{\H o}`    |     ő      |
| `{\v r}`    |     ř      |
| `{\ss}`     |     ß      |

Example commands for accented characters, to be used in, *e.g.*, BibTeX entries.

# Preamble

```latex
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\hline
\textbf{Output} & \textbf{natbib command} & \textbf{Old ACL-style command}\\
\hline
\citep{ct1965} & \verb|\citep| & \verb|\cite| \\
\citealp{ct1965} & \verb|\citealp| & no equivalent \\
\citet{ct1965} & \verb|\citet| & \verb|\newcite| \\
\citeyearpar{ct1965} & \verb|\citeyearpar| & \verb|\shortcite| \\
\citeposs{ct1965} & \verb|\citeposs| & no equivalent \\
\citep[FFT;][]{ct1965} &  \verb|\citep[FFT;][]| & no equivalent\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{citation-guide}
Citation commands supported by the style file.
The style is based on the natbib package and supports all natbib citation commands.
It also supports commands defined in previous ACL style files for compatibility.
}
\end{table*}
```

The first line of the file must be

> \documentclass[11pt]{article}

To load the style file in the review version:

> \usepackage[review]{EMNLP2022}

For the final version, omit the `review` option:

> \usepackage{EMNLP2022}

To use Times Roman, put the following in the preamble:

> \usepackage{times}

(Alternatives like txfonts or newtx are also acceptable.) Please see the LaTeX source of this document for comments on other packages that may be useful. Set the title and author using `\title` and `\author`. Within the author list, format multiple authors using `\and` and `\And` and `\AND`; please see the LaTeX source for examples. By default, the box containing the title and author names is set to the minimum of 5 cm. If you need more space, include the following in the preamble:

> \setlength\titlebox{<dim>}

where `<dim>` is replaced with a length. Do not set this length smaller than 5 cm.

# Document Body

## Footnotes

Footnotes are inserted with the `\footnote` command.[^2]

## Tables and figures

See Table  for an example of a table and its caption. **Do not override the default caption sizes.**

## Hyperlinks

Users of older versions of LaTeX may encounter the following error during compilation:

> `\pdfendlink`` ended up in different nesting level than ``\pdfstartlink``. `

This happens when pdfLaTeX is used and a citation splits across a page boundary. The best way to fix this is to upgrade LaTeX to 2018-12-01 or later.

## Citations

Table  shows the syntax supported by the style files. We encourage you to use the natbib styles. You can use the command `\citet` (cite in text) to get "author (year)" citations, like this citation to a paper by . You can use the command `\citep` (cite in parentheses) to get "(author, year)" citations . You can use the command `\citealp` (alternative cite without parentheses) to get "author, year" citations, which is useful for using citations within parentheses (e.g. ).

## References

The LaTeX and BibTeX style files provided roughly follow the American Psychological Association format. If your own bib file is named `custom.bib`, then placing the following before any appendices in your LaTeX file will generate the references section for you:

> \bibliographystyle{acl_natbib}
>     \bibliography{custom}

You can obtain the complete ACL Anthology as a BibTeX file from <https://aclweb.org/anthology/anthology.bib.gz>. To include both the Anthology and your own .bib file, use the following instead of the above.

> \bibliographystyle{acl_natbib}
>     \bibliography{anthology,custom}

Please see Section  for information on preparing BibTeX files.

## Appendices

Use `\appendix` before any appendix section to switch the section numbering over to letters. See Appendix  for an example.

# BibTeX Files

Unicode cannot be used in BibTeX entries, and some ways of typing special characters can disrupt BibTeX's alphabetization. The recommended way of typing special characters is shown in Table .

Please ensure that BibTeX records contain DOIs or URLs when possible, and for all the ACL materials that you reference. Use the `doi` field for DOIs and the `url` field for URLs. If a BibTeX entry has a URL or DOI field, the paper title in the references section will appear as a hyperlink to the paper, using the hyperref LaTeX package.

# Limitations

EMNLP 2022 requires all submissions to have a section titled "Limitations", for discussing the limitations of the paper as a complement to the discussion of strengths in the main text. This section should occur after the conclusion, but before the references. It will not count towards the page limit.

The discussion of limitations is mandatory. Papers without a limitation section will be desk-rejected without review. ARR-reviewed papers that did not include "Limitations" section in their prior submission, should submit a PDF with such a section together with their EMNLP 2022 submission.

While we are open to different types of limitations, just mentioning that a set of results have been shown for English only probably does not reflect what we expect. Mentioning that the method works mostly for languages with limited morphology, like English, is a much better alternative. In addition, limitations such as low scalability to long text, the requirement of large GPU resources, or other things that inspire crucial further investigation are welcome.

# Ethics Statement

Scientific work published at EMNLP 2022 must comply with the [ACL Ethics Policy](https://www.aclweb.org/portal/content/acl-code-ethics). We encourage all authors to include an explicit ethics statement on the broader impact of the work, or other ethical considerations after the conclusion but before the references. The ethics statement will not count toward the page limit (8 pages for long, 4 pages for short papers).

# Acknowledgements

This document has been adapted by Yue Zhang, Ryan Cotterell and Lea Frermann from the style files used for earlier ACL and NAACL proceedings, including those for ACL 2020 by Steven Bethard, Ryan Cotterell and Rui Yan, ACL 2019 by Douwe Kiela and Ivan Vulić, NAACL 2019 by Stephanie Lukin and Alla Roskovskaya, ACL 2018 by Shay Cohen, Kevin Gimpel, and Wei Lu, NAACL 2018 by Margaret Mitchell and Stephanie Lukin, BibTeX suggestions for (NA)ACL 2017/2018 from Jason Eisner, ACL 2017 by Dan Gildea and Min-Yen Kan, NAACL 2017 by Margaret Mitchell, ACL 2012 by Maggie Li and Michael White, ACL 2010 by Jing-Shin Chang and Philipp Koehn, ACL 2008 by Johanna D. Moore, Simone Teufel, James Allan, and Sadaoki Furui, ACL 2005 by Hwee Tou Ng and Kemal Oflazer, ACL 2002 by Eugene Charniak and Dekang Lin, and earlier ACL and EACL formats written by several people, including John Chen, Henry S. Thompson and Donald Walker. Additional elements were taken from the formatting instructions of the *International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence* and the *Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition*.

# Example Appendix

This is a section in the appendix.

[^1]: <http://acl-org.github.io/ACLPUB/formatting.html>

[^2]: This is a footnote.


abstract: In the Virtual Observatory era, where we intend to expose scientists (or software agents on their behalf) to a stream of observations from all existing facilities, the ability to access and to further interpret the origin, relationships, and processing steps on archived astronomical assets (their Provenance) is a requirement for proper observation selection, and quality assessment. In this article we present the different use cases Data Provenance is needed for, the challenges inherent to building such a system for the ESO archive, and their link with ongoing work in the International Virtual Observatory Alliance (IVOA).
author: Juan de Dios Santander-Vela, Arancha Delgado, Nausicaa Delmotte, and Myha Vuong
title: Data Provenance: Use Cases for the ESO archive, and Interactions with the Virtual Observatory

# The Provenance of Astrophysical Data

The ever increasing datasets archived and dealt with by astrophysical institutions and researchers are moving astrophysics into one of the fastest growing, and more public, e-Science disciplines.

Within e-Science, Data Provenance is the tracking of the origin of any piece of information that has been recorded, with knowledge of all processing steps undergone. In the astronomical realm, we need to track data Provenance in order to answer questions like *what was done to the photons captured by this archived entity*, and *what entities were responsible for it?* We need to be able to answer those questions because for typical astronomical workflows across large datasets Provenance must be recorded, and later used throughout the workflow, in order to get physically meaningful and accurate results. Fig.  illustrates the role of Data Provenance in astronomical workflows.

In particular, relevant questions for Data Provenance are *which were the files used to create a particular data product* (Associations), and *which are the data products created from it*? (Inverse Association). Additionally, we need to know *are we using the same source data* (photons) *for any two given data products*? (Photon Accountancy), as the use of the same photons in different data products which are later combined can produce unreliable science. Finally, we need to be able to *track parameters related to the models for emission, absorption and detection* used by the reduction software, as these encode implicit knowledge that needs to be made explicit in order to allow the reproduction of measurements and processes by other scientists.

# Data Provenance Systems' Requirements: High-Level Use Cases

The use cases for a Data Provenance system within the ESO archive (see Fig. ) have been classified in three kinds of services:

Data Discovery services

:   which query on the Provenance records to find scientific data fulfilling different criteria. These data discovery encompasses the Provenance of observing projects at all stages: Organization (observing proposals, PIs and COIs), Technical (instrument setup), Ambient, and Publications. In addition, Exposure Time Calculators (ETCs) must rely on the historical information of telescope elements, such as filters or detectors, whose properties (or actual elements) can change with time.

Dataset Documentation services

:   which allow scientists to retrieve the full record of observation origin and further processing. They are the inverse of the services above, as the dataset is already known, and the inverse association must be constructed. ETCs can be used in this family of use cases to assess data quality for a particular dataset.

Observation Preparation services

:   where both observations and projects with given data acquisition characteristics are retrieved.

# Implementing Data Provenance at ESO

## Challenges

Following the taxonomy of Data Provenance systems by Simmhan, Plale, & Gannon (2005), the main elements to be specified for Data Provenance systems are Storage, Granularity, Representation, and Dissemination.

Storage

:   deals with the actual way in which Data Provenance is made persistent. While Storage implementation is not relevant from an interoperability point of view, it provides the foundation for all Provenance services. Insertion and retrieval speeds must be able to cope with the expected data generation and query rate.

Granularity

:   is the degree of detail for which Provenance metadata is collected. It must be chosen to serve all ESO use cases, and also imposes restrictions on Storage (to be able to cope with the chosen Granularity). We can also include the selection of which particular metadata (from FITS headers to observation logs) are committed to Storage as part of the Granularity. From Fig.  we can see that other metadata, such as Observation logs, and ADP processing logs, must be taken into account, and provide a time dimension to the problem.

Representation

:   the way Provenance is expressed when shared with requesting entities (as opposed to Storage). Hierarchical trees, series of keyword/value pairs, or even plain-text files for informational use cases. However, due to the rich nature of the objects described by Provenance —a detailed description of the light-path in ESO instruments is shown by Delgado (2009)—, a hierarchical structure is preferred. Representation directly affects interoperability, so the generalization of a Provenance representation as an IVOA Data Model would be desirable.

Dissemination

:   the way Provenance metadata is to be available for shared datasets. Decisions in this respect include creating Provenance services to satisfy the use cases outlined in Section

The challenges, then, lie in successfully managing the huge datasets involved, do so maintaining system responsiveness, and standardize the way to retrieve and disseminate Provenance metadata.

## Jump-Starts

In order to find the best solution for some of the issues outlined above, we can count on several already started initiatives.

There are active discussions on the Provenance of astrophysical datasets within the IVOA Working Group for Data Modelling (DM WG). A Representation, in the form of a complete IVOA Observation data model, has already been proposed by Santander-Vela (2009), and is currently under study.

In addition, ESO maintains a complete FITS keyword/metadata database (Vuong et al. 2008), which will be one of the basis for establishing Storage and Granularity of the future ESO Provenance services. Currently, that facility stores more than five thousand million keyword-value pairs, for more than ten million raw file entries, and already includes metadata versioning support (a requirement for Provenance audit trails and historical dataset documentation), while at the same time providing excellent query speed. There is also an ongoing project for using that same database to ingest keywords for highly processed datasets.

# Conclusions

By identifying the elements needed for a successful data Provenance management system, and the selection of already in place systems, the ESO archive will be able to provide even more advanced scientific-oriented data products and services, while at the same time benefiting from existing IVOA standards for the Virtual Observatory, and helping in their development, leading by example.

JDSV is grateful to the support on his Ph.D. thesis by Spanish MICINN grants AYA2005-07516-C02-00 and AYA 2008-06181-C02-02; to the ESO Archive Department for support to this conference; and to Paul Eglitis for valuable comments. AD work is part of the Spanish in-kind contribution to ESO, and was supported by MICINN grant CAC-2006-47.


# Introduction

Nanometer-size particles, or clusters, have received much attention recently. From a fundamental point of view, it is of interest to understand how the properties of nanoparticles are affected by their size, and in particular how the behaviour of the bulk material is approached. The field has received considerable impetus from speculations about possible technological applications of nanoparticles in optoelectronic devices. Computer simulation methods, and in particular molecular dynamics (MD), have become a favourite tool for investigating theoretically the physics of nanoparticles. Indeed, with present-day computers, detailed simulations of clusters containing several thousands of atoms are easily feasible using empirical potential models. More accurate simulations using *ab-initio* interactions are possible for particles containing up to a few tens atoms and have indeed been used to study small semiconductor clusters.

In this paper, we use MD simulations to address two issues. First, we investigate the influence of size on the melting and freezing of gold nanoparticles. Second, we examine the coalescence of two gold nanoparticles, both of identical size and not. We focus here on gold because it has been the object of several experimental studies, and also because semi-empirical, many-body potentials are available for this material. The first question has already been addressed by several authors using a variety of approaches, experimental and theoretical. We take it here as a preliminary step towards the second stage of our study, namely coalescence. Understanding coalescence is of primary importance for understanding the structure of cluster-assembled materials. These materials can be grown by the low-energy deposition of preformed clusters containing hundreds or thousands of atoms on a surface. The structure of the resulting films depends critically on the diffusion properties of the deposited clusters, as well as on their sintering properties. On the basis of thermodynamics, it is evident that clusters deposited on a surface will tend to coalesce and form larger drops. The kinetics of this process, which is determinant for understanding the actual structure of the film, is however not known in detail.

Concerning melting, we find the clusters to exhibit premelting prior to the transition. The melting temperature vs size curve is found to agree reasonably well with predictions of phenomenological models based on macroscopic concepts, despite the fact that the clusters exhibit a rather complex structure — polymorphism and structural transitions. Upon quenching, we observe a large hysterisis of the transition temperature. In contrast, we find macroscopic sintering theories to be totally unable to describe the coalescing behaviour of two small clusters. We attribute this failure to the fact that the nanocrystals are facetted, while the sintering theories assume macroscopically smooth crystallites. We predict the time for coalescence to be much longer than expected from the macroscopic theories. This will have important consequences for the morphology of cluster-assembled materials. We consider here the coalescence of unsupported clusters, i.e., in vacuum rather than on a substrate. Evidently, an important role of the substrate in the actual coalescence of supported clusters is to ensure thermalisation. In the constant-temperature MD simulations reported below, thermalisation is taken care of by coupling the system to a "thermostat". We therefore expect the coalescence events studied here to be relevant to supported clusters in the case where they are loosely bound to the substrate, e.g., gold clusters on a graphite substrate.

The paper is organized as follows. The computational details are described in Sec. . The melting/freezing transition is described and analyzed in Sec. . Coalescence of two unsupported clusters is decribed in Sec. , and Sec.  summarizes our main conclusions.

# Computational details

## MD simulations

In order to be able to simulate clusters containing more than several hundred particles, as noted above, it is necessary to resort to an empirical description of the interatomic forces. Here we chose to employ the embedded-atom method (EAM), an $n$-body potential with proven ability to model reliably various static and dynamic properties of transition and noble metals, in either bulk or surface configurations. The model is "semi-empirical" in the sense that it approaches the total-energy problem from a local electron density viewpoint but using a functional form with parameters obtained from experiment (equilibrium lattice constant, sublimation energy, bulk modulus, elastic constants, etc.).

In the case of gold, EAM gives an excellent description of jump diffusion on the (100) surface (the activation energy is predicted to be 0.64eV compared to 0.62 eV from first principles), but does not do as well on the (111) surface, where the barrier is very low (0.02 vs 0.20 eV). The melting temperature for bulk Au is predicted by EAM to be 1090 K. This does not agree well with the experimental value of 1338 K. Thus, while we expect the model to give a qualitatively correct description of the nanoclusters, we also expect significant differences to show up in the numerical values of the calculated properties. One interesting advantage of EAM (and similar models) vs more generic models such as Lennard-Jones, however, is that the $n$-body formalism gives a much better description of cohesion in non-equilibrium situations, as is the case on a surface at finite temperature. Thus, for instance, while desorption of atoms on a Lennard-Jones surface is unphysically large, it occurs very rarely on a EAM surface. Hence, in spite of the quantitative limitations of EAM, we expect the model to provide a qualitatively correct description of the system.

The MD calculations were performed using a parallel version of program ` groF`, a general-purpose MD code for bulk and surfaces developed by one of the authors (LJL), optimized to run on the Convex of the PSMN/ÉNS. The program employs a predictor-corrector algorithm to integrate the equations of motion, and provides the option to do extended-system simulations (constant temperature and/or constant pressure). In all the simulations reported here, we used a timestep of 2.5 fs; this is a fairly small value, which we judged necessary in order to ensure proper stability of the trajectories during the very long runs needed to study coalescence (up to 10 ns, i.e., 4 million steps).

## Cluster preparation

The clusters used to initiate the melt-and-freeze runs were prepared as follows: Starting with a large block of face-centered cubic Au, "spherical" clusters were carved out such that the center-of-mass coincides exactly with an atom. Of course, the clusters cannot be perfectly spherical and will, even in their ground state, exhibit facets. A 1055-atom cluster is shown in Fig. . (In order to better follow diffusion processes, the two halves of the cluster are colored differently.) We did not consider using other cluster geometries, such as icosahedral, octahedral, or Wulff polyhedral.

Clusters of eight different sizes were considered, from 135 to 3997 atoms, as indicated in Table , thus spanning a fairly wide range of melting temperatures (see Section ). It should be noted that small clusters can undergo several structural transitions as a function of temperature (below melting), and therefore constitute an object of study in their own right. We actually observed many such transitions in our smaller clusters, but this is beyond the scope of the present study.

After equilibration at low temperature, the clusters were subjected to a melt-and-quench cycle in order to identify the melting temperature and to force the clusters into their ground state. (For the reasons mentioned above only the larger clusters — 767 atoms and beyond — were re-solidified after melting). Upon approaching the transition from either side, the temperature was changed in steps of 25 to 100 K. At each temperature, the system was first fully equilibrated before running to accumulate statistics. Typically, runs ranged from 100 to 250 ps, depending on the "distance" from the transition, which could be anticipated from the behaviour of the potential energy. The melt-and-freeze simulations were carried out in the microcanonical ensemble.

# Melting and freezing

## Total energies

There are several ways of proceeding for identifying the melting and freezing transitions. The simplest is perhaps to examine the variations of potential energy with temperature. This is done in Fig. (a) for the 1055-atom cluster. The "as-made" fcc cluster was first equilibrated at 300 K, then heated up slowly until it melted. The melting transition is clearly identifiable by the large upward jump in energy at a temperature of about 835 K; on either side of the transition, the energy varies smoothly, almost linearly with temperature. Very near the transition, the system becomes unstable and the data points are characteristic of a transient state. Upon cooling from the highest temperature, the system undergoes a sharp liquid-solid transition in spite of a rather strong hysterisis. Clearly, the new solid phase, as far as energy is concerned, is equivalent to the initial one, though, as we will see below, there are some structural differences.

It is much easier for a cluster to go from an ordered state to a disordered state than the opposite, i.e., in the present context, to melt than to freeze during the finite time covered during the simulations. This explains, in part, the hysteresis we observe in the melt-and-quench cycle, and also indicates that the melting temperature is probably much closer to the thermodynamic transition point than the freezing temperature. However, hysteresis in the melting/freezing transition is expected theoretically, and has also been reported experimentally in the case of lead.

In Fig. (b) we show the potential energy for the 767-atom cluster. This system exhibits interesting behaviour. First, upon heating (solid line), we see that the cluster undergoes a solid-solid transition (of the type mentioned above) to a lower-energy phase (which we have not analyzed in detail), at a temperature of about 710 K, then melts at about 775 K. Upon cooling, freezing takes place at about 680 K, but now to a state that lies somewhat lower in energy than the initial phase — likely the same as that which appeared just below melting as can be inferred from their comparable energies.

The structure of the low-temperature, re-solidified clusters is discussed in more detail below; they differ from the initial, low-temperature, fcc clusters in that large facets are now present. Because of finite-time limitations in the MD simulations, the transition to the ground-state structure is however incomplete: while facets develop, the melt-and-quenched clusters are "packed" with defects so that, in effect, their energies lie above those of the corresponding fcc clusters for large enough sizes (1505 and beyond).

## Dynamics and density distributions

Melting and freezing of the clusters can also be quantified in terms of diffusion, as is often done for the corresponding bulk transitions. It is evidently most appropriate, in the case of a cluster, to examine diffusion as a function of distance from the surface. Thus, we may define radial bins about the center of mass and calculate, for an average atom within each bin, the mean-square displacement.

In order to define those bins in a physically-meaningful manner, we introduce the density distribution function $N(r)$, where $N(r)dr$ is the number of atoms within a shell of thickness $dr$ at $r$ from the atom at the center of mass of the cluster. We show this quantity at 5 different temperatures for the 1055-atom cluster in Fig. : 297, 703, 809, 835, upon heating, and 701 upon cooling, averaged over thousands of independent configurations. The results of runs 703 (heating) and 701 (cooling) are superimposed on the same graph so as to display the similarities and differences between the two structures.

From Fig.  we see that $N(r)$ for the solid phases of the cluster displays a structure typical of a crystal at finite temperature, i.e., an elaborate series of well-defined peaks broadened by thermal agitation. This is of course particularly true of the inner shells, where the structure is more bulk-like. The outer shells, in contrast, feel strongly the influence of the surface, even more so that the temperature is high. This is in fact very reminiscent of corresponding situation in the case of infinite surfaces.

Upon melting, just like a bulk crystal does, $N(r)$ exhibits a behaviour similar to that of an ordinary, bulk liquid, i.e., a series of peaks that merges into a featureless continuum at large distances (835 K in Fig. ). In particular, small peaks merge and the minimum between the first- and second-neighbour peak is filled up, indicating that diffusion is actively taking place.

It is easy to see from Fig.  at 835 K that the liquid cluster consists of concentric shells of atoms of thickness roughly equal to the hard-sphere diameter, i.e., about 2.2–2.4 Å here: the atoms are "rolling" on top of one another in such a way that the inherent packing arrangement dictated by the central atom is preserved. It is therefore natural to examine diffusion as a function of the radial position of the shell. This is done in Fig. , where we plot the mean-square displacements $r^2(t)$ versus time for the same four temperatures as in Fig. . Of course, inter-shell diffusion is also taking place, so in fact an atom will sample a region of radial space that extends beyond its own bin. Here, for a given bin, we average over all atoms that belonged to that bin at $t=0$. In the high-$T$ limit, for long enough averaging time, all particles will sample evenly the whole cluster.

The mean-square displacements at very low temperatures exhibit a behaviour which is typical of a cold crystal with a surface: All shells possess a vanishing diffusion constant (as far as we can tell on the timescale covered by the simulations, viz. $\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}100 ps) and the amplitude of the oscillations of the atoms about their equilibrium positions increases upon going from the core to the surface, here by a factor of roughly two.

At 703 K, now, we see that surface diffusion is taking place (this was already visible at somewhat lower temperatures not shown in Fig. ), but affects only the outer shell. In fact, the corresponding distribution function reveals that the outer shell peak has lost most of its crystalline character and possesses a rather well-defined liquid-like structure. At 809 K, $N(r)$ is even more liquid-like at the surface, and in fact the two outer shells now possess non-zero diffusion constants. The core of the cluster however remains crystalline. This behaviour, of course, is related to surface "premelting", as observed in the case of large crystals— see, e.g., Refs.  and . At the next temperature shown, finally, 835 K, i.e., right above the melting transition, the system is completely liquid, as can be inferred from the shape of $N(r)$ but also from the non-zero, large, and almost identical, diffusion constants for all shells.

## Atomic structure

An interesting characteristic of the hot-solid phase of the cluster is that even though the *surface* is definitely liquid — cf. Fig.  at 809 K — it exhibits very well-defined facets, i.e., the cluster is *not* spherical. This can be seen clearly in Fig. (a) for the 1055-atom cluster at 809 K — about 25 K below melting — and even more so in Fig. (b) at the same temperature, but after melting and freezing. Such facets reflect the surface anisotropy induced by the core of the cluster, which remains solid at this temperature.

Even more striking, however, is the fact that *even in the molten state*, the instantaneous shape of the cluster deviates markedly from spherical. We see an example of this in Fig. , again for the 1055-atom cluster, at a temperature of about 800 K, i.e., 90 degrees *above* freezing. The surface of the cluster exhibits flattened regions, which evidently are reminiscent of the facets that form on the surface of solid, crystalline clusters. It is not clear whether this anisotropic shape reflects some transient crystalline order in the vicinity of the surface, i.e., some precursor fluctuations of the nearby transition, or wether it is related to the deformation modes (breathing) of the liquid cluster, or a combination of both. We have attempted to assess the existence of facets in a more quantitative manner, but the quality of statistics, coupled to significant thermal agitation at such high temperatures, is such that it is difficult to draw unambiguous conclusions.

In any case, the fact that both the hot solid and the liquid (at least close to the transition temperature) display anisotropic cluster shapes is an important result. It will have important consequences for the coalescence of clusters. Indeed, diffusion on a facet is very different from diffusion in a (quasi)-spherical liquid overlayer. Far away from the edges of the facet, barriers for diffusion are very similar to those found in a flat, infinite, liquid overlayer, i.e., atoms do not "feel" the curvature of the cluster. At the edges between two facets, further, the barriers can also be very different and oppose diffusion. Thus, quite generally, diffusion on a facetted cluster is expected to be significantly slower than on a spherical cluster.

Upon cooling, as discussed earlier, a freezing transition takes place. In Fig.  we compare the distribution $N(r)$ for the initial cluster at 703 K with that of the re-solidified cluster at (approximately) the same temperature. It is clear, from this quantity, that the two clusters have quite similar structures except in their outer shells, because of the presence, in the re-solidified cluster, of extensive facets \[such as those seen in Fig. (b)\].

## Melting curve

The melting curve — i.e., the variation of melting temperature with cluster size (defined as $D=2R=2\sqrt{5/3}R_g$, where $R_g$ is the radius of gyration of the cluster before melting), is displayed in Fig. . We also show, on this graph, the results from a simple thermodynamic theory based solely on the differences in surface energies of clusters of different sizes, assuming the clusters are spherical: $${T(D)-T_{\infty} \over T_{\infty}} = -{4 \over \rho_S L D} \left[ \gamma_S -
   \gamma_L(\rho_S/\rho_L)^{2/3}\right],
   \label{fusionr}$$ where $T(D)$ is the melting temperature for a cluster of diameter $D$, $T_{\infty}$ is the bulk melting temperature (1090 K for the present model), $\rho_S$ the specific mass of the solid phase (19000 kg/m$^3$), $\rho_L$ the specific mass of the liquid phase (17280 kg/m$^3$), $\gamma_S$ the surface energy of the solid phase (0.9 J/m$^2$), $\gamma_L$ the surface energy of the liquid phase (0.74 J/m$^2$), and $L$ the heat of fusion (53800 J/kg). Note that, for consistency, all numerical values refer to the results from EAM simulations with parameters appropriate to gold, rather than to experimental data for the real material. We see that, despite the simplicity of the model, the agreement is reasonable, comparable in fact to that with experimental data; just as is observed in experiment, Eq.  systematically underestimates the deviation of the melting temperature with respect to the bulk.

# Coalescence

As a first step towards understanding the aggregation of clusters diffusing on surfaces, and the subsequent pattern formation, we have studied the coalescence of pairs of free-standing (non-supported) clusters. As discussed in the Introduction, this would correspond to the coalescence of clusters on a surface with which they are only loosely bound (e.g., gold on graphite). Three different cases were considered: coalescence of a liquid cluster with another liquid, of a liquid and a solid, and of two solids. The sintering of two single-crystal Cu nanoparticles was examined in Ref. . It is possible to study the coalescence of clusters in various thermodynamic states because, as we have just seen, the melting temperature depends on cluster size. Thus, at a given temperature, the state of a cluster can be selected simply by selecting its size.

Here, we chose to investigate coalescence at a temperature of 800 K, which is roughly in the middle of the range of melting temperatures for the single clusters reported above (cf. Fig. ) and therefore allows many possible situations to be examined. We note that once coalescence is through (or partly through), the melting temperature of the resulting cluster will be different from that of the original clusters. Thus, for instance, two small liquid clusters will result in a larger cluster which is also a liquid, while two larger liquids would coalesce into a solid. (We have not studied the latter situation).

In order to simulate the process, we use, as starting point configuration, two fully-equilibrated clusters from the runs described in Section , i.e., retain, for each cluster, both the positions and the velocities. The two clusters are placed in contact with one another (along the $z$ axis), i.e., at a distance of approach roughly equal to the nearest-neighbour distance for gold (2.89 Å). We also ensure that the initial angular momentum vanishes. For like clusters, we use configurations from different points in time, and rotate them with respect to one another by an angle which is chosen at random; indeed, it is expected that coalescence will proceed differently if two facets are in contact than if a facet of one cluster is in contact with a vertex of the other.

## Liquid-liquid

We present, first, results for two small liquid clusters — 321 + 321 atoms. From Fig. , we know that the resulting cluster will also be in a liquid state. We show in Fig.  the evolution in time of the radii of gyration of the coalescing clusters, $R_{g\alpha}$ and $R_g$, where $\alpha=x,y,z$, $R_g=\sqrt{R_{gx}^2+R_{gy}^2+R_{gz}^2}$, and $R_{g\alpha}=(1/N)\sum_{i=1}^{N} (\alpha_i^2-\alpha_{cm}^2)$; $\alpha_{cm}$ is the $\alpha$-coordinate of the center of mass of the cluster, and $N$ is the total number of particles. It is clear from this figure that the two small clusters rapidly coalesce into a single, essentially spherical, cluster: all three radii of gyration converge to the overall average on a timescale of about 75 ps. A ball model of the system in its initial configuration and at 75 ps is presented in Fig. . We have colored the two initial clusters differently so as to better visualise the process. It is interesting to note that coalescence into a spherical cluster proceeds by the deformation of the two clusters in such a way as to optimize the contact surface, i.e., *without* interdiffusion of one cluster into — or onto — the other. Thus, the coalescence of two liquid clusters is essentially a collective phenomenon, involving hydrodynamic flow driven by surface tension forces. Of course, on longer timescales, since the cluster is liquid, diffusion takes over and results in the mixing of the two initial clusters.

## Liquid-solid

We now examine the coalescence of a liquid cluster with a solid one taking, as an illustration, the case 767 + 1505. The process in this case is expected to be much slower than 321 + 321 and the dynamics, therefore, was followed over a much longer time span of 10 ns. We plot in Fig. (a) the radii of gyration for this system. This reveals that coalescence proceeds in two stages: First, maximizing the contact surface (against overall volume), an extremely rapid approach of the two clusters is observed, taking place on a timescale of about 100 ps. This, in fact, corresponds quite closely to the time for coalescence of two liquid clusters, as we have seen above. The cluster, at this point, is far from spherical but is nevertheless smooth, possessing a facetted ovoidal shape. This can be seen in Fig. , where we show the state of the cluster at a time of 1 ns after the beginning of the coalescence. The initial stage of coalescence (sintering) has been studied in some detail in Ref.  for two solid Cu clusters.

This rapid approach is followed by an extremely slow "sphericization" of the system, driven by surface diffusion. This can in fact be inferred from Fig. (a). However, because the system can reorient in space, the radii of gyration, which are defined with respect to a fixed reference frame, do not provide a reliable characterization of the shape of the cluster. In order to circumvent this difficulty, it is best to consider, instead, the three principal moments of inertia; we plot, in Fig. (b), the ratio of the smallest to the largest as a function of time. This is in effect a measure of the "aspect ratio" of the coalescing cluster; it should be noted that, by definition, this quantity is always less than unity. Also, there are necessarily fluctuations in it that are related to the modes of vibration of the cluster. Fig. (b) reveals that, indeed, *modulo* some fluctuations, the cluster exhibits a tendency to adopt a more spherical shape.

The timescale for the slow sphericization process is difficult to estimate from Fig. , but it would appear to be of the order of a few hundred ns or more. In any case, this number is very substantially larger than one would expect on the basis of phenomenological theories of the coalescence of two soft spheres. Indeed, macroscopic theories of sintering via surface diffusion predict a coalescence time $\tau_c = k_BT R^4 /(C D_s \gamma a^4)$, where $D_s$ is the surface diffusion constant, $a$ the atomic size, $\gamma$ the surface energy, $R$ the initial cluster radius, and $C$ a numerical constant ($C=25$ according to Ref. ); taking $D_s \sim 5 \ 10^{-10}m^2s^{-1}$ (see Fig. ), $R=30$ Å, $\gamma \approx 1 J m^{-2}$, and $a=3$ Å, this yields a coalescence time $\tau_c$ of the order of 40 ns.

The same theories, in addition, make definite predictions on the evolution of the shape of the system with time. In particular, in the tangent-sphere model, the evolution of the ratio $x/R$, where $x$ is the radius of the interfacial neck, computed numerically, is found to vary as $x/R \sim (t/\tau_c)^{1/6}$ for values of $x/R$ smaller than the limiting value $2^{1/3}$. In Fig. , we compare the prediction of this simple model (full line) with the results of the present simulations (averaged over several different runs, including solid-solid coalescence — see below). There is evidently no possible agreement between model and simulations. While the model predicts a uniform behaviour over a wide range of timescales, we observe a very rapid growth at short times followed by an extremely slow increase at long times. The rapid changes we see at short times are due to elastic and plastic deformations not taken into account in the numerical model; at long times, on the other hand, the presence of facets slows down the diffusion, while the model assumes the cluster to be perfectly spherical. As already noted above, our results are clearly not compatible with a coalescence time $\tau_c$ of 40 ns; the actual value is evidently much larger, by at least one or two orders of magnitude.

The much longer coalescence time we observe, again, is a consequence of the presence of facets on the initial clusters, which persist (and rearrange) during coalescence. The facets can be seen in the initial and intermediate configurations of the system in Fig. ; the final configuration of Fig.  shows that the cluster is more spherical (at least from this viewpoint), and that new facets are forming. As mentioned earlier, facets seriously limit the rate of diffusion that is necessary to sphericize the cluster. Since a facet is flat, an atom diffusing on it does not "feel" the curvature of the cluster and therefore behaves as if it was on a flat, infinite surface — except when approaching edges. We have not examined this in detail for the case of gold, but in the case of aluminum, the diffusion barriers at edges are found to be often larger than on surfaces; for Al, e.g., diffusion from (100) to other facets is *not* observed until temperatures very close to melting, and is therefore not a favourable process. That diffusion is slow on our clusters can in fact be seen from Fig. : even after 10 ns, at a temperature which is only about 200 degrees below melting for a cluster of this size, only very few atoms have managed to diffuse a significant distance away from the contact region.

We have not analyzed in detail the structure (and its evolution in time) of the cluster. However, it is clear from Fig.  that already at 1 ns, the system is completely solid, i.e., the initially-liquid cluster has solidified upon coalescing with the larger solid cluster. Visual inspection of the configurations indicates that the timescale for solidification is roughly the same as that for the initial approach — about 100 ps.

## Solid-solid

Finally, we have also examined the coalescence of two solid, 1055-atom clusters. We give in Figs. (a) and (b) the evolution in time of the radii of gyration and of the aspect ratio, as defined above, respectively. In Fig.  we show the initial state of the system as well as at times of 1 and 10 ns.

The behaviour of the system in this case is analogous to that found for the liquid-solid case (passed the initial approach). One apparent difference, however, is that coalescence seems to proceed *faster* here than it did for the liquid-solid case; this can be seen upon comparing the aspect ratios, Figs. (b) and (b). Note that since the present system is larger, the diffusion should be relatively slower, since the distance in temperature to the melting point is larger, i.e., sphericization should proceed more *slowly*.

Of course, we cannot draw general conclusions based on these two particular examples, and it is certainly the case that the coalescence of a liquid and a solid proceeds faster, in general, than the coalescence of two solids. (We have observed such cases). The particular behaviour we observe here is likely related to the internal structure of the cluster: Judging from Fig.  we see that the internal structure of the 767-1505-atom cluster is complex and perhaps "grainy", i.e., consisting of grains or domains. Thus, there are high-energy extended defects, or grain boundaries, that prevent crystallization into a single domain from taking place. In contrast, for the 1055-1055-atom system, we seem to have more of a single-domain structure. Thus, the coalescence of two solid clusters is expected to depend strongly on the "initial conditions", i.e., relative orientations, while this should not be the case for the coalescence of a liquid and a solid, though misfits might develop.

# Concluding remarks

In this paper, we have presented a MD-EAM study of some dynamic and thermodynamic properties of unsupported gold nanoparticles. With regards to thermodynamics, we have focused on the melting transition of small (less than 3 nm) clusters. Our results are consistent with those reported by Tosatti et al., and Yu and Duxbury, using a many-body "glue" Hamiltonian. In particular, we observe that melting proceeds from the surface inwards, i.e., there exists a dynamical "premelting" of the outer layers signalling the approach of the melting point. A noteworthy result of our simulations is the evidence for a large (a few hundred Kelvins) melting hysteresis for the clusters, in qualitative agreement with experiments on lead.

As in earlier experimental or numerical work, the analysis of the melting-freezing cycle raises questions on the applicability of macroscopic concepts — such as crystal, liquid, and surface tension — to clusters consisting of more than a hundred atoms or so. We find, in particular, that the deviation of the melting temperature from the bulk value is reasonably well described in terms of such concepts. Clearly, however, the clusters exhibit polymorphism and structural transitions that are not taken into account in this microscopic approach (see Fig. ), but these aspects do not seem to be essential when the number of atoms exceeds a few hundred.

This situation for the melting-freezing transition is in sharp contrast with our findings for cluster coalescence. Here, the macroscopic theories of sintering via surface diffusion completely fail, both qualitatively and quantitatively, to describe the coalescing behaviour of two small clusters. We attribute this failure to the fact that the nanocrystals are facetted, while the sintering theories are formulated for macroscopically smooth crystallites. In order to attain the spherical equilibrium shape that can be expected from thermodynamic considerations, a cluster has to reduce the number of its facets. Such a process, in turn, requires collective rearrangement of the atoms, with correspondingly high energy barriers. To our knowledge, the difficult problem of the approach to equilibrium of a facetted crystal has not, up to now, been investigated theoretically.

The fact that the coalescence process is "slow", or slower than expected, has important consequences for the morphology of cluster-assembled materials. Indeed, the type of morphology — compact or ramified — depends critically on the ratio between the coalescence time and the time it takes for a new cluster to join an existing group. If this ratio is larger than one, ramified objects are expected to form, as observed, for instance, in Ref. . In the opposite case, compact objects will result, and the material will be unable to retain memory of the initial "building blocks" from which it was formed, thus leading to a smooth, uniform structure. It is therefore important to study further coalescence in order to characterize such effects in more detail.

It is a pleasure to thank R. Kofman (Université de Nice) and P. Mélinon (UCBL) for many useful discussions. LJL is thankful to Profs. Serughetti and Barrat for the invitation at the DPM/UCBL where most of the work presented here was carried out, as well as the personnel of the laboratory for their kind hospitality; financial support from the CNRS is also gratefully acknowledged. This work was also supported by the Pôle Scientifique de Modélisation Numérique at ÉNS-Lyon, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the "Fonds pour la formation de chercheurs et l'aide à la recherche" of the Province of Québec.

| $N$  | $R$ (Å) | $T_m$ |
|:-----|:-------:|:-----:|
| 135  |  8.08   |  530  |
| 321  |  10.89  |  700  |
| 531  |  12.92  |  750  |
| 767  |  14.72  |  775  |
| 1055 |  16.37  |  835  |
| 1505 |  18.50  |  865  |
| 2093 |  20.68  |  900  |
| 3997 |  25.62  |  930  |

Melting temperature of the various clusters considered in the present study as a function of their radius just before melting, $R$ (given, in terms of the radius of gyration $R_g$ by $R=\protect\sqrt{5/3}R_g$).