 over different sampling techniques. We compare the number of groups and the parameter $\left<\tau\right>$ for the original networks and their samples (Fig. \[fig:stauo\]). The results prove that the original networks contain a significantly larger number of groups with significantly smaller $\left<\tau\right>$ than the sampled networks. Yet, larger parameter $\tau$ and consequently more community-like groups in sampled social networks and less module-like groups in sampled information networks indicate clear changes in the network structure introduced by sampling. We conclude that these changes occur regardless of the network type or the adopted sampling technique.

\

\

Notice that the largest $\tau$ and thus the strongest characterization by community-like groups is revealed in the sampled networks obtained with both random selection techniques, RND and RLI. In RND nodes with higher degrees are more likely to be selected to the sample by definition, while RLI is biased in a similar way [@ANK11]. Thus, densely connected groups of nodes have a higher chance of being included in the sampled network, while sparse parts of the networks remain unsampled. On the other hand, BFS and EXS sample the broad neighborhood of a randomly selected seed node and thus the sampled network represents a connected component. In the case of BFS, all nodes and links of some particular part of the original network are sampled. The latter is believed to be representative of the entire network [@KMT10], yet BFS is biased towards sampling nodes with higher degree [@NW01] and overestimates the clustering coefficient, especially in information networks [@LKJ06]. On the other hand, EXS ensures the smallest partition distance among several other sampling techniques, which means that nodes grouped together in communities of sampled network are also in the same community in the original network [@MBT10]. Therefore, the stronger characterization by community-like groups in sampled networks can also be explained by the definition and behavior of the sampling techniques.

\

\[subsec:large\]Group structure of a large network
--------------------------------------------------

Due to the relatively high time complexity of the node group extraction framework, we consider only networks with a few thousand nodes. However, our previous study [@BSB14] proved that the size of the original network does not affect the accuracy of the sampling. Still, for a complete analysis, we also inspect the changes in node group structure introduced by sampling of a large *NotreDame* network with more than a million
over different sampling techniques. We compare the number of group and the argument $ \left<\tau\right>$ for the original networks and their samples (Fig.   \[fig: stauo\ ]). The result test that the original networks contain a importantly larger number of groups with importantly belittled $ \left<\tau\right>$ than the sample networks. Yet, big argument $ \tau$ and consequently more community - like group in sampled social networks and less faculty - like groups in sampled data networks indicate clear changes in the network social organization introduced by sample. We conclude that these changes occur regardless of the network character or the adopted sampling technique. 

 \ 

 \ 

 Notice that the largest $ \tau$ and thus the strongest characterization by community - like groups is revealed in the sampled networks obtained with both random selection techniques, RND and RLI. In RND nodes with high degrees are more likely to be choose to the sample distribution by definition, while RLI is biased in a similar way   [ @ANK11 ]. Thus, dumbly connected group of nodes have a high chance of being included in the sampled network, while sparse parts of the networks remain unsampled. On the early hand, BFS and EXS sample the broad neighborhood of a randomly selected seed node and therefore the sampled net constitute a connected component. In the case of BFS, all node and links of some particular part of the original net are sampled. The latter is think to be representative of the entire network   [ @KMT10 ], yet BFS is bias towards sampling lymph node with higher degree   [ @NW01 ] and overestimate the clustering coefficient, especially in data networks   [ @LKJ06 ]. On the other hand, EXS ensures the small partition distance among several other sampling techniques, which means that node grouped together in communities of sampled network are also in the same community in the original network   [ @MBT10 ]. consequently, the stronger characterization by residential district - like groups in sampled network can also be explained by the definition and behavior of the sample techniques. 

 \ 

 \[subsec: large\]Group structure of a large network 
 -------------------------------------------------- 

 Due to the relatively high time complexity of the node group extraction framework, we think merely networks with a few thousand nodes. However, our previous study   [ @BSB14 ] proved that the size of the original network does not involve the accuracy of the sampling. Still, for a complete psychoanalysis, we also visit the changes in node group structure introduced by sample of a large * NotreDame * network with more than a million
 ovfr different sampling teghniques. We compcee the numbed of grojps and the parameter $\left<\tan\rigyt>$ foe the original networkr and thepr samplew (Fij. \[fig:stauo\]). The results prove thzb the iriginal netwotks contain d significantlf uaxger number of groups with significagtly smslper $\left<\tau\rigrt>$ tnwn tgv wampled networks. Yet, larger pzrameteg $\tau$ and consequrntly more community-like ggoupd in sampled sociap networks qnd jwss module-liye groups pu sampled ihformation networks indicate cldar ckanges in tye nehfork structnre innroduced by sampling. Fe conckude that thesc chaiges occur regardless of vhe network type or jhe adopteg aampling techniquw.

\

\

Nitice thad thd lafgeat $\tzu$ and thns the strohgest charaxterization by comminynu-like groups is redewled in the sampled networks obtained wpth goth random selection twchniques, RND and RLI. In RND njdes with higher degrees are more likely to be senectev go uhc rqmole by definition, while RLI is biased in a siijlsr way [@ANK11]. Thus, dcnsely connected gtokpx of nodes havg a higksr chance of being ijcluded in tye sampleq neywork, while sparse parts of the networkf remain unsampled. Ln the othex hand, BFS snd EXS sample the broab neiggborhood of a randommh selected seed vodv ang thus the sampled network represenvs a eonnectea cokponene. In the cwse on BFS, all nodes and linkd mf some pagticular part of the original nxvwork are samkleg. Tve lattex is bclieved to be rqpresentative pf the zntire network [@KMN10], yet BFS is biased eowards samplhjg nodes witi higher qegrwe [@NW01] and ovdfestimates the clusteriuy coefficuent, especially in inwkrmation networjs [@LJJ06]. On the other havd, QXD xnsurqv the smallevt pxrtkyion aistanct anung xeveral other samplitg tschniques, which mesnf that nides grotped together in communities of sampned netwprk are also in the same communitg in the lrininal network [@IBT10]. Bhergfore, the scronger characterization by community-likx groups in sampled nejworks can also be exklalned by the vefinieion and tehavior of the sampoing techniques.

\

\[sunsec:large\]Group structude of d larhe network
--------------------------------------------------

Due to the relatively high time complexity of the node group exrraction framework, we vonsigex ouly netrorkd with a few thouxand nodes. However, our previous study [@BST14] 'roved that the size of the otieinal network does not affect the acchracy of the sampling. Still, for a complrte analysis, we also insiect the xhangss in node group structure imtrodueed by samplibg on a large *NotrdDake* network aith mkre than a million
over different sampling techniques. We compare the groups the parameter for the original \[fig:stauo\]). results prove that original networks contain significantly larger number of groups with smaller $\left<\tau\right>$ than the sampled networks. Yet, larger parameter $\tau$ and consequently more groups in sampled social networks and less module-like groups in sampled information networks clear in network introduced by sampling. We conclude that these changes occur regardless of the network type or the sampling technique. \ \ Notice that the largest and thus the strongest by community-like groups is revealed the networks obtained both selection RND and RLI. RND nodes with higher degrees are more likely to be selected to the sample by definition, while is biased similar way Thus, connected of nodes have chance of being included in the sparse parts of the networks remain unsampled. On other hand, and EXS sample the broad neighborhood a randomly selected seed node and thus the network represents a connected component. In the case of BFS, all nodes and links of part of the original are sampled. The is to representative the entire [@KMT10], yet BFS is biased towards sampling nodes with higher degree and overestimates the clustering coefficient, especially in information networks [@LKJ06]. other EXS ensures the partition distance among several sampling which means that nodes in of also the community in the original [@MBT10]. Therefore, the stronger characterization community-like groups in sampled by the definition and behavior of the sampling \ \[subsec:large\]Group structure of a large network Due to the relatively high time complexity of the node group extraction we consider with a few thousand nodes. However, our previous [@BSB14] proved that the of the original network does not affect the accuracy the Still, for complete analysis, we inspect the changes node group structure sampling of large network a million
 over different sampling techNiques. We coMpare The NumBeR of gRoupS and the parametER $\lefT<\tau\right>$ for the originaL netwOrKS and THeIr samPles (Fig. \[FIg:STAuo\]). thE rEsuLtS PrOve thAt tHe origiNal networkS coNtAin a significANtLy larger nuMbeR of groups witH siGnificAnTly SMalleR $\leFt<\tau\Right>$ tHAn the sAmpled netWoRKs. Yet, lARger parAMEtEr $\taU$ and consequently mORe COmmunity-like grOups in SaMPlED SocIal Networks anD lEss moDUle-like GRoUPS In sAMpled informatIon networks INdiCate clEaR chANges in The neTwORk sTructure intRoduCed by sampLing. We COnclude THat thesE changEs oCcuR regARdLeSs oF tHE neTWoRk tYPe oR the adopTeD sAmpliNg teCHNIQue.

\

\

NOtiCe thAt the Largest $\tau$ and ThuS the STroNgest CharaCterIzAtion By commUnity-LiKe groups is reveaLed iN the samplEd nEtWorKs ObtaiNEd with BotH raNdom selEction tEChnIqUES, rNd and RLI. In RND nodes wItH HIgHer degreEs are mORe LiKEly to be sElEctEd to THE sampLe by DEfInition, wHile RLi Is BiAsed in a SiMilar wAy [@aNK11]. thuS, densELy coNnecteD groups oF nodeS Have a higher chaNCe of being inclUDeD IN tHE samPleD network, whiLe spARse pArts OF tHe nETworkS remaIn UNsAMpled. On the other hand, bFs and EXs sampLe the broad neiGhborhood oF A RAndomly sElecTEd SEed node and thus The saMpled netwoRK represeNts a cOnnected Component. iN The case oF BFs, alL noDes AND lInks of some parTICulaR pArt of thE orIginal nEtwOrk Are SamPlEd. The lattEr is beliEvEd To Be RepResenTAtive of tHe EntIrE neTwork [@kmT10], yet BfS is bIaseD tOwARds SamplinG NoDES witH hIgHer dEgrEe [@nW01] and OverEStiMates thE clusteriNg cOEffiCiEnT, especiAlly in informaTiOn networks [@lKj06]. On The othER Hand, EXS eNsures the smallest partitIOn distaNce Among SeveRal other sAmpLing teChnIQues, whIch meaNs thaT nOdeS GRoupeD TOgEthEr In communitIES of SamplEd NetwOrk are aLso in the same communITy iN the original nEtwOrk [@Mbt10]. thEreFOrE, The StROngER CharacterizatioN by communiTy-LIkE groups in sAMplEd NetworkS can alsO be exPLained bY the definItion and bEhAvioR OF thE sampling tEchniqueS.

\

\[subsec:laRGe\]GroUP sTructUre Of a larGe NetWork
--------------------------------------------------

DUe to thE RelAtiveLy high TiMe compLexitY oF the node Group extraction frameworK, we conSider OnlY networks WitH A feW thousand NodeS. However, ouR prEviOus stUdy [@bsB14] proVed tHAt The SIze of The oRIginal netWOrK doES NoT affect the aCCURacY of thE saMPling. STill, For a complete analySIs, we also inspecT the CHAngEs iN Node GrOup structure inTroDuCED by samplInG of a large *NoTreDame* nEtWOrk wiTh more Than a mIllion
 over different sampling t echniques.  We c omp are  t he n umbe r of groups an d  the  parameter $\left<\tau \righ t> $  for th e ori ginal n e tw o r ksan dthe ir sa mples  (F ig. \[f ig:stauo\] ).Th e results pr o ve  that theori ginal networ kscontai na s i gnifi can tly l argern umberof groups  w i th sig n ificant l y  s mall er $\left<\tau\ri g ht > $ than the sam pled n et w or k s . Y et,  larger pa ra meter $\tau$a nd c o nse q uently more c ommunity-li k e g roupsin  sa m pled s ocial  n e two rks and les s mo dule-like  group s  in sam p led inf ormati onnet work s  i nd ica te cle a rcha n ges  in thene tw ork s truc t u r e  int rod uced  by s ampling. We c onc lude tha t the se ch ange soccur  regar dless  o f the network t ypeor the ad opt ed  sa mp lingt echniq ue. 

\ 

\

No tice th a t t he l a rg est $\tau$ and thu st h estronges t char a ct er i zation b ycom muni t y -like  gro u ps  is reve aled i n  t he  sample dnetwor ks  ob tai ned w i th b oth ra ndom sel ectio n  techniques, R N D and RLI. In RN D no d es w ith  higher deg rees aremore li kel y  to b e sel ec t ed to the sample by de fi nition , whi le RLI is bia sed in a s i m i lar way[@AN K 11 ] . Thus, densel y con nected gro u ps of no des h ave a hi gher chan c e  of bein g i ncl ude d i n th e sampled net w o rk,wh ile spa rse  partsofthe  ne two rk s remainunsample d.  O nth e o therh and, BFS  a ndEX S s ample the br oad n eigh bo rh o odof a ra n do m l y se le ct ed s eed  n ode a nd t h usthe sam pled netw ork repr es en ts a co nnected compo ne nt. In the  c ase  of BF S ,  all nod es and links of some pa r ticular  pa rt of  the  original  ne tworkare sample d. The  latt er  is b eliev e d  t o b erepresenta t i veof th eenti re netw ork [@KMT10], yetB FSis biased tow ard s sa m p li ngn od e s w it h  hi g h er degree [@NW0 1] and ove re s ti mates thec lus te ring co efficie nt, e s peciall y in info rmation n et work s [@L KJ06]. Onthe othe r hand, E X S ens u re s the  sm allest  p art ition  dista n ceamong  sever al  other  samp li ng techn iques, which means that  nodes  grou ped  together  in com munitiesof s ampled net wor k a re al soi n the  sam e  c omm u nityin t h e origina l  n etw o r k[@MBT10]. T h e r efo re, t hes tronge r ch aracterization by community-like  gro u p s i n s a mple dnetworks can a lso  b e explaine dby the defi nition a nd behav ior of  the s ampling t ec h niques .

\ 

\ [subsec:l arg e\ ] Group s tr uc t ure of  a l ar ge net work
- - ---- - - ---------------- ----- - - ----- - --- ----- -- ---

Du e  tothe relati vely high t ime co mple xityof theno de gro upex traction f r amework,we co nsideron ly n etw orks w itha few t hous an d n odes. How e v er ,  o ur pre viou s stu dy  [@B SB14] pro v ed thatthe size of  t heo r iginal ne t w ork does n otaffec t the accura c y of th e  samp ling.Still,  for ac omp le te anal ysi s ,  we alsoinspect t h e c ha nges  in node  g roup  s tru ct ure introducedby sampl ing of a l arge * Not r eDam e * netw or k with morethanam illion
 over_different sampling_techniques. We compare the_number of_groups_and the_parameter_$\left<\tau\right>$ for the_original networks and_their samples (Fig. \[fig:stauo\]). The_results prove that_the_original networks contain a significantly larger number of groups with significantly smaller $\left<\tau\right>$ than_the_sampled networks._Yet,_larger_parameter $\tau$ and consequently more_community-like groups in sampled social_networks and_less module-like groups in sampled information networks indicate_clear_changes in the_network structure introduced by sampling. We conclude that these_changes occur regardless of the network_type or the_adopted_sampling_technique.

\

\

Notice that the largest_$\tau$ and thus the strongest characterization_by community-like groups is revealed in_the sampled networks obtained with both random_selection techniques, RND and RLI. In_RND nodes with higher degrees_are more_likely to be selected to_the sample by_definition, while_RLI is biased_in a similar way [@ANK11]. Thus, densely_connected groups of_nodes have a higher chance of_being_included in the_sampled_network,_while sparse_parts of the_networks_remain unsampled._On_the other hand, BFS and EXS_sample_the broad neighborhood of a randomly selected_seed node and thus_the_sampled network represents a_connected component. In the case_of BFS, all nodes and links_of some_particular part_of the original network are sampled. The latter is believed to_be representative of the entire network [@KMT10],_yet BFS is biased_towards sampling_nodes_with higher degree [@NW01]_and_overestimates the_clustering coefficient, especially in information networks [@LKJ06]. On_the other_hand, EXS ensures the smallest partition_distance among several other_sampling_techniques, which means that nodes grouped_together in communities of sampled network_are also in the same_community_in_the original network [@MBT10]. Therefore, the_stronger characterization by community-like groups in_sampled networks can_also be explained by the definition and_behavior_of the sampling techniques.

\

\[subsec:large\]Group structure of_a_large network
--------------------------------------------------

Due to the relatively high_time_complexity_of the node group extraction_framework, we consider only networks with_a few thousand nodes. However, our previous study [@BSB14] proved_that the size_of the original network does_not_affect_the accuracy of the sampling. Still, for a complete analysis,_we also_inspect the changes_in node group structure introduced by sampling of a large_*NotreDame* network with more than a million