Adjustable reach in a network centrality based on current flows
May 29, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Physical Review E
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Aleks J. Gurfinkel, Per Arne Rikvold
arXiv ID
2005.14356
Category
physics.soc-ph
Cross-listed
cs.SI
Citations
1
Venue
Physical Review E
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Centrality, which quantifies the "importance" of individual nodes, is among the most essential concepts in modern network theory. Most prominent centrality measures can be expressed as an aggregation of influence flows between pairs of nodes. As there are many ways in which influence can be defined, many different centrality measures are in use. Parametrized centralities allow further flexibility and utility by tuning the centrality calculation to the regime most appropriate for a given network. Here, we identify two categories of centrality parameters. Reach parameters control the attenuation of influence flows between distant nodes. Grasp parameters control the centrality's potential to send influence flows along multiple, often nongeodesic paths. Combining these categories with Borgatti's centrality types [S. P. Borgatti, Social Networks 27, 55-71 (2005)], we arrive at a novel classification system for parametrized centralities. Using this classification, we identify the notable absence of any centrality measures that are radial, reach parametrized, and based on acyclic, conservative flows of influence. We therefore introduce the ground-current centrality, which is a measure of precisely this type. Because of its unique position in the taxonomy, the ground-current centrality has significant advantages over similar centralities. We demonstrate that, compared to other conserved-flow centralities, it has a simpler mathematical description. Compared to other reach centralities, it robustly preserves an intuitive rank ordering across a wide range of network architectures. We also show that it produces a consistent distribution of centrality values among the nodes, neither trivially equally spread (delocalization), nor overly focused on a few nodes (localization). Other reach centralities exhibit both of these behaviors on regular networks and hub networks, respectively.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β physics.soc-ph
π
π
The Cartographer
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Networks beyond pairwise interactions: structure and dynamics
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Statistical physics of human cooperation
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Vital nodes identification in complex networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Influence maximization in complex networks through optimal percolation
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Scale-free networks are rare
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted