Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Network Centrality
Which nodes are most central?
Definition of central varies by context/purpose.
Local measure:
degree
Relative to rest of network:
closeness, betweenness,
eigenvector (Bonacich power centrality)
How evenly is centrality distributed among nodes?
centralization
Applications:
Friedkin: Interpersonal Influence in Groups
Baker: The Social Organization of Conspiracy
X
Y
indegree
outdegree
betweenness
closeness
Freemans general formula for centralization (can use other metrics, e.g.
gini coefficient or standard deviation):
CD
[
=
i=1
(n ) CD (i)]
*
CD = 0.167
CD = 1.0
CD = 0.167
Y
Y
CB (i) = g jk (i) /g jk
j<k
Example
Example facebook network: nodes are sized by degree,
and colored by betweenness.
betweenness 1?
n They are both on shortest
paths for pairs (A,E), and (B,E),
and so must share credit:
n + = 1
n Can you figure out why B has
betweenness 3.5 while E has
betweenness 0.5?
B
8
9
13
C
Matrix representation!
6
1
12
TO
D
E
11
FROM
D0
A
B
0
-
8
0
13
-
-
6
1
12
C
D
E
-
7
-
9
-
-
0
0
-
-
0
11
-
-
0
0
-
-
7
-
8
0
9
-
-
13
-
1
-
6
12
0
-
-
0
0
-
-
11
0
D1 = (dij1
)
A
B
C
D
E
0
-
-
7
-
8
13
-
1
0
-
6
12
9
0
-
-
15
0
0
8
-
-
11
0
13
6
1
12
D
E
11
D4 = (dij4
)
0
-
-
7
-
8
13
14
1
0
-
6
12
9
0
15
21
15
0
0
8
-
-
11
0
D3 = (dij3
)
A
B
C
D
E
0
13
22
7
18
8
13
14
1
0
6
6
12
9
0
15
21
9
0
0
8
20
11
11
0
0
13
22
7
18
8
12
12
1
0
6
6
12
9
0
15
21
9
0
0
8
20
11
11
0
D5 = (dij5
)
A
B
C
0
-
-
8
0
9
13
14
1
-
6
12
0
15
21
D
E
7
-
9
-
0
-
0
11
8
0
A
B
C
D
E
to store the path, another matrix can track the last intermediate vertex
Floyd-Warshall Pseudocode
Input:
D0 = (d
ij0
)
(the initial edge-cost matrix)
Output: Dn =
(dijn
)
(the final path-cost matrix)
for k = 1 to n
for i = 1 to n
for j = 1 to n
k-1
dij = min{ dijk-1
, dikk-1
+ dkj
}
best, including vertex k
best, ignoring vertex k
#
&
Cc (i) = % d(i, j)(
%$ j=1
('
N
C
1
$N
'
& d(A, j) )
1
1
$
'
$
'
1+ 2 + 3 + 4
10
j=1
'
&
)
Cc (A) =
=&
= & ) = 0.4
)
& N 1 )
%
(
%4(
4
&
)
%
(
connections)
denoted by size
n closeness (length
of shortest path to
all others) denoted
by color
Low
Closeness
Low
Betweenness
High Degree
High Closeness
High
Betweenness
High Closeness
High
Betweenness
Low
Closeness
Low
Betweenness
Embedded in cluster
that is far from the
rest of the network
Ego's connections
are redundant communication
bypasses him/her
Probably multiple
paths in the
network, ego is near
many people, but so
are many others
CB (i) = g jk (i) /g jk
j,k
all paths between j and k
Directed Geodesics
n A node does not necessarily lie on a geodesic from j to k
n degree centrality
n indegree centrality
n a paper that is cited by many others has high prestige
n a person nominated by many others for a reward has high prestige
Influence Range
n The influence range of i is the set of vertices who are
Wrap Up
Centrality
nmany measures: degree, betweenness,
closeness, ...
nmay be unevenly distributed
nmeasure via centralization
nPageRank
Additional Material
(Not covered in class)
C ( , ) = ( I R) R1
is a scaling vector, which is set to normalize the score.
reflects the extent to which you weight the centrality of
people ego is tied to.
R is the adjacency matrix (can be valued)
I is the identity matrix (1s down the diagonal)
1 is a matrix of all ones.
=.25
=-.25
Why does the middle node have lower centrality than its
neighbors when is negative?
n degree centrality
n indegree centrality
n a paper that is cited by many others has high prestige
n a person nominated by many others for a reward has high prestige
Influence Range
n The influence range of i is the set of vertices who are
Prestige in Pajek
n Calculating the indegree prestige
n Net>Partition>Degree>Input
n to view, select File>Partition>Edit
n if you need to reverse the direction of each tie first (e.g. lends
indirect ones
n Nominations from second degree neighbors should
count more than third degree ones
n So consider proximity prestige
Cp(ni) =
9999998
7
6
14
9999998
13
9999998
9999998
9999998
3
13
9999998
8
5
9999998
9999998
3
9999998
9999998
9999998
9999998
9999998
4
18
7
9999998
9999998
9999998
7
9999998
9999998
9999998
14
9999998
18
9999998
9999998
14
18
9999998
9999998
18
9999998
9999998
9999998
9999998
Structural Similarity
Two people may not be directly connected, but
occupy a similar position in the structure. As such,
they have similar interests in outcomes that relate to
positions in the structure.
Similarity must be conditioned on visibility. P must
know that O is in the same position, which means that
the effect of similarity might be conditional on
communication frequency.
+
+
+
The Social Organization of Conspiracy: Illegal Networks in the Heavy Electrical Equipment Industry, Wayne E. Baker,
Robert R. Faulkner. American Sociological Review, Vol. 58, No. 6 (Dec., 1993), pp. 837-860. Published by: American
Sociological Association, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095954.
The Social Organization of Conspiracy: Illegal Networks in the Heavy Electrical Equipment Industry, Wayne E. Baker,
Robert R. Faulkner. American Sociological Review, Vol. 58, No. 6 (Dec., 1993), pp. 837-860. Published by: American
Sociological Association, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095954.
Wrap Up
n Centrality
n many measures: degree, betweenness, closeness, Bonacich
n may be unevenly distributed
n measure via centralization
n extensions to directed networks:
n prestige
n input domain
n PageRank (down the road)
n consequences:
n interpersonal influence (Friedkin)
n benefits & risks (Baker & Faulkner)