How to Choose the Most Appropriate Centrality Measure? A Decision-Tree Approach

IF 8.7 1区 计算机科学 Q1 AUTOMATION & CONTROL SYSTEMS IEEE Transactions on Systems Man Cybernetics-Systems Pub Date : 2024-12-23 DOI:10.1109/TSMC.2024.3510633
Pavel Chebotarev;Dmitry A. Gubanov
{"title":"How to Choose the Most Appropriate Centrality Measure? A Decision-Tree Approach","authors":"Pavel Chebotarev;Dmitry A. Gubanov","doi":"10.1109/TSMC.2024.3510633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Centrality metrics play a crucial role in network analysis, while the choice of specific measures significantly influences the accuracy of conclusions as each measure represents a unique concept of node importance. Among over 400 proposed indices, selecting the most suitable ones for specific applications remains a challenge. Existing approaches—model-based, data-driven, and axiomatic—have limitations, requiring association with models, training datasets, or restrictive axioms for each specific application. To address this, we introduce the culling method, which relies on the expert concept of centrality behavior on simple graphs. The culling method involves forming a set of candidate measures, generating a list of as small graphs as possible needed to distinguish the measures from each other, constructing a decision-tree survey, and identifying the measure consistent with the expert’s concept. We apply this approach to a diverse set of 40 centralities, including novel kernel-based indices, and combine it with the axiomatic approach. Remarkably, only 13 small 1-trees are sufficient to separate all 40 measures, even for pairs of closely related ones. By adopting simple ordinal axioms like Self-consistency or Bridge axiom, the set of measures can be drastically reduced making the culling survey short. Applying the culling method provides insightful findings on some centrality indices, such as PageRank, Bridging, and dissimilarity-based Eigencentrality measures, among others. The proposed approach offers a cost-effective solution in terms of labor and time, complementing existing methods for measure selection, and providing deeper insights into the underlying mechanisms of centrality measures.","PeriodicalId":48915,"journal":{"name":"IEEE Transactions on Systems Man Cybernetics-Systems","volume":"55 3","pages":"1694-1706"},"PeriodicalIF":8.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE Transactions on Systems Man Cybernetics-Systems","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10812345/","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUTOMATION & CONTROL SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Centrality metrics play a crucial role in network analysis, while the choice of specific measures significantly influences the accuracy of conclusions as each measure represents a unique concept of node importance. Among over 400 proposed indices, selecting the most suitable ones for specific applications remains a challenge. Existing approaches—model-based, data-driven, and axiomatic—have limitations, requiring association with models, training datasets, or restrictive axioms for each specific application. To address this, we introduce the culling method, which relies on the expert concept of centrality behavior on simple graphs. The culling method involves forming a set of candidate measures, generating a list of as small graphs as possible needed to distinguish the measures from each other, constructing a decision-tree survey, and identifying the measure consistent with the expert’s concept. We apply this approach to a diverse set of 40 centralities, including novel kernel-based indices, and combine it with the axiomatic approach. Remarkably, only 13 small 1-trees are sufficient to separate all 40 measures, even for pairs of closely related ones. By adopting simple ordinal axioms like Self-consistency or Bridge axiom, the set of measures can be drastically reduced making the culling survey short. Applying the culling method provides insightful findings on some centrality indices, such as PageRank, Bridging, and dissimilarity-based Eigencentrality measures, among others. The proposed approach offers a cost-effective solution in terms of labor and time, complementing existing methods for measure selection, and providing deeper insights into the underlying mechanisms of centrality measures.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如何选择最合适的中心性度量?决策树方法
中心性指标在网络分析中发挥着至关重要的作用,而具体指标的选择会显著影响结论的准确性,因为每个指标都代表了节点重要性的独特概念。在400多个拟议的指数中,选择最适合特定应用的指数仍然是一个挑战。现有的方法——基于模型的、数据驱动的和公理的——都有局限性,需要与每个特定应用程序的模型、训练数据集或限制性公理相关联。为了解决这个问题,我们引入了一种剔除方法,该方法依赖于简单图上的中心性行为的专家概念。剔除方法包括形成一组候选度量,生成尽可能小的图列表以区分度量,构建决策树调查,并确定与专家概念一致的度量。我们将这种方法应用于40个不同的中心性,包括新的基于核的指数,并将其与公理方法相结合。值得注意的是,只有13棵小的1-tree足以分离所有40个测量,即使是对密切相关的测量。通过采用简单的有序公理,如自洽公理或桥公理,可以大大减少测量集,使筛选调查缩短。应用筛选方法可以在一些中心性指数(如PageRank、Bridging和基于差异性的Eigencentrality度量等)上获得深刻的发现。所提出的方法在劳动力和时间方面提供了一个具有成本效益的解决方案,补充了现有的度量选择方法,并对中心性度量的潜在机制提供了更深入的了解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
IEEE Transactions on Systems Man Cybernetics-Systems
IEEE Transactions on Systems Man Cybernetics-Systems AUTOMATION & CONTROL SYSTEMS-COMPUTER SCIENCE, CYBERNETICS
CiteScore
18.50
自引率
11.50%
发文量
812
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems encompasses the fields of systems engineering, covering issue formulation, analysis, and modeling throughout the systems engineering lifecycle phases. It addresses decision-making, issue interpretation, systems management, processes, and various methods such as optimization, modeling, and simulation in the development and deployment of large systems.
期刊最新文献
Introducing IEEE Collabratec Introducing IEEE Collabratec TechRxiv: Share Your Preprint Research With the World! IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Society Information IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Society Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1