Centrality and network flow

Centrality measures, or at least popular interpretations of these measures, make implicit assumptions about the manner in which traffic flows through a network. For example, some measures count only geodesic paths, apparently assuming that whatever flows through the network only moves along the shortest possible paths. This paper lays out a typology of network flows based on two dimensions of variation, namely the kinds of trajectories that traffic may follow (geodesics, paths, trails, or walks) and the method of spread (broadcast, serial replication, or transfer). Measures of centrality are then matched to the kinds of flows that they are appropriate for. Simulations are used to examine the relationship between type of flow and the differential importance of nodes with respect to key measurements such as speed of reception of traffic and frequency of receiving traffic. It is shown that the off-the-shelf formulas for centrality measures are fully applicable only for the specific flow processes they are designed for, and that when they are applied to other flow processes they get the “wrong” answer. It is noted that the most commonly used centrality measures are not appropriate for most of the flows we are routinely interested in. A key claim made in this paper is that centrality measures can be regarded as generating expected values for certain kinds of node outcomes (such as speed and frequency of reception) given implicit models of how traffic flows, and that this provides a new and useful way of thinking about centrality. © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

[1]  M Taylor,et al.  Influence structures. , 1969, Sociometry.

[2]  S. C. Johnson.  Hierarchical clustering schemes , 1967, Psychometrika.

[3]  Edward O. Laumann,et al.  NEW DIRECTIONS IN THE STUDY OF COMMUNITY ELITES , 1977 .

[4]  P. Bonacich.  Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[5]  M. Zelen,et al.  Rethinking centrality: Methods and examples☆ , 1989 .

[6]  Frank Harary,et al.  Graph Theory , 2016 .

[7]  Noah E. Friedkin,et al.  Theoretical Foundations for Centrality Measures , 1991, American Journal of Sociology.

[8]  D. R. Fulkerson,et al.  Maximal Flow Through a Network , 1956 .

[9]  Patrick Doreian,et al.  Measuring Relative Standing in Small Groups and Bounded Social Networks , 1986 .

[10]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[11]  D. Sade,et al.  Sociometrics of Macaca mulatta. I. Linkages and cliques in grooming matrices. , 1972, Folia primatologica; international journal of primatology.

[12]  Michael Schwartz,et al.  The Structure of Intercorporate Unity in American Business , 1981 .

[13]  Alex Bavelas.  A Mathematical Model for Group Structures , 1948 .

[14]  J. Coleman,et al.  Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study. , 1967 .

[15]  Mark E. J. Newman.  A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks , 2005, Soc. Networks.

[16]  Phillip Bonacich,et al.  Simultaneous group and individual centralities , 1991 .

[17]  J. Borus.  : The Dynamics of Bureaucracy: A Study of Interpersonal Relations in two Government Agencies , 1956 .

[18]  Leo Katz,et al.  A new status index derived from sociometric analysis , 1953 .

[19]  Donald Stone Sade.  Sociometrics of Macaca Mulatta III: n-path centrality in grooming networks , 1989 .

[20]  Linton C. Freeman,et al.  The gatekeeper, pair-dependency and structural centrality , 1980 .

[21]  Heiko Rieger,et al.  Random walks on complex networks. , 2004, Physical review letters.

[22]  John F. Padgett,et al.  Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400-1434 , 1993, American Journal of Sociology.

[23]  Gert Sabidussi,et al.  The centrality index of a graph , 1966 .

[24]  K. Menger.  Zur allgemeinen Kurventheorie , 1927 .

[25]  S. Borgatti.  Centrality and AIDS , 1995 .

[26]  Alex Bavelas,et al.  Communication Patterns in Task‐Oriented Groups , 1950 .

[27]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[28]  Charles H. Hubbell.  An Input-Output Approach to Clique Identification , 1965 .

[29]  J. Galaskiewicz.  Exchange Networks and Community Politics , 1979 .

[30]  L. Freeman.  Spheres, cubes and boxes: Graph dimensionality and network structure , 1983 .

[31]  M. Mizruchi,et al.  The American Corporate Network 1904-1974 , 1982 .

[32]  P. Bonacich.  Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification , 1972 .

[33]  Roger V. Gould,et al.  Structures of Mediation: A Formal Approach to Brokerage in Transaction Networks , 1989 .

[34]  C. Norman Alexander join.  A Method for Processing Sociometric Data , 1963 .

[35]  David Willer,et al.  Power Relations in Exchange Networks , 1988 .

[36]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age , 2003 .

[37]  M. Mizruchi,et al.  Techniques for Disaggregating Centrality Scores in Social Networks , 1986 .

[38]  L. Freeman,et al.  Centrality in valued graphs: A measure of betweenness based on network flow , 1991 .

[39]  Michael Schwartz,et al.  Interlocking Directorates and Interest Group Formation , 1981 .

[40]  Michael Schwartz,et al.  The Power Structure of American Business. , 1986 .

[41]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers , 1974 .

[42]  H. Leavitt.  Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. , 1951, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[43]  P. Blau,et al.  The Dynamics of Bureaucracy: A Study of Interpersonal Relations in Two Government Agencies. , 1956 .

[44]  Forrest R. Pitts,et al.  The medieval river trade network of Russia revisited , 1978 .

[45]  R. Burt.  Toward a structural theory of action , 1982 .