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

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 applic...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics. Systems man, and cybernetics. Systems, 2024-12, p.1-13
Hauptverfasser: Chebotarev, Pavel, Gubanov, Dmitry A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 13
container_issue
container_start_page 1
container_title IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics. Systems
container_volume
creator Chebotarev, Pavel
Gubanov, Dmitry A.
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1109/TSMC.2024.3510633
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>crossref_RIE</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_ieee_primary_10812345</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ieee_id>10812345</ieee_id><sourcerecordid>10_1109_TSMC_2024_3510633</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c148t-2093670fa5bbac78f491ddd89bdad31eb8ff13ced22c7d54a568f97e5e19d1fa3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkMFKAzEYhIMoWGofQPCQF9g1f7KbzZ6krNoKLT24npds8oddqU1JItK3t6VFPM0cZobhI-QeWA7A6sf2fd3knPEiFyUwKcQVmXCQKuNc8Os_D_KWzGL8ZIwBV1IwOSGbpf-hydNm8D4iTQPStY-Jzvf74Pdh1Alpg7sU9HZMB7pGHb8DPtE5fUYzxtHvsjYgnvPaDHfkxultxNlFp-Tj9aVtltlqs3hr5qvMQKFSxlktZMWcLvtem0q5ogZrrap7q60A7JVzIAxazk1ly0KXUrm6whKhtuC0mBI475rgYwzouuPZLx0OHbDuBKU7QelOULoLlGPn4dwZEfFfXgEXRSl-AYbbXmY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>How to Choose the Most Appropriate Centrality Measure? A Decision-Tree Approach</title><source>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL)</source><creator>Chebotarev, Pavel ; Gubanov, Dmitry A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Chebotarev, Pavel ; Gubanov, Dmitry A.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2168-2216</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2168-2232</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1109/TSMC.2024.3510633</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ITSMFE</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>IEEE</publisher><subject>Axiomatic approach ; centrality measure ; Correlation ; decision tree ; Hands ; Indexes ; network ; Principal component analysis ; Stars ; Surveys ; Taxonomy ; Time measurement ; Training ; Weight measurement</subject><ispartof>IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics. Systems, 2024-12, p.1-13</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>dmitry.a.g@gmail.com ; pavel4e@gmail.com</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10812345$$EHTML$$P50$$Gieee$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,792,27901,27902,54733</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10812345$$EView_record_in_IEEE$$FView_record_in_$$GIEEE</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chebotarev, Pavel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gubanov, Dmitry A.</creatorcontrib><title>How to Choose the Most Appropriate Centrality Measure? A Decision-Tree Approach</title><title>IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics. Systems</title><addtitle>TSMC</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Axiomatic approach</subject><subject>centrality measure</subject><subject>Correlation</subject><subject>decision tree</subject><subject>Hands</subject><subject>Indexes</subject><subject>network</subject><subject>Principal component analysis</subject><subject>Stars</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Taxonomy</subject><subject>Time measurement</subject><subject>Training</subject><subject>Weight measurement</subject><issn>2168-2216</issn><issn>2168-2232</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>RIE</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkMFKAzEYhIMoWGofQPCQF9g1f7KbzZ6krNoKLT24npds8oddqU1JItK3t6VFPM0cZobhI-QeWA7A6sf2fd3knPEiFyUwKcQVmXCQKuNc8Os_D_KWzGL8ZIwBV1IwOSGbpf-hydNm8D4iTQPStY-Jzvf74Pdh1Alpg7sU9HZMB7pGHb8DPtE5fUYzxtHvsjYgnvPaDHfkxultxNlFp-Tj9aVtltlqs3hr5qvMQKFSxlktZMWcLvtem0q5ogZrrap7q60A7JVzIAxazk1ly0KXUrm6whKhtuC0mBI475rgYwzouuPZLx0OHbDuBKU7QelOULoLlGPn4dwZEfFfXgEXRSl-AYbbXmY</recordid><startdate>20241223</startdate><enddate>20241223</enddate><creator>Chebotarev, Pavel</creator><creator>Gubanov, Dmitry A.</creator><general>IEEE</general><scope>97E</scope><scope>RIA</scope><scope>RIE</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/dmitry.a.g@gmail.com</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/pavel4e@gmail.com</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20241223</creationdate><title>How to Choose the Most Appropriate Centrality Measure? A Decision-Tree Approach</title><author>Chebotarev, Pavel ; Gubanov, Dmitry A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c148t-2093670fa5bbac78f491ddd89bdad31eb8ff13ced22c7d54a568f97e5e19d1fa3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Axiomatic approach</topic><topic>centrality measure</topic><topic>Correlation</topic><topic>decision tree</topic><topic>Hands</topic><topic>Indexes</topic><topic>network</topic><topic>Principal component analysis</topic><topic>Stars</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Taxonomy</topic><topic>Time measurement</topic><topic>Training</topic><topic>Weight measurement</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chebotarev, Pavel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gubanov, Dmitry A.</creatorcontrib><collection>IEEE All-Society Periodicals Package (ASPP) 2005-present</collection><collection>IEEE All-Society Periodicals Package (ASPP) 1998-Present</collection><collection>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL)</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics. Systems</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chebotarev, Pavel</au><au>Gubanov, Dmitry A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How to Choose the Most Appropriate Centrality Measure? A Decision-Tree Approach</atitle><jtitle>IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics. Systems</jtitle><stitle>TSMC</stitle><date>2024-12-23</date><risdate>2024</risdate><spage>1</spage><epage>13</epage><pages>1-13</pages><issn>2168-2216</issn><eissn>2168-2232</eissn><coden>ITSMFE</coden><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.</abstract><pub>IEEE</pub><doi>10.1109/TSMC.2024.3510633</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/dmitry.a.g@gmail.com</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/pavel4e@gmail.com</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 2168-2216
ispartof IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics. Systems, 2024-12, p.1-13
issn 2168-2216
2168-2232
language eng
recordid cdi_ieee_primary_10812345
source IEEE Electronic Library (IEL)
subjects Axiomatic approach
centrality measure
Correlation
decision tree
Hands
Indexes
network
Principal component analysis
Stars
Surveys
Taxonomy
Time measurement
Training
Weight measurement
title How to Choose the Most Appropriate Centrality Measure? A Decision-Tree Approach
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T12%3A38%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref_RIE&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20to%20Choose%20the%20Most%20Appropriate%20Centrality%20Measure?%20A%20Decision-Tree%20Approach&rft.jtitle=IEEE%20transactions%20on%20systems,%20man,%20and%20cybernetics.%20Systems&rft.au=Chebotarev,%20Pavel&rft.date=2024-12-23&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=13&rft.pages=1-13&rft.issn=2168-2216&rft.eissn=2168-2232&rft.coden=ITSMFE&rft_id=info:doi/10.1109/TSMC.2024.3510633&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref_RIE%3E10_1109_TSMC_2024_3510633%3C/crossref_RIE%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ieee_id=10812345&rfr_iscdi=true