Document Open Access Logo

Proxying Betweenness Centrality Rankings in Temporal Networks

Authors Ruben Becker, Pierluigi Crescenzi, Antonio Cruciani, Bojana Kodric

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.SEA.2023.6.pdf
  • Filesize: 1.07 MB
  • 22 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Ruben Becker
  • Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Italy
Pierluigi Crescenzi
  • Gran Sasso Science Institute, L'Aquila, Italy
Antonio Cruciani
  • Gran Sasso Science Institute, L'Aquila, Italy
Bojana Kodric
  • Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Italy

Funding

  • Crescenzi, Pierluigi: Partially supported by the French government through the UCAJEDI, while visiting COATI, INRIA d’Université Côte d'Azur, Sophia Antipolis, France.

Cite As Get BibTex

Ruben Becker, Pierluigi Crescenzi, Antonio Cruciani, and Bojana Kodric. Proxying Betweenness Centrality Rankings in Temporal Networks. In 21st International Symposium on Experimental Algorithms (SEA 2023). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 265, pp. 6:1-6:22, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023) https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.SEA.2023.6

Abstract

Identifying influential nodes in a network is arguably one of the most important tasks in graph mining and network analysis. A large variety of centrality measures, all aiming at correctly quantifying a node’s importance in the network, have been formulated in the literature. One of the most cited ones is the betweenness centrality, formally introduced by Freeman (Sociometry, 1977). On the other hand, researchers have recently been very interested in capturing the dynamic nature of real-world networks by studying temporal graphs, rather than static ones. Clearly, centrality measures, including the betweenness centrality, have also been extended to temporal graphs. Buß et al. (KDD, 2020) gave algorithms to compute various notions of temporal betweenness centrality, including the perhaps most natural one - shortest temporal betweenness. Their algorithm computes centrality values of all nodes in time O(n³ T²), where n is the size of the network and T is the total number of time steps. For real-world networks, which easily contain tens of thousands of nodes, this complexity becomes prohibitive. Thus, it is reasonable to consider proxies for shortest temporal betweenness rankings that are more efficiently computed, and, therefore, allow for measuring the relative importance of nodes in very large temporal graphs. In this paper, we compare several such proxies on a diverse set of real-world networks. These proxies can be divided into global and local proxies. The considered global proxies include the exact algorithm for static betweenness (computed on the underlying graph), prefix foremost temporal betweenness of Buß et al., which is more efficiently computable than shortest temporal betweenness, and the recently introduced approximation approach of Santoro and Sarpe (WWW, 2022). As all of these global proxies are still expensive to compute on very large networks, we also turn to more efficiently computable local proxies. Here, we consider temporal versions of the ego-betweenness in the sense of Everett and Borgatti (Social Networks, 2005), standard degree notions, and a novel temporal degree notion termed the pass-through degree, that we introduce in this paper and which we consider to be one of our main contributions. We show that the pass-through degree, which measures the number of pairs of neighbors of a node that are temporally connected through it, can be computed in nearly linear time for all nodes in the network and we experimentally observe that it is surprisingly competitive as a proxy for shortest temporal betweenness.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Shortest paths
  • Networks → Network algorithms
  • Mathematics of computing → Graph algorithms
Keywords
  • node centrality
  • betweenness
  • temporal graphs
  • graph mining

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

Supplementary Materials

References

  1. Sociopatterns. https://www.sociopatterns.org/, last checked on February 10, 2023.
  2. Amir Abboud, Fabrizio Grandoni, and Virginia Vassilevska Williams. Subcubic equivalences between graph centrality problems, APSP and diameter. In Piotr Indyk, editor, Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, January 4-6, 2015, pages 1681-1697. SIAM, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611973730.112.
  3. Josh Alman and Virginia Vassilevska Williams. A refined laser method and faster matrix multiplication. In Dániel Marx, editor, Proceedings of the 2021 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2021, Virtual Conference, January 10 - 13, 2021, pages 522-539. SIAM, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611976465.32.
  4. Alex Bavelas. Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. The journal of the acoustical society of America, 22(6):725-730, 1950. Google Scholar
  5. Ferenc Béres, Róbert Pálovics, Anna Oláh, and András A Benczúr. Temporal walk based centrality metric for graph streams. Applied network science, 2018. Google Scholar
  6. Paolo Boldi and Sebastiano Vigna. Axioms for centrality. Internet Mathematics, 10(3-4):222-262, 2014. Google Scholar
  7. Michele Borassi, Pierluigi Crescenzi, and Michel Habib. Into the square: On the complexity of some quadratic-time solvable problems. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., 322:51-67, 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2016.03.005.
  8. Michele Borassi and Emanuele Natale. KADABRA is an adaptive algorithm for betweenness via random approximation. ACM J. Exp. Algorithmics, 24(1):1.2:1-1.2:35, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3284359.
  9. Ulrik Brandes. A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. Journal of mathematical sociology, 2001. Google Scholar
  10. Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer networks and ISDN systems, 30(1-7):107-117, 1998. Google Scholar
  11. Laura F. Bringmann, Timon Elmer, Sacha Epskamp, Robert W. Krause, David Schoch, Marieke Wichers, Johanna Wigman, and Evelien Snippe. What do centrality measures measure in psychological networks? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(8):892, 2019. Google Scholar
  12. Sebastian Buß, Hendrik Molter, Rolf Niedermeier, and Maciej Rymar. Algorithmic aspects of temporal betweenness. In Rajesh Gupta, Yan Liu, Jiliang Tang, and B. Aditya Prakash, editors, KDD '20: The 26th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Virtual Event, CA, USA, August 23-27, 2020, pages 2084-2092. ACM, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3394486.3403259.
  13. The SciPy community. Statistical functions. https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/stats.html, last checked on February 10, 2023.
  14. Pierluigi Crescenzi, Clémence Magnien, and Andrea Marino. Approximating the temporal neighbourhood function of large temporal graphs. Algorithms, 12(10), 2019. Google Scholar
  15. Pierluigi Crescenzi, Clémence Magnien, and Andrea Marino. Finding top-k nodes for temporal closeness in large temporal graphs. Algorithms, 13(9), 2020. Google Scholar
  16. Martin G. Everett and Stephen P. Borgatti. Ego network betweenness. Soc. Networks, 27(1):31-38, 2005. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.007.
  17. Robert Faris and Diane Felmlee. Status struggles: Network centrality and gender segregation in same-and cross-gender aggression. American Sociological Review, 76(1):48-73, 2011. Google Scholar
  18. Linton C. Freeman. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1):35-41, March 1977. URL: https://doi.org/10.2307/3033543.
  19. Marwan Ghanem, Florent Coriat, and Lionel Tabourier. Ego-betweenness centrality in link streams. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2017, Sydney, Australia, July 31 - August 03, 2017. ACM, 2017. Google Scholar
  20. R. Goerke. Email network of KIT informatics. https://i11www.iti.kit.edu/en/projects/spp1307/emaildata, 2011. Online; accessed 10 February 2023.
  21. Peter Grindrod, Mark C Parsons, Desmond J Higham, and Ernesto Estrada. Communicability across evolving networks. Physical Review E, 2011. Google Scholar
  22. Shahrzad Haddadan, Cristina Menghini, Matteo Riondato, and Eli Upfal. Repbublik: Reducing polarized bubble radius with link insertions. In WSDM '21, The Fourteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Virtual Event, Israel, March 8-12, 2021. ACM, 2021. Google Scholar
  23. Petter Holme. Modern temporal network theory: a colloquium. The European Physical Journal B, 2015. Google Scholar
  24. Leo Katz. A new status index derived from sociometric analysis. Psychometrika, 18(1):39-43, 1953. Google Scholar
  25. Maurice G Kendall. A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika, 30(1/2):81-93, 1938. Google Scholar
  26. R. Kujala, C. Weckström, R. Darst, M. Madlenocić, and J. Saramäki. A collection of public transport network data sets for 25 cities. Sci. Data, 5:article number: 180089, 2018. Google Scholar
  27. J. Kunegis. The KONECT Project. http://konect.cc, last checked on February 10, 2023.
  28. Matthieu Latapy, Tiphaine Viard, and Clémence Magnien. Stream graphs and link streams for the modeling of interactions over time. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min., 2018. Google Scholar
  29. Jure Leskovec and Andrej Krevl. SNAP Datasets: Stanford large network dataset collection. http://snap.stanford.edu/data, last checked on February 10, 2023.
  30. Carlos Lozares, Pedro López-Roldán, Mireia Bolibar, and Dafne Muntanyola. The structure of global centrality measures. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(2):209-226, 2015. Google Scholar
  31. Leonardo Maccari, Lorenzo Ghiro, Alessio Guerrieri, Alberto Montresor, and Renato Lo Cigno. On the distributed computation of load centrality and its application to DV routing. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, INFOCOM 2018, Honolulu, HI, USA, April 16-19, 2018, pages 2582-2590. IEEE, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOCOM.2018.8486345.
  32. Massimo Marchiori and Vito Latora. Harmony in the small-world. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 285(3-4):539-546, 2000. Google Scholar
  33. Vincenzo Nicosia, John Tang, Cecilia Mascolo, Mirco Musolesi, Giovanni Russo, and Vito Latora. Graph metrics for temporal networks. In Temporal networks. Springer, 2013. Google Scholar
  34. Lutz Oettershagen and Petra Mutzel. Efficient top-k temporal closeness calculation in temporal networks. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). IEEE, 2020. Google Scholar
  35. Lutz Oettershagen, Petra Mutzel, and Nils M. Kriege. Temporal walk centrality: Ranking nodes in evolving networks. In WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022, Virtual Event, Lyon, France, April 25 - 29, 2022. ACM, 2022. Google Scholar
  36. Ryan A. Rossi and Nesreen K. Ahmed. Network repository. https://networkrepository.com, last checked on February 10, 2023.
  37. Polina Rozenshtein and Aristides Gionis. Temporal pagerank. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Springer, 2016. Google Scholar
  38. Maciej Rymar, Hendrik Molter, André Nichterlein, and Rolf Niedermeier. Towards classifying the polynomial-time solvability of temporal betweenness centrality. In Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science - 47th International Workshop, WG 2021, Warsaw, Poland, June 23-25, 2021, Revised Selected Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 2021. Google Scholar
  39. Diego Santoro and Ilie Sarpe. ONBRA: rigorous estimation of the temporal betweenness centrality in temporal networks. In WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022, Virtual Event, Lyon, France, April 25 - 29, 2022. ACM, 2022. Google Scholar
  40. Nicola Santoro, Walter Quattrociocchi, Paola Flocchini, Arnaud Casteigts, and Frédéric Amblard. Time-varying graphs and social network analysis: Temporal indicators and metrics. CoRR, 2011. Google Scholar
  41. John R Seeley. The net of reciprocal influence. a problem in treating sociometric data. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3:234, 1949. Google Scholar
  42. Frédéric Simard, Clémence Magnien, and Matthieu Latapy. Computing betweenness centrality in link streams. CoRR, 2021. Google Scholar
  43. Charles Spearman. The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15:72-101, 1904. Google Scholar
  44. John Kit Tang, Cecilia Mascolo, Mirco Musolesi, and Vito Latora. Exploiting temporal complex network metrics in mobile malware containment. In 12th IEEE International Symposium on a World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks, WOWMOM 2011, Lucca, Italy, 20-24 June, 2011. IEEE Computer Society, 2011. Google Scholar
  45. John Kit Tang, Mirco Musolesi, Cecilia Mascolo, and Vito Latora. Temporal distance metrics for social network analysis. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Workshop on Online Social Networks, WOSN 2009, Barcelona, Spain, August 17, 2009. ACM, 2009. Google Scholar
  46. John Kit Tang, Mirco Musolesi, Cecilia Mascolo, Vito Latora, and Vincenzo Nicosia. Analysing information flows and key mediators through temporal centrality metrics. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Social Network Systems, Paris, France, April 13, 2010. ACM, 2010. Google Scholar
  47. Shang-Hua Teng. Scalable algorithms for data and network analysis. Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci., 12(1-2):1-274, 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1561/0400000051.
  48. Ioanna Tsalouchidou, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Francesco Bonchi, Kewen Liao, and Timos Sellis. Temporal betweenness centrality in dynamic graphs. Int. J. Data Sci. Anal., 2020. Google Scholar
  49. Sebastiano Vigna. A weighted correlation index for rankings with ties. In Aldo Gangemi, Stefano Leonardi, and Alessandro Panconesi, editors, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2015, Florence, Italy, May 18-22, 2015, pages 1166-1176. ACM, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2736277.2741088.
  50. Bimal Viswanath, Alan Mislove, Meeyoung Cha, and Krishna P Gummadi. On the evolution of user interaction in facebook. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM workshop on Online social networks, 2009. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact