In graph theory and network analysis, indicators of centrality assign numbers or rankings to nodes within a graph corresponding to their network position. Applications include identifying the most influential person(s) in a social network, key infrastructure nodes in the Internet or urban networks, super-spreaders of disease, and brain networks. Centrality concepts were first developed in social network analysis, and many of the terms used to measure centrality reflect their sociological origin.Newman, M.E.J. 2010. Networks: An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Over time, the concept has expanded substantially, leading to the development of hundreds of distinct centrality measures, the most comprehensive listing of which is documented in the CentralityZoo online catalogue.
Definition and characterization of centrality indices Centrality indices are answers to the question "What characterizes an important vertex?" The answer is given in terms of a real-valued function on the vertices of a graph, where the values produced are expected to provide a ranking which identifies the most important nodes.
The word "importance" has a wide number of meanings, leading to many different definitions of centrality. Two categorization schemes have been proposed. "Importance" can be conceived in relation to a type of flow or transfer across the network. This allows centralities to be classified by the type of flow they consider important. "Importance" can alternatively be conceived as involvement in the cohesiveness of the network. This allows centralities to be classified based on how they measure cohesiveness. Both of these approaches divide centralities in distinct categories. A further conclusion is that a centrality which is appropriate for one category will often "get it wrong" when applied to a different category.
Many, though not all, centrality measures effectively count the number of paths (also called walks) of some type going through a given vertex; the measures differ in how the relevant walks are defined and counted. Restricting consideration to this group allows for taxonomy which places many centralities on a spectrum from those concerned with walks of length one (degree centrality) to infinite walks (eigenvector centrality). Other centrality measures, such as betweenness centrality focus not just on overall connectedness but occupying positions that are pivotal to the network's connectivity.
Characterization by network flows A network can be considered a description of the paths along which something flows. This allows a characterization based on the type of flow and the type of path encoded by the centrality. A flow can be based on transfers, where each indivisible item goes from one node to another, like a package delivery going from the delivery site to the client's house. A second case is serial duplication, in which an item is replicated so that both the source and the target have it. An example is the propagation of information through gossip, with the information being propagated in a private way and with both the source and the target nodes being informed at the end of the process. The last case is parallel duplication, with the item being duplicated to several links at the same time, like a radio broadcast which provides the same information to many listeners at once.
Likewise, the type of path can be constrained to geodesics (shortest paths), paths (no vertex is visited more than once), trails (vertices can be visited multiple times, no edge is traversed more than once), or walks (vertices and edges can be visited/traversed multiple times).
Characterization by walk structure An alternative classification can be derived from how the centrality is constructed. This again splits into two classes. Centralities are either radial or medial. Radial centralities count walks which start/end from the given vertex. The degree and eigenvalue centralities are examples of radial centralities, counting the number of walks of length one or length infinity. Medial centralities count walks which pass through the given vertex. The canonical example is Freeman's betweenness centrality, the number of shortest paths which pass through the given vertex.
Likewise, the counting can capture either the volume or the length of walks. Volume is the total number of walks of the given type. The three examples from the previous paragraph fall into this category. Length captures the distance from the given vertex to the remaining vertices in the graph. Closeness centrality, the total geodesic distance from a given vertex to all other vertices, is the best known example. Note that this classification is independent of the type of walk counted (i.e. walk, trail, path, geodesic).
Borgatti and Everett propose that this typology provides insight into how best to compare centrality measures. Centralities placed in the same box in this 2×2 classification are similar enough to make plausible alternatives; one can reasonably compare which is better for a given application. Measures from different boxes, however, are categorically distinct. Any evaluation of relative fitness can only occur within the context of predetermining which category is more applicable, rendering the comparison moot.
Radial-volume centralities exist on a spectrum The characterization by walk structure shows that almost all centralities in wide use are radial-volume measures. These encode the belief that a vertex's centrality is a function of the centrality of the vertices it is associated with. Centralities distinguish themselves on how association is defined.
Bonacich showed that if association is defined in terms of walks, then a family of centralities can be defined based on the length of walk considered. Degree centrality counts walks of length one, while eigenvalue centrality counts walks of length infinity. Alternative definitions of association are also reasonable. Alpha centrality allows vertices to have an external source of influence. Estrada's subgraph centrality proposes only counting closed paths (triangles, squares, etc.).
The heart of such measures is the observation that powers of the graph's adjacency matrix gives the number of walks of length given by that power. Similarly, the matrix exponential is also closely related to the number of walks of a given length. An initial transformation of the adjacency matrix allows a different definition of the type of walk counted. Under either approach, the centrality of a vertex can be expressed as an infinite sum, either
for matrix powers or
for matrix exponentials, where
is walk length, is the transformed adjacency matrix, and is a discount parameter which ensures convergence of the sum.
Bonacich's family of measures does not transform the adjacency matrix. Alpha centrality replaces the adjacency matrix with its resolvent. Subgraph centrality replaces the adjacency matrix with its trace. A startling conclusion is that regardless of the initial transformation of the adjacency matrix, all such approaches have common limiting behavior. As approaches zero, the indices converge to degree centrality. As approaches its maximal value, the indices converge to eigenvalue centrality.
Game-theoretic centrality The common feature of most of the aforementioned standard measures is that they assess the importance of a node by focusing only on the role that a node plays by itself. However, in many applications such an approach is inadequate because of synergies that may occur if the functioning of nodes is considered in groups.
For example, consider the problem of stopping an epidemic. Looking at above image of network, which nodes should we vaccinate? Based on previously described measures, we want to recognize nodes that are the most important in disease spreading. Approaches based only on centralities, that focus on individual features of nodes, may not be a good idea. Nodes in the red square, individually cannot stop disease spreading, but considering them as a group, we clearly see that they can stop disease if it has started in nodes , , and . Game-theoretic centralities try to consult described problems and opportunities, using tools from game-theory. The approach proposed in Michalak, Aadithya, Szczepański, Ravindran, & Jennings uses the Shapley value. Because of the time-complexity hardness of the Shapley value calculation, most efforts in this domain are driven into implementing new algorithms and methods which rely on a peculiar topology of the network or a special character of the problem. Such an approach may lead to reducing time-complexity from exponential to polynomial.
Similarly, the solution concept authority distribution () applies the Shapley-Shubik power index, rather than the Shapley value, to measure the bilateral direct influence between the players. The distribution is indeed a type of eigenvector centrality. It is used to sort big data objects in Hu (2020), such as ranking U.S. colleges.
Important limitations Centrality indices have two important limitations, one obvious and the other subtle. The obvious limitation is that a centrality which is optimal for one application is often sub-optimal for a different application. Indeed, if this were not so, we would not need so many different centralities. An illustration of this phenomenon is provided by the Krackhardt kite graph, for which three different notions of centrality give three different choices of the most central vertex.
The more subtle limitation is the commonly held fallacy that vertex centrality indicates the relative importance of vertices. Centrality indices are explicitly designed to produce a ranking which allows indication of the most important vertices. This they do well, under the limitation just noted. They are not designed to measure the influence of nodes in general. Recently, network physicists have begun developing node influence metrics to address this problem.
The error is two-fold. Firstly, a ranking only orders vertices by importance, it does not quantify the difference in importance between different levels of the ranking. This may be mitigated by applying Freeman centralization to the centrality measure in question, which provide some insight to the importance of nodes depending on the differences of their centralization scores. Furthermore, Freeman centralization enables one to compare several networks by comparing their highest centralization scores.
Secondly, the features which (correctly) identify the most important vertices in a given network/application do not necessarily generalize to the remaining vertices. For the majority of other network nodes the rankings may be meaningless. This explains why, for example, only the first few results of a Google image search appear in a reasonable order. The pagerank is a highly unstable measure, showing frequent rank reversals after small adjustments of the jump parameter.
While the failure of centrality indices to generalize to the rest of the network may at first seem counter-intuitive, it follows directly from the above definitions. Complex networks have heterogeneous topology. To the extent that the optimal measure depends on the network structure of the most important vertices, a measure which is optimal for such vertices is sub-optimal for the remainder of the network.
One further limitation of centrality measures is that they are usually designed to assign numbers or rankings to individual vertices in a network, rather than sets of vertices. However, some applications may for instance instead be interested in how central or marginalized a certain group of individuals is in the network of an organization. This has led to the generalization of centrality to groups of vertices.
Degree centrality