The field of network science is a highly interdisciplinary area; for the empirical analysis of network data, it draws algorithmic methodologies from several research fields. Hence, research procedures and descriptions of the technical results often differ, sometimes widely. In this paper we focus on methodologies for the experimental part of algorithm engineering for network analysis -an important ingredient for a research area with empirical focus. More precisely, we unify and adapt existing recommendations from different fields and propose universal guidelines -including statistical analyses -for the systematic evaluation of network analysis algorithms. This way, the behavior of newly proposed algorithms can be properly assessed and comparisons to existing solutions become meaningful. Moreover, as the main technical contribution, we provide SimexPal, a highly automated tool to perform and analyze experiments following our guidelines. To illustrate the merits of SimexPal and our guidelines, we apply them in a case study: we design, perform, visualize and evaluate experiments of a recent algorithm for approximating betweenness centrality, an important problem in network analysis. In summary, both our guidelines and SimexPal shall modernize and complement previous efforts in experimental algorithmics; they are not only useful for network analysis, but also in related contexts.

No abstract

Network science methodology is increasingly applied to a large variety of real-world phenomena, often leading to big network data sets. Thus, networks (or graphs) with millions or billions of edges are more and more common. To process and analyze these data, we need appropriate graph processing systems and fast algorithms. Yet, many analysis algorithms were pioneered on small networks when speed was not the highest concern. Developing an analysis toolkit for large-scale networks thus often requires faster variants, both from an algorithmic and an implementation perspective. In this paper we focus on computational aspects of vertex centrality measures. Such measures indicate the (relative) importance of a vertex based on the position of the vertex in the network. We describe several common (and some recent and thus less established) measures, optimization problems in their context as well as algorithms for an efficient solution of the raised problems. Our focus is on (not necessarily exact) performance-oriented algorithmic techniques that enable significantly faster processing than the previous state of the art – often allowing to process massive data sets quickly and without resorting to distributed graph processing systems.

The study of vertex centrality measures is a key aspect of network analysis. Naturally, such centrality measures have been generalized to groups of vertices; for popular measures it was shown that the problem of finding the most central group is N P-hard. As a result, approximation algorithms to maximize group centralities were introduced recently. Despite a nearly-linear running time, approximation algorithms for group betweenness and (to a lesser extent) group closeness are rather slow on large networks due to high constant overheads.That is why we introduce GED-Walk centrality, a new submodular group centrality measure inspired by Katz centrality. In contrast to closeness and betweenness, it considers walks of any length rather than shortest paths, with shorter walks having a higher contribution. We define algorithms that (i) efficiently approximate the GED-Walk score of a given group and (ii) efficiently approximate the (proved to be N P-hard) problem of finding a group with highest GED-Walk score.Experiments on several real-world datasets show that scores obtained by GED-Walk improve performance on common graph mining tasks such as collective classification and graph-level classification. An evaluation of empirical running times demonstrates that maximizing GED-Walk (in approximation) is two orders of magnitude faster compared to group betweenness approximation and for group sizes ≤ 100 one to two orders faster than group closeness approximation. For graphs with tens of millions of edges, approximate GED-Walk maximization typically needs less than one minute. Furthermore, our experiments suggest that the maximization algorithms scale linearly with the size of the input graph and the size of the group.2 Katz centrality is sometimes alternatively defined based on walks ending at a given vertex; from an algorithmic perspective, however, this difference is irrelevant.

No abstract