Balanced Centrality of Networks

Abstract

There is an age-old question in all branches of network analysis. What makes an actor in a network important, courted, or sought? Both Crossley and Bonacich contend that rather than its intrinsic wealth or value, an actor's status lies in the structures of its interactions with other actors. Since pairwise relation data in a network can be stored in a two-dimensional array or matrix, graph theory and linear algebra lend themselves as great tools to gauge the centrality (interpreted as importance, power, or popularity, depending on the purpose of the network) of each actor. We express known and new centralities in terms of only two matrices associated with the network. We show that derivations of these expressions can be handled exclusively through the main eigenvectors (not orthogonal to the all-one vector) associated with the adjacency matrix. We also propose a centrality vector (SWIPD) which is a linear combination of the square, walk, power, and degree centrality vectors with weightings of the various centralities depending on the purpose of the network. By comparing actors' scores for various weightings, a clear understanding of which actors are most central is obtained. Moreover, for threshold networks, the (SWIPD) measure turns out to be independent of the weightings.

Analyzing actors’ interaction behavior in land transactions in informal settlement settings: A case study of Burayu city, Ethiopia

“…The eigenvector is aim to measure the central actor, which have the shortest path from others actors in the network. The more the value of eigenvector scores means the more central actors in the network, lower value, conversely, shows that actors are located in peripheral in the network [ 110 ]. The results showed that out of these informal actors that take part in this study, the land brokers have a strong tie with an eigenvalue of 0.50 (see Table 3 ) which assisted these actors to form ties with 6 other actors (see Fig.…”

Distribution dynamics of Rodlet cells in the gills under pathological alterations

“…This cell type was first described in 1892 by Thelohan [3]. For over than a hundred years, scientists had classified them as parasites (Laguesse, 1895;Bannister, 1966;Mayberry et al, 1979;Viehberger & Bielek, 1982;Bielek & Viehberger, 1983;Richards et al, 1994), however later this hypothesis was refuted.…”

Proteomic profile of epidermal mucus from Labeo rohita reveals differentially abundant proteins after Aeromonas hydrophila infection

“…Previously, we have confirmed several pathogenic bacteria from diseased fish inhabiting in different farms [2] . Consequently, we found that skin mucus from both infected and healthy fish, from the aquatic environment of Pakistan, exhibit strong bactericidal activity against different kinds of bacteria [ 2 , 4 ]. However, studies regarding fish immune system around this country are still very rare.…”