It is highly desirable and challenging for a wireless ad hoc network to have self-organization properties in order to achieve network wide characteristics. Studies have shown that Small World properties, primarily low average path length and high clustering coefficient, are desired properties for networks in general. However, due to the spatial nature of the wireless networks, achieving small world properties remains highly challenging. Studies also show that, wireless ad hoc networks with small world properties show a degree distribution that lies between geometric and power law. In this paper, we show that in a wireless ad hoc network with non-uniform node density with only local information, we can significantly reduce the average path length and retain the clustering coefficient. To achieve our goal, our algorithm first identifies logical regions using Lateral Inhibition technique, then identifies the nodes that beamform and finally the beam properties using Flocking. We use Lateral Inhibition and Flocking because they enable us to use local state information as opposed to other techniques. We support our work with simulation results and analysis, which show that a reduction of up to 40 can be achieved for a high-density network. We also show the effect of hopcount used to create regions on average path length, clustering coefficient and connectivity.
Decades of research on network and graph theory has led researchers to derive many fundamental concepts related to the importance of a node in the network. The concept of centrality was one such concept that was developed and used to address the topological characteristics of the network nodes. Proposed definitions of centrality measures include those that use global parameters as well as those that only use local information. Some examples of global centrality measures are Socio-Centric Betweenness @cite_28 @cite_8 and Closeness Centrality @cite_28 while Degree Centrality @cite_28 and Egocentric Betweenness Centrality @cite_65 @cite_20 are examples of the local centrality measure.
@cite_28 @cite_65 @cite_20 @cite_8
2171137858 2127405101 2620696915 2127387319
Centrality measures are used in network science to rank the relative importance of nodes and edges of a graph. Here we define new measures of centrality for power grid structure that are based on its functionality. We show that the relative importance analysis based on centrality in graph theory can be generalized to power grid network with its electrical parameters taken into account. In the paper we experiment with the proposed electrical centrality measures on the NYISO-2935 system and the IEEE 300-bus system. We analyze the centrality distribution in order to identify important nodes or branches in the system which are of essential importance in terms of system vulnerability. We also present and discuss a number of interesting discoveries regarding the importance rank of power grid nodes and branches. The concept of centrality is often invoked in social network analysis, and diverse indices have been proposed to measure it. This paper develops a unified framework for the measurement of centrality. All measures of centrality assess a node's involvement in the walk structure of a network. Measures vary along four key dimensions: type of nodal involvement assessed, type of walk considered, property of walk assessed, and choice of summary measure. If we cross-classify measures by type of nodal involvement (radial versus medial) and property of walk assessed (volume versus length), we obtain a four-fold polychotomization with one cell empty which mirrors Freeman's 1979 categorization. At a more substantive level, measures of centrality summarize a node's involvement in or contribution to the cohesiveness of the network. Radial measures in particular are reductions of pair-wise proximities cohesion to attributes of nodes or actors. The usefulness and interpretability of radial measures depend on the fit of the cohesion matrix to the one-dimensional model. In network terms, a network that is fit by a one-dimensional model has a core-periphery structure in which all nodes revolve more or less closely around a single core. This in turn implies that the network does not contain distinct cohesive subgroups. Thus, centrality is shown to be intimately connected with the cohesive subgroup structure of a network. Centrality measures are widely used to identify leaders of covert networks. We study how a group of such leaders can avoid being detected by such measures. More concretely, we study the hardness of choosing a set of edges that can be added to the network in order to decrease the leaders' ranking according to two fundamental centrality measures, namely degree, and closeness. We prove that this problem is NP-complete for each measure. We then study how the leaders can construct a network from scratch, designed specifically for them to hide in disguise. We identify a network structure that not only guarantees to hide the leaders to a certain extent, but also allows them to spread their influence across the network. Centrality measures, or at least popular interpretations of these measures, make implicit assumptions about the manner in which traffic flows through a network. For example, some measures count only geodesic paths, apparently assuming that whatever flows through the network only moves along the shortest possible paths. This paper lays out a typology of network flows based on two dimensions of variation, namely the kinds of trajectories that traffic may follow (geodesics, paths, trails, or walks) and the method of spread (broadcast, serial replication, or transfer). Measures of centrality are then matched to the kinds of flows that they are appropriate for. Simulations are used to examine the relationship between type of flow and the differential importance of nodes with respect to key measurements such as speed of reception of traffic and frequency of receiving traffic. It is shown that the off-the-shelf formulas for centrality measures are fully applicable only for the specific flow processes they are designed for, and that when they are applied to other flow processes they get the “wrong” answer. It is noted that the most commonly used centrality measures are not appropriate for most of the flows we are routinely interested in. A key claim made in this paper is that centrality measures can be regarded as generating expected values for certain kinds of node outcomes (such as speed and frequency of reception) given implicit models of how traffic flows, and that this provides a new and useful way of thinking about centrality. © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.