Unweighted network measures are commonly used to analyze real-world networks due to their simplicity and intuitiveness. This motivated the search for generalizations of unweighted network measures that take weights into account. We propose a new generalization methodology that captures how focused are the interactions over edges. The less focused the interaction (more uniform over edges) the closer is our generalization to the original unweighted measure. None of the previously developed generalizations capture this aspect of weighted networks. We analyze several real-world networks using our generalizations of the degree and the clustering coefficient. The analysis shows that our generalizations reveal interesting observations.
The most recent attempt to generalize the degree (along with betweenness and closeness) relied on mixing total weights (strength) with the cardinality (degree) @cite_1 . The generalized degree based on this method is the @math -degree that we described earlier: @math -degree = @math . Although the generalization methodology were applied to the betweenness and closeness centrality measures, only the degree generalization was evaluated. More importantly, the generalization has a tuning parameter without clear guidelines regarding how to set it, unlike our methodology which is parameterless. Also the connection to the original unweighted measure does not depend on the weights, but on the tuning parameter (when @math equals 0). As a result, the @math -generalization is not really a generalization, but rather a new class of weighted measures.
@cite_1
2112615110 2279913547 2950342785 2620696915
Abstract Ties often have a strength naturally associated with them that differentiate them from each other. Tie strength has been operationalized as weights. A few network measures have been proposed for weighted networks, including three common measures of node centrality: degree, closeness, and betweenness. However, these generalizations have solely focused on tie weights, and not on the number of ties, which was the central component of the original measures. This paper proposes generalizations that combine both these aspects. We illustrate the benefits of this approach by applying one of them to Freeman’s EIES dataset. The traditional notion of generalization---i.e., learning a hypothesis whose empirical error is close to its true error---is surprisingly brittle. As has recently been noted in [DFH+15b], even if several algorithms have this guarantee in isolation, the guarantee need not hold if the algorithms are composed adaptively. In this paper, we study three notions of generalization---increasing in strength---that are robust to postprocessing and amenable to adaptive composition, and examine the relationships between them. We call the weakest such notion Robust Generalization. A second, intermediate, notion is the stability guarantee known as differential privacy. The strongest guarantee we consider we call Perfect Generalization. We prove that every hypothesis class that is PAC learnable is also PAC learnable in a robustly generalizing fashion, with almost the same sample complexity. It was previously known that differentially private algorithms satisfy robust generalization. In this paper, we show that robust generalization is a strictly weaker concept, and that there is a learning task that can be carried out subject to robust generalization guarantees, yet cannot be carried out subject to differential privacy. We also show that perfect generalization is a strictly stronger guarantee than differential privacy, but that, nevertheless, many learning tasks can be carried out subject to the guarantees of perfect generalization. Aiming to unify known results about clustering mixtures of distributions under separation conditions, Kumar and Kannan[2010] introduced a deterministic condition for clustering datasets. They showed that this single deterministic condition encompasses many previously studied clustering assumptions. More specifically, their proximity condition requires that in the target @math -clustering, the projection of a point @math onto the line joining its cluster center @math and some other center @math , is a large additive factor closer to @math than to @math . This additive factor can be roughly described as @math times the spectral norm of the matrix representing the differences between the given (known) dataset and the means of the (unknown) target clustering. Clearly, the proximity condition implies center separation -- the distance between any two centers must be as large as the above mentioned bound. In this paper we improve upon the work of Kumar and Kannan along several axes. First, we weaken the center separation bound by a factor of @math , and secondly we weaken the proximity condition by a factor of @math . Using these weaker bounds we still achieve the same guarantees when all points satisfy the proximity condition. We also achieve better guarantees when only @math -fraction of the points satisfy the weaker proximity condition. The bulk of our analysis relies only on center separation under which one can produce a clustering which (i) has low error, (ii) has low @math -means cost, and (iii) has centers very close to the target centers. Our improved separation condition allows us to match the results of the Planted Partition Model of McSherry[2001], improve upon the results of [2006], and improve separation results for mixture of Gaussian models in a particular setting. 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.