Performances and Correlations of Centrality Measures in Complex Networks

Yilin Bi; Xinshan Jiao; Tao Zhou

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2508.09563

Performances and Correlations of Centrality Measures in Complex Networks

Yilin Bi·Xinshan Jiao·Tao Zhou

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Numerous centrality measures have been proposed to evaluate the importance of nodes in networks, yet comparative analyses of these measures remain limited. Based on 80 real-world networks, we conducted an empirical analysis of 16 representative centrality measures. In general, there exists a moderate to high level of correlation between node rankings derived from different measures. We identified two distinct communities: one comprising 4 measures and the other 7 measures. Measures within the same community exhibit exceptionally strong pairwise correlations. In contrast, the remaining five measures display markedly different behaviors, showing weak correlations not only among themselves but also with the other measures. This suggests that each of these five measures likely captures unique properties of node importance. Further analysis reveals that the distribution patterns of the most influential nodes identified by different centrality measures vary significantly: some measures tend to cluster influential nodes closely together, while others disperse them across distant locations within the network. Using the epidemic spreading model, we found that LocalRank, Subgraph Centrality, and Katz Centrality perform best in identifying the most influential single node, whereas Leverage Centrality, Collective Influence, and Cycle Ratio excel in identifying the most influential node sets. Overall, measures that identify influential nodes with larger topological distances between them tend to perform better in detecting influential node sets. Interestingly, despite being applied to the same dynamical process, when using two seemingly similar tasks, identifying influential nodes versus identifying influential node sets, to rank the performances of the 16 centrality measures, the resulting rankings are negatively correlated.

Explore related subjects

stat.OT

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Yilin Bi, Xinshan Jiao, Tao Zhou. 2025-08-13. Performances and Correlations of Centrality Measures in Complex Networks. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09563

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The Design and Implementation of a Virtual Statistical Computing Lab to Teach R Coding to Introductory Statistics Students

Motivated by national calls for computationally enriched, data-centric instruction across the statistics curriculum, this study investigates the design, implementation, and impact of a Virtual Statistical Computing Lab (VSCL) integrated into an introductory statistics course at a medium-sized minority-serving university in the USA. The redesigned course embedded R-based coding through two virtual lab formats: Design I (a static Posit Cloud environment) and Design II (an interactive learnr-based interface). Using a quasi-experimental design across three instructional formats, traditional (no lab), Design I, and Design II, we evaluated students' conceptual learning gains, levels of data science (DS) readiness, and DS aspirations. The results indicated significant learning gains across all groups, with the highest gains observed in Design II. Students in both VSCL formats achieved greater gains in DS readiness than the traditional group, with Design II again yielding the largest gains across the demographic subgroups. Conversely, DS aspirations remained low or declined, suggesting a gap between skill acquisition and long-term interest. These findings highlight the value of structured, interactive computing environments in supporting statistical reasoning and building confidence in modern data tools. They also point to the need for intentional curricular bridges and career mentoring to help students translate early computing exposure into sustained academic and professional pathways in statistics and data science.

stat.OT↗

arXiv2026

Statistical Theory in the Age of Machine-Assisted Mathematics: Rethinking How Theory Is Made and Taught

The computational revolution is advancing at an unprecedented pace. The combination of proof-assistant technologies and generative AI tools has recently enabled the solution of complex problems in pure mathematics at a scale that seemed unattainable only a few years ago. However, these technologies have not yet become standard tools in the development of statistical theory. In this paper, we do not present new theoretical results. Instead, we discuss five case studies involving classical problems in statistics and describe how they can be analyzed using a machine proof-checking. Our goal is not to propose a definitive workflow, but to stimulate reflection on how these technologies may transform theoretical research and advanced statistical education. We focus on two main aspects. First, statistical theory often compresses substantial mathematical content into expressions such as "under the usual regularity conditions". Formalization in a machine-verifiable language forces each assumption to be explicit, reveal hidden dependencies, and provide a deeper understanding of the formalized objects. Second, we argue that the statistical community could benefit from a collaborative effort to build repositories of formalized axioms, definitions, and theorems, supporting more precise and reliable theoretical developments. Finally, we discuss the role of these tools in graduate education. Just as high-level programming languages revolutionized empirical research by enabling rapid experimentation and prototyping, machine-assisted formalization may introduce a new paradigm for the development, verification, and communication of statistical theory.

stat.OT↗

arXiv2026

Statistical Leadership of What? Statistics After AI

Statisticians have spent over a century arguing that we are more than calculators, usually by pointing to what else we know. AI is making that defense harder, since the list of what only statisticians can do grows shorter with each model release. AI makes claims cheap to generate and may eventually make the statistics behind them cheap too. However, a model cannot be answerable in the way that statistical practice requires. Statistical leadership then becomes a question of which claims we are there to answer for, including the ones we answer for in advance by building judgment into systems.

stat.OT↗