I'm trying to obtain centrality measures for a directed, weighted network. I've been using the igraph
and tnet
packages in R
. However, I've discovered some differences in the results obtained using these two packages, and I'm a little confused about the cause of these differences. See below.
require(igraph)
require(tnet)
set.seed(1234)
m <- expand.grid(from = 1:4, to = 1:4)
m <- m[m$from != m$to, ]
m$weight <- sample(1:7, 12, replace = T)
igraph_g <- graph.data.frame(m)
tnet_g <- as.tnet(m)
closeness(igraph_g, mode = "in")
2 3 4 1
0.05882353 0.12500000 0.07692308 0.09090909
closeness(igraph_g, mode = "out")
2 3 4 1
0.12500000 0.06250000 0.06666667 0.10000000
closeness(igraph_g, mode = "total")
2 3 4 1
0.12500000 0.14285714 0.07692308 0.16666667
closeness_w(tnet_g, directed = T, alpha = 1)
node closeness n.closeness
[1,] 1 0.2721088 0.09070295
[2,] 2 0.2448980 0.08163265
[3,] 3 0.4130809 0.13769363
[4,] 4 0.4081633 0.13605442
Anybody know what's going on?
Examples of A) Betweenness centrality, B) Closeness centrality, C) Eigenvector centrality, D) Degree centrality, E) Harmonic centrality and F) Katz centrality of the same graph.
Closeness can be regarded as a measure of how long it will take to spread information from v to all other nodes sequentially. Betweenness centrality quantifies the number of times a node acts as a bridge along the shortest path between two other nodes.
The authors of [58] conclude that “forest distance centrality has a better discrim- inating power than alternate metrics such as betweenness, harmonic centrality, eigenvector centrality, and PageRank.” They note that the order of node importance given by forest distances on certain simple graphs is in agreement with ...
The mean, median and mode are known as measures of centrality: an aim to identify the midpoint in a data set through statistical means.
After posting this question, I stumbled upon a blog maintained by Tore Opsahl, maintainer of of the tnet
package. I asked this same question of Tore using the comments on this post of the blog. Here is Tore's response:
Thank you for using tnet!
igraph
is able to handle weights; however, the distance function inigraph
expects weights that represent 'costs' instead of 'strength'. In other words, the tie weight is considered the amount of energy needed to cross a tie. See Shortest Paths in Weighted Networks.
Thus, if you run the following code provided by Tore (which takes the inverse of the weights before passing them to igraph
), you obtain equivalent closeness scores for both tnet
and igraph
.
> # Load packages
> library(tnet)
>
> # Create random network (you could also use the rg_w-function)
> m <- expand.grid(from = 1:4, to = 1:4)
> m <- m[m$from != m$to, ]
> m$weight <- sample(1:7, 12, replace = T)
>
> # Make tnet object and calculate closeness
> closeness_w(m)
node closeness n.closeness
[1,] 1 0.2193116 0.07310387
[2,] 2 0.3809524 0.12698413
[3,] 3 0.2825746 0.09419152
[4,] 4 0.3339518 0.11131725
>
> # igraph
> # Invert weights (transform into costs from strengths)
> # Multiply weights by mean (just scaling, not really)
> m$weight <- mean(m$weight)/m$weight
> # Transform into igraph object
> igraph_g <- graph.data.frame(m)
> # Compute closeness
> closeness(igraph_g, mode = "out")
2 3 4 1
0.3809524 0.2825746 0.3339518 0.2193116
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With