Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying influential spreaders based on edge ratio and neighborhood diversity measures in complex networks

  • Published:
Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, notable number of research studies have been conducted on the analysis of diffusion process in complex networks. One fundamental problem in this domain is to find the most influential spreader nodes. For achieving a successful spreading process, nodes having high spreading ability should be selected as spreaders. Many centrality measures have been proposed for determining and ranking the significance of nodes and detecting the best spreaders. The majority of proposed centrality measures require network global information which leads to high time complexity. Moreover, with the advent of large-scale complex networks, there is a critical need for improving accurate measures through using nodes’ local information. On the other hand, most of the formerly proposed centrality measures have attempted to select core nodes as spreaders but global bridge nodes have the highest spreading ability since they are located among several giant communities of the network. In this study, a new local and parameter-free centrality measure is proposed which is aimed at finding global bridge nodes in the network. Hence, two new local metrics, namely edge ratio and neighborhood diversity, are firstly defined which are used in the proposed method. Considering edge ratio of neighbors ensures that the selected node be not in the periphery location of the network. Furthermore, a node with high neighborhood diversity is likely a connector between some modules (dense parts) of the network. Therefore, a node with a high edge ratio and more diverse neighborhood has high spreading ability. The major merits of the proposed measure are near-linear time complexity, using local information and being parameter-free. For evaluating the proposed method, we conducted experiments on real-world networks. The results of comparing the proposed centrality measure with other measures in terms of epidemic models (SIR and SI), Kendall’s tau correlation coefficient and Rank-Frequency measures indicated that the proposed method outperforms the other compared centrality measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Havlin S et al (2012) Challenges in network science: applications to infrastructures, climate, social systems and economics. Eur Phys J Spec Topics 214(1):273–293

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jia-sheng W et al (2011) Improved method of node importance evaluation based on node contraction in complex networks. Proc Eng 15:1600–1604

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lü L et al (2016) Vital nodes identification in complex networks. Phys Rep 650:1–63

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Newman ME (2003) The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Rev 45(2):167–256

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Berahmand K, Bouyer A, Samadi N (2018) A new centrality measure based on the negative and positive effects of clustering coefficient for identifying influential spreaders in complex networks. Chaos, Solitons Fractals 110:41–54

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Pei S, Makse HA (2013) Spreading dynamics in complex networks. J Stat Mech: Theory Exp 2013(12):P12002

    Google Scholar 

  7. Albert R, Barabási A-L (2002) Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev Mod Phys 74(1):47

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang Z-K et al (2016) Dynamics of information diffusion and its applications on complex networks. Phys Rep 651:1–34

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Pei S et al (2014) Searching for superspreaders of information in real-world social media. ArXiv preprint arXiv:1405.1790

  10. Sheikhahmadi A, Nematbakhsh MA, Shokrollahi A (2015) Improving detection of influential nodes in complex networks. Phys A 436:833–845

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hinz O, Schulze C, Takac C (2014) New product adoption in social networks: why direction matters. J Bus Res 67(1):2836–2844

    Google Scholar 

  12. Probst F, Grosswiele L, Pfleger R (2013) Who will lead and who will follow: identifying influential users in online social networks. Bus Inf Syst Eng 5(3):179–193

    Google Scholar 

  13. Castellano C, Fortunato S, Loreto V (2009) Statistical physics of social dynamics. Rev Mod Phys 81(2):591

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pei S et al (2014) Searching for superspreaders of information in real-world social media. Sci Rep 4:5547

    Google Scholar 

  15. Van Mieghem P, Omic J, Kooij R (2009) Virus spread in networks. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw TON 17(1):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kostka J, Oswald YA, Wattenhofer R (2008) Word of mouth: Rumor dissemination in social networks. In: International colloquium on structural information and communication complexity. Springer

  17. Nowzari C, Preciado VM, Pappas GJ (2016) Analysis and control of epidemics: a survey of spreading processes on complex networks. IEEE Control Syst 36(1):26–46

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Iyengar R, Van den Bulte C, Valente TW (2011) Opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Market Sci 30(2):195–212

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lerman K, Ghosh R (2010) Information contagion: an empirical study of the spread of news on Digg and Twitter social networks. ICWSM 10:90–97

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chin C-H et al (2014) cytoHubba: identifying hub objects and sub-networks from complex interactome. BMC Syst Biol 8(4):S11

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sporns O (2013) Structure and function of complex brain networks. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 15(3):247

    Google Scholar 

  22. Meo PD et al (2017) Using centrality measures to predict helpfulness-based reputation in trust networks. ACM Trans Internet Technol 17(1):8

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hutter C, Lorch R, Bohm K (2011) Evolving cooperation through reciprocity using a centrality-based reputation system. In: 2011 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology (WI-IAT). IEEE

  24. Gao S et al (2014) Ranking the spreading ability of nodes in complex networks based on local structure. Phys A 403:130–147

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Guimera R, Amaral LAN (2005) Cartography of complex networks: modules and universal roles. J Stat Mech: Theory Exp 2005(02):P02001

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Habiba H, Berger-Wolf T (2011) Working for influence: effect of network density and modularity on diffusion in networks. In: 2011 IEEE 11th international conference on data mining workshops (ICDMW). IEEE

  27. Chen D et al (2012) Identifying influential nodes in complex networks. Phys A 391(4):1777–1787

    Google Scholar 

  28. Freeman LC (1978) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Netw 1(3):215–239

    Google Scholar 

  29. Liu Y et al (2016) Identifying influential spreaders by weight degree centrality in complex networks. Chaos, Solitons Fractals 86:1–7

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Liu J et al (2016) Evaluating the importance of nodes in complex networks. Phys A 452:209–219

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hajian B, White T (2011) Modelling influence in a social network: metrics and evaluation. In: 2011 IEEE third international conference on privacy, security, risk and trust (PASSAT) and 2011 IEEE third international conference on social computing (SocialCom). IEEE

  32. Freeman LC (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40:35–41

    Google Scholar 

  33. Newman ME (2005) A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Soc Netw 27(1):39–54

    Google Scholar 

  34. Koschützki D et al (2005) Centrality indices. In: Brandes U, Erlebach T (eds) Network analysis. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Kitsak M et al (2010) Identification of influential spreaders in complex networks. Nat Phys 6(11):888–893

    Google Scholar 

  36. Fortunato S, Hric D (2016) Community detection in networks: a user guide. Phys Rep 659:1–44

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Burt RS (2009) Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  38. Jaccard P (1901) Étude comparative de la distribution florale dans une portion des Alpes et des Jura. Bull Soc Vaudoise Sci Nat 37:547–579

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jaccard P (1912) The distribution of the flora in the alpine zone. New Phytol 11(2):37–50

    Google Scholar 

  40. Gleiser PM, Danon L (2003) Community structure in jazz. Adv Complex Syst 6(04):565–573

    Google Scholar 

  41. Guimera R et al (2003) Self-similar community structure in a network of human interactions. Phys Rev E 68(6):065103

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kunegis J Hamsterster full network dataset—KONECT. Available at: http://konect.uni-koblenz.de/networks/petster-hamster. Accessed 1 May 2017

  43. Xie N (2006) Social network analysis of blogs. M.Sc. Dissertation, University of Bristol

  44. Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393(6684):440

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Leskovec J, Kleinberg J, Faloutsos C (2007) Graph evolution: densification and shrinking diameters. ACM Trans Knowl Discov Data (TKDD) 1(1):2

    Google Scholar 

  46. Boguñá M et al (2004) Models of social networks based on social distance attachment. Phys Rev E 70(5):056122

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. Newman ME (2002) Assortative mixing in networks. Phys Rev Lett 89(20):208701

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hu H-B, Wang X-F (2008) Unified index to quantifying heterogeneity of complex networks. Phys A 387(14):3769–3780

    Google Scholar 

  49. Dorogovtsev SN, Goltsev AV, Mendes JF (2008) Critical phenomena in complex networks. Rev Mod Phys 80(4):1275

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kitsak M et al (2010) Identification of influential spreaders in complex networks. ArXiv preprint arXiv:1001.5285

  51. Castellano C, Pastor-Satorras R (2010) Thresholds for epidemic spreading in networks. Phys Rev Lett 105(21):218701

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kendall MG (1938) A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30(1/2):81–93

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Liu J-G, Ren Z-M, Guo Q (2013) Ranking the spreading influence in complex networks. Phys A 392(18):4154–4159

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Technology and Communications, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran

    Negin Samadi & Asgarali Bouyer

Authors
  1. Negin Samadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Asgarali Bouyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asgarali Bouyer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Samadi, N., Bouyer, A. Identifying influential spreaders based on edge ratio and neighborhood diversity measures in complex networks. Computing 101, 1147–1175 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-018-0659-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-018-0659-9

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Search

Navigation