Types of Nodes and Centrality Measures in Networks

  • Vladimir MatveenkoEmail author
  • Alexei Korolev
Part of the EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing book series (EAISICC)


Equilibrium behaviors in games on networks are often defined by centralities of players. We show that centrality measures of a class (degree, eigenvalue centrality, Katz-Bonacich centrality, diffusion centrality, alpha-gamma centrality, and alpha-beta centrality) do characterize not just separate nodes but types of nodes. The typology relates the fact that the nodes in an undirected graph may be colored in a minimal number of colors in such a way that any node of a color has definite numbers of neighbors of definite colors. Networks of the same typology are characterized by a “type adjacency” matrix T, which shows for each type numbers of neighbors of different types. For any typology, if i and j are nodes of the same type (may be even belonging different networks of this typology), then c(i)  =  c(j), where c is any of the above-mentioned centrality measures. Networks of different size but with the same typology have common properties; in particular, game equilibria may be transplanted among networks of the same typology. For calculation of any of these centrality measures, the type adjacency matrix may be used instead of the adjacency matrix. A problem is: for which classes of networks each of a set of several centrality measures defines the same order on the set of nodes of network? We show that any network typology with two types of nodes possesses this property for the above-mentioned class of centrality measures.



The research is supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project 17-06-00618).


  1. 1.
    Ballester, C., Calvo-Armengol, A., Zenou, Y.: Whos who in networks. Wanted: the key player. Econometrica 74, 1403–1417 (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banerjee, A., Chandrasekhar, A., Duflo, E., Jackson, M.O.: Diffusion of microfinance. Science 341, 1236498 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bloch, F., Jackson, M.O., Tebaldi, P.: Centrality measures in networks (2017). ArXiv: 1608.05845v3Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonacich, P.B.: Power and centrality: a family of measures. Am. J. Sociol. 92, 1170–1182 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Golub, B., Jackson, M.O.: Naïve learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds. Am. Econ. J. Macroecon. 2(1), 112–149 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jackson, M.O.: Social and Economic Networks. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jackson, M.O.: The friendship paradox and systematic biases in perceptions and social norms (2017). ArXiv: 1605.04470Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jackson, M.O.: A typology of social capital and associated network measures (2018). Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Konig, M., Tessone, C., Zenou, Y.: Nestedness in networks: a theoretical model and some applications. Theor. Econ. 9(3), 695–752 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matveenko, V.D., Korolev, A.V.: Equilibria in networks with production and knowledge externalities. In: Kalyagin, V.A., Koldanov, P.A., Pardalos, P.M. (eds.) Models, Algorithms and Technologies for Network Analysis. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics, vol. 156, pp. 291–331. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Matveenko, V.D., Korolev, A.V.: Knowledge externalities and production in network: game equilibria, types of nodes, network formation. Int. J. Comput. Econ. Econ. 7(4), 323–358 (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The National Research University Higher School of EconomicsSt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations