Hunting for Influential Nodes in Complex Networks Using Local Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Complex networks in the real world are often with heterogeneous degree distributions. The structure and function of nodes can vary significantly, with influential nodes playing a crucial role in information spread and other spreading phenomena. Identifying high-degree nodes enables change to the network’s structure and function. Previous work either redefines metrics used to measure the nodes’ importance or focus on developing algorithms to efficiently find influential nodes. These approaches typically rely on global knowledge of the network and assume that the structure of the network does not change over time, both of which are difficult to achieve in the real world. In this paper, we propose a decentralized strategy that can find influential nodes without global knowledge of the network. Our Joint Nomination (JN) strategy selects a random set of nodes along with a set of nodes connected to those nodes, and together they nominate the influential node set. Experiments are conducted on 12 network datasets, including both synthetic and real-world networks, both undirected and directed networks. Results show that average degree of the identified node set is about 3–8 times higher than that of the full node set, and the degree distribution skews toward higher-degree nodes. Removal of influential nodes increase the average shortest path length by 20–70% over the original network, or about 8–15% longer than the other decentralized strategies. Immunization based on JN is more efficient than other strategies, consuming around 12–40% less immunization resources to raise the epidemic threshold to 𝜏 ~ 0:1. Susceptible-Infected-Recovered (SIR) simulations on networks with 30% influential nodes removed using JN delays the arrival time of infection peak significantly and reduce the total infection scale to 15%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".