Hiding From Centrality Measures: A Stackelberg Game Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Centrality measures can rank nodes in a social network according to their importance. However, in many cases, a node may want to avoid being highly ranked by such measures, e.g., as is the case with terrorist networks. In this work, we study a confrontation between the seeker—the party analyzing a social network using centrality measures—and the evader—a node attempting to decrease its ranking according to such measures. We analyze the possible outcomes of modifying, i.e., adding or removing, a single edge by the evader, showing that even without complete knowledge about the network, the effects of the modification on the evader's ranking can often be predicted. We study the computational complexity of finding a set of modifications that reduce the evader's centrality ranking in an optimal way, proving that these decision problems are NP-complete. Moreover, we provide a 2-approximation for the degree centrality, and logarithmic approximation boundaries for the closeness and betweenness centralities. Finally, we define and investigate a Stackelberg game between the seeker and the evader, providing a Mixed Integer Linear Programming formulation of finding an equilibrium. Altogether, we provide a thorough analysis of the strategic aspects of hiding from centrality measures in social networks.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".