Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Laplacian Eigenvector Centrality

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces Laplacian Eigenvector Centrality (LEC), a spectral centrality whose adjustable order tunes the scope from core to periphery, and argues LEC characterizes shock responses, optimal public signals, and coordination…

desk verdict A solid spectral centrality with a real economic shock-attenuation story, but the information-design claim rests on an unverified self-cited theorem and the measure is essentially leverage scores in disguise. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11024 v1 pith:ZZPPBH35 submitted 2025-01-19 cs.SI cs.GTphysics.soc-ph

Koya Shimono , Wataru Tamura This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SIcs.GTphysics.soc-ph MSC 05C5091D30
keywords centralitymeasuresLaplacianspectrumeigenvectorssocialnetworkscoordinationinformationdesignmicrofinancediffusionnetworkgames
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Laplacian Eigenvector Centrality scores each node by the cumulative sum of squared components of the graph Laplacian's eigenvectors up to a chosen order, so the order acts as a dial that moves the focus from a few core hubs to the wider periphery. The paper argues this is a complete centrality framework rather than one more index: the scores are bounded and symmetry-respecting, the total budget at order $r$ is fixed at $1+r$, and the proportional version pLEC stays comparable across networks of different sizes and densities. In the economic model, the same eigenvectors that build LEC determine how much a shock is attenuated in equilibrium and which public signals a designer optimally discloses. In the microfinance diffusion data, leaders' pLEC is negatively associated with non-leader participation once eigenvector centrality is controlled, which the authors interpret as the coordination pressure that dense social ties impose on diffusion.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the graph Laplacian $L=D-A$ and its orthonormal eigenvectors $q_0,\ldots,q_{n-1}$, ordered by descending eigenvalues $\lambda_1\ge\cdots\ge\lambda_n=0$. LEC is defined as the diagonal of the retained spectral projection $S_r=q_0q_0'+\cdots+q_rq_r'$, so $c_{\text{LEC}}(r)=\operatorname{diag}(S_r)$; the LEC order $r$ is the number of retained eigenvectors, and the eigenvalues guide the choice of $r$ through decay patterns or cumulative thresholds. The same eigenvectors carry the economic claims because the equilibrium response operator $(I+\beta L)^{-1}$ shares their eigenspaces, giving the attenuation factors $1/(1+\beta\lambda_k)$ and the posterior variance formula (20) that identify LEC with optimal disclosure.

What would settle it

Brute-force the principal's optimal signal in a small random network and compare its value with the spectral-disclosure rule that the paper's criterion selects; any network where a different signal beats the spectral rule would overturn the information-design characterization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Definition 1, $c_{\text{LEC}}(r)=q_0^2+\cdots+q_r^2$ with $q_0$ the trivial constant eigenvector, defines a family of centrality measures whose LEC order $r$ controls scope while the Laplacian eigenvectors carry the structural content. The paper proves this family is nondecreasing in $r$, assigns $1/n$ to every node at order 0 and $1$ to every node at order $n-1$, respects symmetry for nodes with identical neighborhoods, gives peripheral degree-1 nodes no more score than their neighbor, and handles eigenvalue multiplicity by interpolating within repeated eigenspaces. It then connects the same eigenvectors to economics: in the quadratic adaptation-coordination game the equilibrium operator is $(I+\beta L)^{-1}$, so a shock in the direction of $q_k$ is attenuated by $1/(1+\beta\lambda_k)$, and the squared eigenvector components measure each agent's involvement in the response; in the information-design problem the posterior variance matrix is diagonalized by the retained Laplacian eigenvectors, so LEC of order $r$ is the diagonal of the principal's optimal signal. The empirical section claims that proportional LEC, unlike eigenvector or Katz-Bonacich centrality, marks nodes whose structural position creates coordination bottlenecks, and reports a significant negative relation between leaders' pLEC and non-leader microfinance participation when eigenvector centrality is held fixed.

Load-bearing premise

The information-design half of the paper rests on an unproved theorem, cited from a working paper, that optimal public signals in this quadratic-Gaussian model are exactly the Laplacian eigen-statistics that pass the stated cutoff; if that theorem fails, the claim that LEC characterizes optimal disclosure collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user can set the LEC order by cumulative eigenvalue thresholds or by a fixed proportion such as 20%-pLEC, giving a principled way to compare centrality across networks of different sizes and densities.
  • In the coordination game, shocks aligned with top Laplacian eigenvectors are attenuated most, so squared eigenvector components identify the agents who absorb and redistribute shocks.
  • Optimal public signals disclose only Laplacian eigen-statistics that pass $1/(2n)+\beta\lambda_k/n \ge \tilde{\beta}$, and the posterior variance matrix has the retained LEC scores on its diagonal.
  • The single-agent targeting problem is solved by gLEC with weights $\phi_j=1-(1+\beta\lambda_j)^{-2}$, so the same spectral framework gives an intervention index.
  • In the microfinance villages, leaders' pLEC is significantly negatively associated with non-leader participation once eigenvector centrality is controlled, supporting the claim that coordination pressure can work against diffusion.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not run a degree-control regression; adding leaders' average degree to the Table 2 specification would test whether pLEC captures anything beyond connectivity, and if the negative coefficient disappears the coordination-pressure reading would need qualification.
  • A parameter-free alternative to the 20% or 50% rules would be to stop the LEC order at the largest relative gap in the cumulative eigenvalue curve, an extension the paper's spectral argument suggests but does not develop.
  • The imported information-design theorem can be checked numerically on small graphs; if it fails only in special networks, LEC's role as a description of optimal disclosure would still be a conditional, not universal, result.
  • Because the reported neighborhood-inclusion violations are tiny and confined to low orders, a modified LEC that enforces the preorder at every order might keep LEC's spectral advantages while satisfying the standard axiom.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Laplacian Eigenvector Centrality (LEC), defined as c_LEC(r) = sum_{s=0}^r q_s^2, where q_s are Laplacian eigenvectors and r is an adjustable 'LEC order' controlling the spectral scope. It establishes basic properties of LEC (symmetry, periphery behavior, bounds, hub/periphery formulas), studies its scaling and robustness in Erdős–Rényi and Barabási–Albert networks, and connects LEC to equilibrium outcomes in a network coordination game. The economic section derives a shock-attenuation result, imports an optimal public information disclosure result, and derives a generalized LEC (gLEC) targeting index. The empirical section applies pLEC to the Banerjee et al. (2013) microfinance data and reports that leaders' pLEC is negatively associated with non-leader participation once eigenvector centrality is controlled.

Significance. If the unproven information-design theorem is supplied, the paper offers a distinctive spectral centrality measure with a plausible economic foundation. The formal properties in Section 4 and Appendix A are correct, the shock-attenuation argument in Section 6.2.1 is a standard and correctly derived Rayleigh-quotient result, Proposition 1 is correctly derived, and the empirical application to a well-known dataset is a useful complementarity check. The main unresolved issue is load-bearing: the optimal-disclosure criterion (19)–(20) is imported from a self-cited working paper, so the paper's claim that LEC characterizes optimal public signals cannot currently be verified from the manuscript. The empirical bottleneck interpretation is also confounded by the omission of degree centrality.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.2.2, Eqs. (19)-(20)] The claim that the principal discloses statistic m_k iff 1/(2n) + βλ_k/n ≥ β̃, and that E[θ̂θ̂'] = Q̄_r(Q̄_r'Q̄_r)^{-1}Q̄_r', is stated as 'established in the literature' but is not proved in the manuscript. The supporting citations are a self-cited working paper (Tamura 2025) and two other working-paper/preprint references. This is the only result in the paper connecting LEC to optimal public information, so the gap is load-bearing. The proof is not immediate because the agents' coordination weight β in the equilibrium mapping differs from the principal's coordination weight β̃ in (18), and the principal's payoff involves the complete-graph quadratic form rather than the network Laplacian. I request a self-contained proof or a precise theorem statement with all assumptions and a proof in the appendix.
  2. [Section 7, Table 2] The negative coefficient on plec ns20pct is interpreted as coordination pressure or network bottlenecks, but leaders' degree centrality is not included as a regressor. Given the paper's own evidence that pLEC is highly rank-correlated with degree (Section 5.3.1, Figure 11; Appendix B.1.4, Figure B2), the coefficient may absorb omitted degree effects or nonlinear network-size effects. In particular, Column (2) shows no significant association between pLEC and participation until eigenvector centrality is added, so the 'bottleneck' reading is fragile. Please add degree (or degree percentile) of leaders as a control, or provide a robustness table showing the result is unchanged when degree is included.
  3. [Section 5, Figures 6-10] The claims that pLEC is scale-invariant and robust to network density are supported only by visual inspection of plotted curves, without quantitative summaries, confidence bands, or formal statements. Since these claims are part of the paper's second contribution, please add numerical summaries (e.g., means, standard deviations or confidence intervals over the simulated networks) or a precise formal statement of the invariance property that the simulations are intended to illustrate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] There is a typo in the introductory paragraph of Section 6: 'develps' should be 'develops'.
  2. [Section 6.2.2] The disclosure criterion in Eq. (19) uses β on the left-hand side and β̃ on the right-hand side; please clarify whether this is intentional and define all symbols in the surrounding text.
  3. [Appendix A, proof of Property 7] The proof uses non-orthogonal vectors v_i as if they formed an eigenbasis; the argument should explicitly state that the LEC scores are invariant under orthonormalization of each eigenspace, so the final scores do not depend on the particular basis chosen.
  4. [References] The key supporting reference Tamura (2025) is a self-cited working paper not available to the reader; since the result in Section 6.2.2 depends on it, the paper should either include the proof or make the theorem statement self-contained.
  5. [Section 5] Figures 6–10 would be easier to interpret with confidence bands or multiple-run summaries; currently the line plots do not convey the variability across the 10 simulated networks per parameter set.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

LEC is defined and mostly derived independently, but the claim that LEC characterizes optimal public information rests on an unproved disclosure theorem imported from a self-cited working paper.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 6.2.2, Eqs. (18)–(20), footnotes 21–22]
    "In the case of quadratic-Gaussian specifications, it is established in the literature that the optimal signal can be expressed as a linear function of the state. ... In particular, a statistic mk is disclosed if it satisfies the criterion: 1/(2n) + β/n λk ≥ β̃. ... E[θ̂θ̂′] = Q̄r(Q̄r′Q̄r)^{-1}Q̄r′. The diagonal entries of (20) correspond to the Laplacian Eigenvector Centrality (LEC) of order r, indicating that the principal’s optimal signal should focus on central agents to enhance coordination effectively."

    The manuscript does not derive the linear-eigenvector optimal-signal theorem, the disclosure threshold (19), or the posterior covariance formula (20); it refers to 'the literature' (footnote 22: 'See Tamura (2018) and Miyashita and Ui (2024)'; footnote 21: 'See Tamura (2025)'). Tamura (2018, 2025) are working papers by a coauthor of this paper. The load-bearing conclusion that the diagonal of (20) is exactly LEC is therefore taken from a self-cited source rather than proved here, so the information-design microfoundation of LEC reduces, in this passage, to a citation to the authors' own prior work.

full rationale

Definition 1 and the LEC properties in Section 4 are proved directly from the Laplacian eigendecomposition, with no fitted parameters. The random-graph scaling analysis in Section 5 is simulation-based and externally reproducible. Section 6.2.1's shock-attenuation result is derived in the paper via the Rayleigh quotient and (I+βL)^{-1}; Section 6.3's gLEC targeting result is derived algebraically. The empirical regression in Section 7 uses pLEC as a pre-specified spectral index and does not fit LEC to the outcome, so no prediction is forced by construction. The only circularity-adjacent step is the imported LQG disclosure theorem in Section 6.2.2, which is load-bearing for the information-design claim but does not infect the definition of LEC or the other results. Hence the paper is substantially self-contained, with a moderate self-citation burden on one prominent claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard spectral graph theory, a specific quadratic game model, and an imported information-design theorem from a self-cited working paper. The LEC order and the model parameters β and β tilde are user/exogenously chosen, not fitted to a target outcome.

free parameters (3)
  • LEC order r (or pLEC percentage) = r = 0.2n in main empirical spec; 50% cumulative eigenvalue rule in robustness
    Chosen by the analyst; scores and rank order depend on this scope parameter, though qualitative regression results are reported robust.
  • Coordination strength β
    Exogenous payoff parameter in the economic model; appears in equilibrium (I+βL)^-1 and in gLEC weights, but is not fitted to data.
  • Principal's coordination weight β tilde
    Exogenous preference parameter in the information-design problem; determines the disclosure threshold in eq (19).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Laplacian positive semidefiniteness and orthonormal eigenbasis
    Used throughout Section 4 to define LEC and its properties.
  • standard math Courant-Fischer min-max theorem
    Used in Section 6.2.1 to identify q1 as the shock direction minimizing aggregate deviation.
  • domain assumption Quadratic adaptation-coordination payoff and linear best responses
    The model in Section 6.1 assumes this specific payoff form, leading to equilibrium a* = (I+βL)^-1 θ.
  • domain assumption Optimal linear signal characterization from Tamura (2025)
    Section 6.2.2 assumes the theorem that the optimal public signal is a linear combination of Laplacian eigenvectors with disclosure condition (19); not proved in this manuscript and cited to a self-authored working paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Laplacian Eigenvector Centrality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZPPBH35

@misc{pith2026250111024,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Laplacian Eigenvector Centrality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZPPBH35}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11024}
}
read the original abstract

Networks significantly influence social, economic, and organizational outcomes, with centrality measures serving as crucial tools to capture the importance of individual nodes. This paper introduces Laplacian Eigenvector Centrality (LEC), a novel framework for network analysis based on spectral graph theory and the eigendecomposition of the Laplacian matrix. A distinctive feature of LEC is its adjustable parameter, the LEC order, which enables researchers to control and assess the scope of centrality measurement using the Laplacian spectrum. Using random graph models, LEC demonstrates robustness and scalability across diverse network structures. We connect LEC to equilibrium responses to external shocks in an economic model, showing how LEC quantifies agents' roles in attenuating shocks and facilitating coordinated responses through quadratic optimization. Finally, we apply LEC to the study of microfinance diffusion, illustrating how it complements classical centrality measures, such as eigenvector and Katz-Bonacich centralities, by capturing distinctive aspects of node positions within the network.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11024 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Expansion of the scope of LEC in Florentine network. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. LEC scores for different orders (Top 7 families). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Traditional centrality scores (Top 7 families). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Violation of neighborhood-inclusion principle. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Laplacian spectrum as a guide for the LEC order choice. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative sum of Laplacian eigenvalues across network sizes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Percentile distribution of pLEC scores across network sizes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cumulative sum of Laplacian eigenvalues across densities. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of pLEC scores across densities. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution of pLEC scores under the 50% rule. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Box plot of pairwise correlation on 50 networks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Plot of eigenvector centrality and pLEC. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Localization of eigenvector centrality in a clustered network. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Distributions of centrality scores (BSS). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Information Design for Adaptive Organizations

    econ.TH 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a quadratic Bayesian persuasion model with network coordination, the optimal public signal always discloses the average state and, under a uniform synergy graph, discloses Laplacian-eigenvector statistics passing a...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    , Malladi, S

    Akbarpour, M. , Malladi, S. and Saberi, A. (2023). Just a few seeds more: The inflated value of network data for diffusion. Working Paper

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    and Barab \'a si, A.-L

    Albert, R. and Barab \'a si, A.-L. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74 (1), 47

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    , Dessein, W

    Alonso, R. , Dessein, W. and Matouschek, N. (2008). When does coordination require centralization? American Economic Review, 98 (1), 145--179

    2008

  6. [6]

    Spreading Information via Social Networks: An Irrelevance Result

    Awaya, Y. and Krishna, V. (2024). Spreading information via social networks: An irrelevance result. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05276

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    , Calv \'o -Armengol, A

    Ballester, C. , Calv \'o -Armengol, A. and Zenou, Y. (2006). Who's who in networks. wanted: The key player. Econometrica, 74 (5), 1403--1417

    2006

  8. [8]

    , Chandrasekhar, A

    Banerjee, A. , Chandrasekhar, A. G. , Duflo, E. and Jackson, M. O. (2013). The diffusion of microfinance. Science, 341 (6144), 1236498

    work page 2013

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Using gossips to spread information: Theory and evidence from two randomized controlled trials

    --- , --- , --- and --- (2019). Using gossips to spread information: Theory and evidence from two randomized controlled trials. Review of Economic Studies, 86 (6), 2453--2490

    2019

  2. [10]

    , BenYishay, A

    Beaman, L. , BenYishay, A. , Magruder, J. and Mobarak, A. M. (2021). Can network theory-based targeting increase technology adoption? American Economic Review, 111 (6), 1918--1943

    2021

  3. [11]

    and Niyogi, P

    Belkin, M. and Niyogi, P. (2003). Laplacian eigenmaps for dimensionality reduction and data representation. Neural Computation, 15 (6), 1373--1396

    2003

  4. [12]

    , Jackson, M

    Bloch, F. , Jackson, M. O. and Tebaldi, P. (2023). Centrality measures in networks. Social Choice and Welfare, 61 (2), 413--453

    2023

  5. [13]

    --- and Qu \'e rou, N. (2013). Pricing in social networks. Games and Economic Behavior, 80, 243--261

    2013

  6. [14]

    , Furia, F

    Boldi, P. , Furia, F. and Vigna, S. (2023). Monotonicity in undirected networks. Network Science, 11 (3), 351--373

    2023

  7. [15]

    --- and Vigna, S. (2014). Axioms for centrality. Internet Mathematics, 10 (3-4), 222--262

    2014

  8. [16]

    Bolland, J. M. (1988). Sorting out centrality: An analysis of the performance of four centrality models in real and simulated networks. Social Networks, 10 (3), 233--253

    1988

  9. [17]

    Borgatti, S. P. and Everett, M. G. (2006). A graph-theoretic perspective on centrality. Social Networks, 28 (4), 466--484

    2006

  10. [18]

    and de Mart \' , J

    Calv \'o -Armengol, A. and de Mart \' , J. (2009). Information gathering in organizations: Equilibrium, welfare, and optimal network structure. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7 (1), 116--161

    2009

  11. [19]

    --- , --- and Prat, A. (2015). Communication and influence. Theoretical Economics, 10 (2), 649--690

    2015

  12. [20]

    and Zenou, Y

    --- , Patacchini, E. and Zenou, Y. (2009). Peer effects and social networks in education. Review of Economic Studies, 76 (4), 1239--1267

    2009

  13. [21]

    , Bimpikis, K

    Candogan, O. , Bimpikis, K. and Ozdaglar, A. (2012). Optimal pricing in networks with externalities. Operations Research, 60 (4), 883--905

    2012

  14. [22]

    and Lewis, R

    Chandrasekhar, A. and Lewis, R. (2011). Econometrics of sampled networks. MIT Working Paper

    2011

  15. [23]

    Chebotarev, P. (2023). Selection of centrality measures using self-consistency and bridge axioms. Journal of Complex Networks, 11 (5), cnad035

    2023

  16. [24]

    and Zenou, Y

    Dequiedt, V. and Zenou, Y. (2017). Local and consistent centrality measures in parameterized networks. Mathematical Social Sciences, 88, 28--36

    2017

  17. [25]

    and Santos, T

    Dessein, W. and Santos, T. (2006). Adaptive organizations. Journal of Political Economy, 114 (5), 956--995

    2006

  18. [26]

    Faust, K. (1997). Centrality in affiliation networks. Social Networks, 19 (2), 157--191

    1997

  19. [27]

    , Golub, B

    Galeotti, A. , Golub, B. and Goyal, S. (2020). Targeting interventions in networks. Econometrica, 88 (6), 2445--2471

    2020

  20. [28]

    and Pavas, A

    Garz \'o n, C. and Pavas, A. (2017). Laplacian eigenvector centrality as tool for assessing causality in power quality. In 2017 IEEE Manchester PowerTech, IEEE, pp. 1--6

    2017

  21. [29]

    and Nakao, H

    Hata, S. and Nakao, H. (2017). Localization of L aplacian eigenvectors on random networks. Scientific Reports, 7 (1), 1121

    2017

  22. [30]

    Horn, R. A. and Johnson, C. R. (2013). Matrix Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn

    2013

  23. [31]

    Jackson, M. O. , Rogers, B. W. and Zenou, Y. (2017). The economic consequences of social-network structure. Journal of economic literature, 55 (1), 49--95

    2017

  24. [32]

    , Kleinberg, J

    Kempe, D. , Kleinberg, J. and Tardos, \'E . (2003). Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 137--146

    2003

  25. [33]

    and Motter, A

    Kim, D.-H. and Motter, A. E. (2007). Ensemble averageability in network spectra. Physical Review Letters, 98 (24), 248701

    2007

  26. [34]

    Kitti, M. (2016). Axioms for centrality scoring with principal eigenvectors. Social Choice and Welfare, 46, 639--653

    2016

  27. [35]

    , Zhang, X

    Martin, T. , Zhang, X. and Newman, M. E. (2014). Localization and centrality in networks. Physical Review E, 90 (5), 052808

    2014

  28. [36]

    McGraw, P. N. and Menzinger, M. (2008). Laplacian spectra as a diagnostic tool for network structure and dynamics. Physical Review --- Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 77 (3), 031102

    2008

  29. [37]

    , Sun, J

    Milanese, A. , Sun, J. and Nishikawa, T. (2010). Approximating spectral impact of structural perturbations in large networks. Physical Review --- Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 81 (4), 046112

    2010

  30. [38]

    and Ui, T

    Miyashita, M. and Ui, T. (2024). LQG information design. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09479

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    , Jordan, M

    Ng, A. , Jordan, M. and Weiss, Y. (2001). On spectral clustering: Analysis and an algorithm. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 14

    2001

  32. [40]

    , Fulcher, B

    Oldham, S. , Fulcher, B. , Parkes, L. , Arnatkevi c i\= u t\. e , A. , Suo, C. and Fornito, A. (2019). Consistency and differences between centrality measures across distinct classes of networks. PloS One, 14 (7), e0220061

    2019

  33. [41]

    and Volij, O

    Palacios-Huerta, I. and Volij, O. (2004). The measurement of intellectual influence. Econometrica, 72 (3), 963--977

    2004

  34. [42]

    , Fuller, E

    Qi, X. , Fuller, E. , Wu, Q. , Wu, Y. and Zhang, C.-Q. (2012). Laplacian centrality: A new centrality measure for weighted networks. Information Sciences, 194, 240--253

    2012

  35. [43]

    Schoch, D. (2018). Centrality without indices: Partial rankings and rank probabilities in networks. Social Networks, 54, 50--60

    2018

  36. [44]

    --- and Brandes, U. (2016). Re-conceptualizing centrality in social networks. European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 27 (6), 971--985

    2016

  37. [45]

    --- , Valente, T. W. and Brandes, U. (2017). Correlations among centrality indices and a class of uniquely ranked graphs. Social Networks, 50, 46--54

    2017

  38. [46]

    , Michalak, T

    Skibski, O. , Michalak, T. P. and Rahwan, T. (2018). Axiomatic characterization of game-theoretic centrality. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 62, 33--68

    2018

  39. [47]

    --- and Sosnowska, J. (2018). Axioms for distance-based centralities. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 32

    2018

  40. [48]

    Tamura, W. (2018). Bayesian persuasion with quadratic preferences. Available at SSRN 1987877

    2018

  41. [49]

    Information design for adaptive organizations

    --- (2025). Information design for adaptive organizations. Working Paper

    2025

  42. [50]

    Valente, T. W. , Coronges, K. , Lakon, C. and Costenbader, E. (2008). How correlated are network centrality measures? Connections (Toronto, Ont.), 28 (1), 16

    2008

  43. [51]

    Von Luxburg, U. (2007). A tutorial on spectral clustering. Statistics and Computing, 17, 395--416

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.