Definitions:
Given a graph G=(V,E), the current flow betweenness is a node-wise measure that captures the fraction of current through a given node with a unit source (s) sink (t) supply bst (1 unit of current inserted at node s, bst(s)=1 and extracted at node t, bst(t)=−1, and bst(v)=0 for v∈V∖{s,t}).
For a fixed s-t pair, the throughput Ï„ of a node v is given by:
τst(v)=12(−|bst(v)|+∑e∋v|I(e)|)
where bst is the supply function defined above for the given s,t pair, I(e) is the current flowing through edge e, and e∋v means all edges incident on vertex v (i.e. v is part of, irrespective of it being at tail or head of edge).
Now the current flow betweenness centrality of a node v is simply a normalized sum over all its throughput for all possible supplied pairs s,t, i.e.:
c(v)=1(n−1)(n−2)∑s,t∈Vτs,t(v).
My implementation of the current-flow betweenness centrality goes as follows:
- Given a graph G, I compute its incidence matrix
b
, corresponding Laplacianlap
, and its inverse inS
only once at the begining. - Then I have a module which takes
n
(n=|V|),b
,S
,conductances
, supply nodess,t
and returns the list of currents through edges for the given s,t pair as supply. - Then I have module that computes Ï„st given in (1), in which I use a piecewise function for supply bst, and use
Total[]
to compute the sum in (1). - Then I have a module that computes c given in (2), where I use a
Table
to compute Ï„ of v for all possible s,t and then again useTotal
to sum them. - Finally, to compute c for all nodes I create a table that runs over all nodes and calls the module for c.
Actual implementation with a dummy random graph to showcase:
SeedRandom[123]
n = 15;
m = 20;
G = RandomGraph[{n, m}, VertexLabels -> "Name"]
edges = EdgeList[G];
GDirected =
Graph[Range[n], Map[#[[1]] -> #[[2]] &, edges],
VertexLabels -> "Name"]
conductances = ConstantArray[1., m];
b = -1.*Transpose[IncidenceMatrix[GDirected]];
lap = b\[Transpose].DiagonalMatrix[SparseArray[conductances]].b;
a = SparseArray[ConstantArray[1., {1, n}]];
A = ArrayFlatten[{{lap, a\[Transpose]}, {a, 0.}}];
S = LinearSolve[A];
\[Epsilon] = 1. 10^-8;
s = 1;
t = 2;
Edge current module:
edgecurrents[ncount_, invertedkirch_, incid_, conducarr_, nodei_,
nodej_, threshold_] :=
Module[{n = ncount, solver = invertedkirch, incidmat = incid,
G = conducarr, source = nodei, sink = nodej, eps = threshold},
appliedcurr = 1.;
J = SparseArray[{{source}, {sink}} -> {appliedcurr, -appliedcurr}, \
{n}, 0.];
psi = solver[Join[J, {0.}]][[;; -2]];
edgecurr = G incidmat.psi;
(*define current threshold to take care of small values*)
foundcurrents = Threshold[edgecurr, eps];
Return[foundcurrents, Module];
];
Ï„ module:
tau[edgels_, currls_, source_, sink_, vertex_] :=
Module[{edges = edgels, iedges = currls, s = source, t = sink,
v = vertex},
bst[u_, so_, to_] := Piecewise[{{1., u == so}, {-1., u == to}}, 0.];
If[s == t,
res = 0.,
incidv =
Flatten[Position[
edges, (v \[UndirectedEdge] _ | _ \[UndirectedEdge] v)]];
If[incidv == {},
inoutcurrs = 0.;
,
inoutcurrs = Total[Abs[Part[iedges, incidv]]];
];
res = 0.5*(-Abs[bst[v, s, t]] + inoutcurrs);
];
Return[res, Module];
];
c module:
currinbet[vcount_, edgels_, conduc_, vertex_, threshold_] :=
Module[{n = vcount, edges = edgels, conducmat = conduc, v = vertex,
eps = threshold},
taust =
Table[tau[edges, edgecurrents[n, S, b, conducmat, s, t, eps], s,
t, v], {s, n}, {t, n}];
ccb = Total[taust, 2]/((n - 1)*(n - 2));
Return[ccb, Module];
];
Example of currents for s=1,t=2:
edgecurrents[n, S, b, conductances, s, t, \[Epsilon]]
{0.640145, 0.359855, -0.0198915, -0.200723, -0.039783, -0.640145, \
-0.0994575, -0.0144665, 0., 0.0144665, -0.0198915, -0.0433996, \
0.0578662, -0.0144665, 0.359855, -0.359855, 0.101266, -0.0596745, 0., \
0.}
and computing the current-flow betweenness for all nodes:
vccb = Threshold[
Table[currinbet[n, EdgeList[G], conductances, i, \[Epsilon]], {i, 1,
n}], \[Epsilon]]
{0.182869, 0.403493, 0.268327, 0.052163, 0.253522, 0.240516, \
0.524532, 0.135177, 0., 0.208672, 0.275441, 0., 0., 0.282883, \
0.246786}
The obtained results are cross-checked with the existing Python library Networkx for computing c and they are in perfect agreement. But sadly efficiency wise, I am doing terribly.
Improved notebook version after Henrik Schumacher's suggestions can be downloaded here, with a working example.
Questions:
I (think) have minimized the current through edge calculations since
S
is simply pre-computed, thanks to Henrik Schumacher's approach here. However, I have the feeling I might be doing some things terribly inefficiently from then onward, as my routine slows down drastically for larger graphs. Is there anywhere I could be doing things much more efficiently?Is my module-based approach or use of tables also responsible for part of the slow-down?
Maybe one line of optimization would be to cast (1) and (2) into linear-algebraic computations to speed them up, but I currently do not see how to do so.
(Any general feedback for rendering the code more efficient is most welcome of course.)
Answer
One potential bottleneck is
incidv = Flatten[Position[edges, (v \[UndirectedEdge] _ | _ \[UndirectedEdge] v)]]
as it involves (i) a search in the rather long list of edges and (ii) pattern matching, which both tend to be rather slow.
A quicker way will be to compute all these lists at once via
vertexedgeincidences = IncidenceMatrix[G]["AdjacencyLists"];
and to access the v
-th one like this:
incidv = vertexedgeincidences[[v]]
The numbers
inoutcurrs = Total[Abs[Part[iedges, incidv]]];
can also all be computed at once for all v
. This can be done with the help if the incidence matrix
B = IncidenceMatrix[G];
via
B.Abs[iedges]
As a general suggestion: Whenever you find yourself evaluating a Sum
or Total
of something, try to reprase it into Dot
-products of vectors, matrices, etc.
Comments
Post a Comment