Table 2.
Comparison of ATria’s results with those other algorithms on a 102-node synthetic network with five cliques, three with leaders A, B, C, two with villains D, E and bridge nodes F-O connecting cliques
| Node | Betweenness | Closeness | Degree | PageTrust | PN | ATria |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A (Leader) | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||
| B (Leader) | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| C (Leader) | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| D (Villain) | 3 | 3 | 88 | 102 | 4 | |
| E (Villain) | 2 | 1 | 102 | 101 | 3 | |
| F (Bridge) | 101 | 98 | 98 | 6 | ||
| G (Bridge) | 96 | 95 | 94 | 10 | ||
| H (Bridge) | 100 | 101 | 97 | 13 | ||
| I (Bridge) | 95 | 94 | 93 | 9 | ||
| J (Bridge) | 15 | 98 | 91 | 96 | 15 | |
| K (Bridge) | 8 | 97 | 99 | 97 | 11 | |
| L (Bridge) | 99 | 97 | 96 | 12 | ||
| M (Bridge) | 5 | 93 | 96 | 91 | 7 | |
| N (Bridge) | 99 | 102 | 100 | 99 | 14 | |
| O (Bridge) | 13 | 8 | 94 | 93 | 100 | 8 |
Final rankings of any nodes A-O found in the top or bottom 15