 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Dynamic centrality measures for cattle trade networks
Applied Network Science volume 6, Article number: 26 (2021)
Abstract
We study network centrality measures that take into account the specific structure of networks with timestamped edges. In particular, we explore how such measures can be used to identify nodes most relevant for the spread of epidemics on directed, temporal contact networks. We present a percolation study on the French cattle trade network, proving that timeaware centrality measures such as the TempoRank significantly outperform measures defined on the static network. In order to make TempoRank amenable to largescale networks, we show how it can be efficiently computed through direct simulation of timerespecting random walks.
Introduction
When dealing with epidemic processes spreading along the edges of networks, centrality measures can be used to identify the nodes most important for disease transmission. Those nodes can then be targeted with specific measures (vaccination, diagnostic focus or reduction in contact) for the purposes of outbreak prevention or mitigation, with an expected favourable impact on epidemic outcomes. The study of centrality measures on large networks therefore occupies a central place in network theory, with hundreds of measures defined for general or specific purposes (Jalili et al. 2015; Lü et al. 2016). Such measures have been extended to networks with additional structure, such as modularity (Ghalmane et al. 2019) or multiple interconnected layers (socalled mutiplex or multilayer networks) (Taylor et al. 2019; Lv et al. 2019; Pedroche et al. 2016; Agryzkov et al. 2019).
Networks with timestamped edges (socalled temporal or dynamic networks) have an additional level of heterogeneity which makes the study of their role as underlying structure for epidemic spread more challenging. Indeed, infections can only spread by following timerespecting paths, that is composed of edges with chronologically increasing timestamps. This renders the use of statically computed centrality measures unable to provide useful insights for the control of outbreaks on such networks. Several centrality measures taking this specific structure into account have been defined in past years, mostly by generalizing wellstudied static quantities (Kim and Anderson 2012; Hanke and Foraita 2017; Taylor et al. 2017; Bajardi et al. 2012). However, the additional complexity of temporal networks is reflected by the high computational cost of some of these methods, many of which are prohibitively expensive for networks exceeding thousands of nodes, or more than a hundred timeslices.
In this work, our main contribution is to study SIRtype outbreaks on the French cattle trade network, in which nodes are cattle holdings, and timestamped edges correspond to the commercial movement of animals between these holdings (Dutta et al. 2018; Natale et al. 2011). We focus on movements in 2014 and 2015, which gives rise to networks with over 170,000 vertices and over 2,250,000 timestamped edges, with a daily granularity. Besides classical static measures, we will focus on the TempoRank measure, as defined in Rocha and Masuda (2014). This is an extension of PageRank centrality, defined using timerespecting random walks on the network. We will recall some of its properties and present a deterministic (exact) implementation. We will also present an extension of the TempoRank which might be more efficient in the context of epidemic prevention, by identifying vertices that have high downstream transmission potential. However, the matrixbased methods on which this implementation is based fail in the context of large networks, because of the absence of sparsity. We show how direct simulation can instead be used to approximate TempoRank computation, which makes this measure useful even for very large temporal networks. We show that our stochastic method is able to compute TempoRank centrality measures on the large BDNI network, and, using a numerical percolation study, that they outperform static centrality measures in mitigating outbreak sizes.
The paper is structured as follows: in the “Centrality measures for temporal networks” section, we will recall some of the definitions of centrality measures used and show how some of them are related to the properties of random walks on the network. Then, in the “Random walk centralities: definition and properties” section, we will present two versions of the TempoRank measure in the same framework, as well as a stochastic approximation algorithm that enables their computation even for large network sizes or large numbers of timeslices. Finally, in the “Centrality measures in cattle trade networks” section we will describe how these measures are correlated with the spread of infectious disease, using the French cattle trade network as an example.
Centrality measures for temporal networks
In this section, we will describe the framework in which we will define and study centrality measures. Since most temporal network centralities are generalizations of static centralities, we will first review some classical notions of centrality, which will also be used later in the numerical percolation study on the French cattle trade network.
Static PageRank centrality
Static Networks. Let \(\mathcal{G}=(V,E)\) be a directed graph with \(V=N\) vertices and let \(A=(a_{i,j})\) be its adjacency matrix. The aim of centrality measures is to associate to each vertex a numerical quantity representing its importance in the graph according to some criterion. In this paper, we will mainly consider centrality measures based on random walks, such that the most central vertices are the ones visited most often by random walkers on the network.
PageRank. The bestknown such measure is PageRank centrality, defined as following. Let \(P\) be the transition matrix of a simple random walk on \(V\), defined by \(p_{i,j}=a_{i,j}/\sum _{k\ne i} a_{i,k}\). To avoid the possibility of random walkers getting stuck in vertices with no outgoing edges, we add a teleportation probability \(d\), which corresponds to a transition from a vertex \(i\) to any other vertex \(j\), uniformly chosen in \(V\). The transition matrix of the random walk with teleportation is then:
For \(d\in (0,1]\), \(\tilde{P}\) is then an irreducible (row)stochastic matrix, regardless of the connectivity structure of the original network \(\mathcal{G}\). Hence, according to the PerronFrobenius theorem, the left eigenspace associated to the dominant eigenvalue 1 is of dimension 1, and contains a positive eigenvector \(v\). The PageRank vector \(v^\text {PR}\) is then the normalized eigenvector
The latter equality can be interpreted in probabilistic terms. Indeed, \(v^\text {PR}\) defines a probability distribution on \(V\), and (2) is simply the stationarity of this distribution with respect to the simple random walk with teleportation on \(\mathcal{G}\).
Temporal network centralities
Temporal networks. We will consider temporal networks \(\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{G}_t,\ t\in [ 1,T] )\) defined over a discrete timespan \(t\in [ 1,T]\). For each time \(t\), we require \(\mathcal{G}_t\) to be a network \(\mathcal{G}_t=(V,E_t)\) on a fixed vertexset \(V\) with cardinal \(N\). For convenience, we will label the vertices of \(\mathcal{G}\) and assume that \(V=[ 1,N]\). By default, the networks we consider are directed, since directionality of trade is of great importance in the main application we have in mind, namely cattle trade networks, in which nodes are holdings and edges represent cattle being moved from one holding to another.
Representing temporal networks by a sequence of discrete snapshots naturally leads to a matrix representation \((A_t,\ t\in [ 1,T] )\), where \(A_t=(a_{t,i,j},\ i,j\in V)\) is the adjacency matrix of the network \(\mathcal{G}_t\). However, it is also possible to embed the snapshots \(\mathcal{G}_t\) inside a single concatenated network \(\mathcal{G}^{\rm{conc}}\), which has vertexset \([ 1,T+1] \times V\). In this representation, each edge \((u,v)\in E_t\) is seen as a directed edge from vertex \((t,u)\) to \((t+1,v)\). This representation is inspired by the application to cattle trade movements, in which an edge (u, v) at time \(t\) represents the movement of an animal between two holdings, such that that animal is present in holding \(u\) at time \(t\), then in holding \(v\) at time \(t+1\). Of course, it would also be possible to use edges in \(E_t\) to represent movements from timeslice \(t1\) to timeslice \(t\). Using our convention however, in matrix form, the concatenated network \(\mathcal{G}^{\rm{conc}}\) has an adjacency matrix defined by blocks:
Note that this matrix is of dimension \(TN\times (T+1)N\). We will also sometimes consider the wrapped network \(\mathcal{G}^\text {wrap}\). This network has vertexset \([ 1,T ] \times V\) and edges from \(E_T\) go from layer \(T\) to layer 1. Its matrix representation is then
Optionally, each of these networks can be augmented to include selfloops linking each vertex \((t,i)\) to its representation \((t+1,i)\) in the next timeslice (using the convention that \(T+1=1\) in the case of the wrapped network). This will be useful when considering lazy random walks, which can stay in a given vertex for some amount of time before moving using an outgoing edge.
TempoRank centrality. There are at least two extensions of PageRank centrality to the temporal networks. Here, we will focus on TempoRank centrality (Rocha and Masuda 2014), but we note that a different approach was considered in Rozenshtein and Gionis (2016), also taking advantage of the close relationship between PageRank scores and the stationary distributions of random walks on the network. The temporal PageRank approach of Rozenshtein and Gionis (2016) defines a timedependent score \(\mathbf {r}(u,t)\) for each node \(u\) and each timestamp \(t\) recorded in the temporal network by considering the number of timerespecting random walks reaching \(u\) before time \(t\). Nodes that can be reached by many timerespecting walks will then have a high temporal PageRank score at time \(t\). This approach is particularly useful in the case of streaming graphs, and the authors describe an efficient algorithm to update the temporal PageRank scores as more interactions are recorded, accurately reflecting rising and falling influence of a given node as time passes. However, such an approach is not wellsuited to our context of outbreak mitigation on cattle trade networks, due to the periodic nature of such networks. Indeed, there is a strong annual and seasonal periodicity in the activity of certain holdings. The corresponding nodes will then have low temporal PageRank scores after long periods of inactivity, while being of critical importance in epidemic transmission during their activity period.
By contrast, the TempoRank score introduced in Rocha and Masuda (2014) summarizes all temporal information contained in a set of timestamped edges into a single score by averaging over all observation times. TempoRank centrality considers the wrapped network \(\mathcal{G}^\text {wrap}\) associated with a given temporal network \(\mathcal{G}\). With the application to cattle trade networks in mind, we will assume that \(\mathcal{G}\), hence also \(\mathcal{G}^\text {wrap}\) are directed. Let \(q\ge 0\) be a laziness parameter and \(d\ge 0\) be a teleportation parameter. The transition matrix for the lazy random walk with teleportation is then defined by:
with the outdegree \({\rm{odeg}}_t(i)\) defined by:
In other words, random walkers stay in place with probability \(q\) (note that the authors of Rocha and Masuda (2014) used a degreedependent probability \(q^{\text {deg}_t(i)}\) of staying in place). If they decide to move, they teleport to a uniformly chosen vertex with probability \(d\), or move along a uniformly chosen outgoing edge with probability \(1d\). Note that if the current vertex is isolated at time \(t\) (\({\rm{odeg}}_i (t)=0\)), there is no such outgoing edge, and they stay in place (this occurs with probability \((1q)(1d)\)). Using the wrapped network representation of (4), we then get the following transition matrix on \(\mathcal{G}^ \text {wrap}\):
By definition, \(B^{{\rm{wrap}}}\) is a stochastic matrix, and, by the PerronFrobenius theorem, admits a (unique up to a multiplicative constant) left 1eigenvector \(\Pi\) with nonnegative elements. Writing left 1eigenvectors under the form \(\Pi =(\pi _1\ \dots \ \pi _T)\in {\mathbb{R}}^{TN}\) with \(\pi _i\in {\mathbb{R}}^N\), we see that they need to satisfy the equations:
which is equivalent to
In other words, the \(\pi _t\) are the stationary distributions of the random walks \((X_{mT+t})\) as \(m\rightarrow \infty\), where \(X\) has onestep transition matrix given by (5). Averaging over time, we define:
We will also consider the following version of TempoRank that takes into account the existence of outgoing edges in a given timeslice. We will call it outTempoRank centrality. It gives no weight to vertices with no outgoing edges, by contrast with regular TempoRank centrality.
Random walk centralities: definition and properties
Stochastic approximation
We will now see how direct stochastic simulations can be used to approximate randomwalk based centrality measures. This makes their computation effectively possible on very large networks, for which matrixbased methods are not feasible. Indeed, eigenvalue methods for large matrices are relying on sparsity assumptions that are not satisfied here: for \(d>0\), the transition matrices \(B_t\) are always dense. Even if \(d=0\), while the individual transition matrices might be sparse, depending on the connectivity structure of the underlying network, the cyclical products used in the definition of the TempoRank will lose sparsity as the number of timeslices increases.
For \(q\in [0,1)\) and \(d\in [0,1]\), let then \((X_n,\ n\ge 0)\) be a Markov chain on \(\mathcal{G}^{{\rm{wrap}}}\) with transition matrix \(B^{{\rm{wrap}}}\) (7). There is an obvious projection map \(\pi :\mathcal{G}^{{\rm{wrap}}} \rightarrow \mathcal{G}\) such that \(\pi (t,x)=x,\ 1\le t\le T,\ x\in V\). We are interested in the asymptotic behavior of the visit times \(V_n\), as well as the exit times \(O_n\), defined respectively by:
We can use these quantities to approximate both TempoRank and outTempoRank centrality. Indeed, if \(d>0\), then \(X\) is an irreducible Markov chain on \(V\), and
Hence, we can compute TempoRank and outTempoRank centrality by simulating timerespecting random walks on \(\mathcal{G}^{\rm{wrap}}\) and by counting the time spent in each vertex, resp. the number of movements exiting a given vertex through an outgoing edge (not through teleportation). Both the deterministic (matrixbased) and the stochastic algorithm are freely available^{Footnote 1}. The use of such methods to compute centralities when the size of the graph makes matrixbased methods unusable is classical (Avrachenkov et al. 2007; Broder et al. 2006; Bahmani et al. 2010) and has been extensively studied in the context of internet search engines.
Convergence of random walks
In order to quantify the effect of the laziness parameter \(q\) and the teleportation parameter \(d\) on the speed of convergence of the quantities described above to their deterministic limit, we used the wellknown Primary School temporal network (Gemmetto et al. 2014). This network is constituted by facetoface close interactions between high school students and teachers, as measured in 20second intervals. We aggregated all contacts occurring in a given hour into a single timeslice, which resulted in a temporal network of 242 nodes and 26,603 edges over 19 timeslices.
We computed the vector of exit times for a random walk with \(5\times 10^7\) steps, logging interim values at increments of \(5\times 10^5\) steps, for varying values of \(d\) and \(q\). We also computed the exact value of the outTempoRank vector using (11) and compared it to the stochastic approximation at each iteration using Total Absolute Percentage Error:
Results (shown in Fig. 1) indicate that, for this network at least, the fastest convergence is obtained for small values of \(q\) (including 0), which of course reflects the fact that laziness slows down the random walks. Most importantly, there also exists an optimal value of \(d\) for which convergence is fastest. For the schools network, this value lies around \(d=0.3\). Understanding how this optimal parameter choice is related to the geometry of the wrapped temporal network could be of great importance in tuning the approximation algorithm in settings for which deterministic computations are unfeasible.
Centrality measures in cattle trade networks
In this section, we will use the previously defined centrality measures to identify the nodes most responsible for the spread of disease in a large network of cattle movements in France. Other than the static and temporal PageRank centralities defined above, we also consider Katz and betweenness centrality (definitions can be found in Additional file 1: section 1).
The French BDNI network
The French Base de Données Nationale d’Identification (BDNI) is a national database logging all movements of cattle between two holdings in France. For the purpose of this work, we extracted all movements occurring in a twoyear period between 20140101 and 20151231. We used these movements to construct a temporal network, with holdings as vertices and cattle movements as edges, with a timestamp corresponding to the day of the movement. We summarized some statistics of the 2014 and 2015 networks in Table 1 below. A more detailed statistical analysis of the BDNI networks between 2005 and 2009 can be found in Dutta et al. (2014).
An important feature of this network and more generally of cattle trade networks is the presence of markets and assembly centres, through which a significant part of all trades occur. They are the obvious most central vertices in any cattle trade network (Vidondo and Voelkl 2018), but they may not be hotspots of disease transmission, in particular for pathogens that require prolonged close contact for infection, such as paratuberculosis or BVDV (Gates et al. 2014). Indeed, animals remain in these holdings for a single day (or up to a week in the case of assembly centres), which might not be long enough for significant transmission to occur. To account for such dynamics, we consider two versions of the BDNI network: the first (dubbed the complete network), includes all movements to and from markets and assembly centres, whereas the second (the reconstructed network) bypasses these vertices by reconstructing movements between farms that involve a market or assembly centre as intermediary. More precisely, if an animal moves from a farm \(F_1\) to a market or assembly centre at a date \(t_1\), then subsequently moves to another farm \(F_2\) at a later date \(t_2\), we will log a single movement from \(F_1\) to \(F_2\) at time \(t_1\) in the reconstructed network (Fig. 2).
As can be seen in Table 1, the most striking difference between the complete and reconstructed networks lies in their degree distribution. Assuming a powerlaw distribution, we computed its tail exponent, which is such that
for the degree \(D\) of a uniformly chosen vertex in the network. While the complete networks exhibit socalled scalefree behavior (\(1<\alpha <3\)), the reconstructed networks have \(\alpha >3\), indicating a network without large hubs. The same behavior can be seen with the higher average outdegree in the reconstructed networks, caused by the splitting of single farmtomarket or farmtoassemblycentre movements into several farmtofarm movements. As we will see below, the different connectivity structures lead to markedly different epidemic behavior and thus, to different hierarchies between centrality measures used to control the epidemics.
Centrality in cattle trade networks
There have been several studies of centrality in cattle trade networks. Most approaches have focused on (temporal) pathcounting methods, such as the DiseaseFlow centralities in Natale et al. (2009), closely related to the outgoing and ingoing contact chains described in Nöremark et al. (2011). Such methods have proved useful in identifying epidemiologically important nodes (Büttner et al. 2013; Vidondo and Voelkl 2018) but fail for largescale networks due to combinatorial explosion in the number of nodes or the number of timesteps. Other approaches are simulationbased, aiming at identifying suitable control strategies by directly simulating outbreaks (using, for instance, generic SItype transmission dynamics) on the temporal networks (Payen et al. 2019; Bajardi et al. 2012).
We computed static and temporal centrality measures for the 2014 and 2015 BDNI networks, both in their complete and reconstructed version. Due to the size of the network, computation of the TempoRank measures using deterministic methods was impossible. We used the stochastic approximations of (14)–(15), with \(10^8\) steps for the random walks. We compared the centralities at increments of \(10^6\) steps to the final state to check convergence (Fig. 3). We observe that the laziness parameter has no influence on the speed of convergence, whereas for fixed \(q\), the fastest convergence was achieved for low values of \(d\).
In order to assess correlations between measures, we computed Spearman (rank) coefficients (Fig. 4). This analysis shows the high level of similarity between Katz and PageRank centrality, as well as moderate levels of correlation between Katz centrality, PageRank centrality and betweenness, as well as outdegree centrality and outTempoRank. Broadly speaking, this suggests a rough classification of the six measures considered here into three categories: those measuring the outgoing centrality of a node (outgoing degree and outTempoRank) and those measuring its ingoing centrality (TempoRank, Katz and PageRank centrality). Betweenness centrality is moderately correlated to measures in both groups, since it takes both incoming and outcoming paths into account.
In addition to this analysis, we also compared the rankings of vertices according to the different centralities, using rankbiased overlap (RBO) (Webber et al. 2010). This measure of similarity between two rankings (permutations) \(\sigma\) and \(\tau\) of \([ 1,N]\) is defined by
where \(\sigma _{1:k}\) is the set of the \(k\) highestranked elements in \(\sigma\) and where \(p\in (0,1)\) is a parameter quantifying how much weight should be placed on comparisons between the highestranking elements. In essence, the smaller \(p\), the less importance given to the overlap \(\sigma _{1:k}\cap \tau _{1:k}\) with high \(k\). Figure 5 shows the pairwise RBO scores for \(p=0.997\), chosen so that 95% of weight is given to the top 1000 vertices in the network. There is a striking dissimilarity between the complete and the reconstructed network. On the complete network, most centrality measures have moderately high overlap, with the exception of the TempoRank measure, which has low overlap with all other centralities. The latter is probably due to it highly ranking vertices with no or few outgoing edges, on which random walkers spend a disproportionate amount of time, thereby increasing their TempoRank score. On the reconstructed network however, almost all pairs of centralities have very low overlap, the most similar being TempoRank and Katz centrality as well as outTempoRank and PageRank centrality. This shows that the problem of identifying highcentrality nodes is much more difficult on a diffuse network such as the reconstructed cattle trade network, whereas on scalefree networks, most measures have similar rankings, perhaps with slight differences in the order.
Percolation analysis
Ultimately, we wish to understand how centrality of a node is correlated with the role this node plays in epidemic outbreaks and if it can be a good predictor of the spread of infection on the temporal network under study. This is a classical problem in network analysis (Lü et al. 2016) and is usually studied either by direct simulation (Vidondo and Voelkl 2018; Payen et al. 2019) or by computation of a proxy of epidemic spread, such as the size of the largest connected component (Mweu et al. 2013; Büttner et al. 2013) or the socalled epidemic threshold (Valdano et al. 2015, 2018). In this section, we will use as a metric the mean final outbreak size of simulated SIR processes. We will use the tsir package for fast outbreak simulation (Holme 2020). This package simulates epidemic outbreaks on temporal networks in the following manner:

1.
Choose a node uniformly at random in the network and set its status to “infected” at the start of the observation period (20150101 in our case). All other nodes are set to “susceptible”.

2.
Each infected node remains in that state for an exponentially distributed time with parameter \(\gamma >0\), after which it becomes “removed”.

3.
For each timestamped edge \((t,u,v)\) such that \(u\) is infected and \(v\) is susceptible at time \(t\), \(v\) becomes infected with probability \(\beta \in (0,1]\).
For each centrality measure, we ranked vertices in decreasing order of centrality, the measures being computed on the corresponding 2014 movement network. We then removed an increasing proportion of vertices in the 2015 network, ranging from 0.1% to 5% of all vertices. When removing a vertex, we removed all edges from and to that vertex. We then simulated 10,000 iterations of a temporal SIR process on the percolated 2015 network, with percontact infection probability \(\beta =0.5\) and recovery rate \(\gamma =1\) per day. On the static network aggregating all edges with timestamps in 2015, this corresponds to an epidemic with basic reproduction number (Durrett 2007) given by:
where \(\langle k \rangle\) and \(\langle k^2\rangle\) are the first and second moment of the degree distribution. This would give \(R_0=28.75\) and \(R_0=10\) on the complete and reconstructed networks, respectively. However, when taking temporality into account, contagion dynamics are much less explosive since the number of contacts of a given node need only be considered over a short time period (Enright and Kao 2018). Exact computation of the epidemic threshold for general temporal networks is possible (Valdano et al. 2018) but can be computationally unfeasible for large networks. Interestingly, we found that final outbreak sizes had low variance (see Additional file 1: section 2 for more data), perhaps reflecting the fact that once a pathogen reaches a node with high connectivity and high activity, outbreaks tend to be quite similar.
We calibrated the TempoRank algorithm by computing centrality using different values of laziness \(q\) and teleportation \(d\) and comparing the mean final outcome curves (Figs. 6 and 7). Complete results for all examined combinations of \(q\) and \(d\) can be found in Additional file 1: section 6. Interestingly, the laziness parameter seemed to have only a very limited impact on final outbreak sizes, with higher laziness leading to higher outbreak sizes. This effect is only appearing for high fractions of removed nodes; it seems that, whatever value of \(q\) was chosen for outTempoRank computation, the highestranked nodes were identical. A similar effect can be seen when comparing disintegration curves for varying levels of teleportation, although the differences are much more important. The best outcomes were obtained when teleportation was set to the lowest levels (\(d=0.01\)). We then used TempoRank and outTempoRank scores computed with the optimal values \(q=0\) and \(d=0.01\) for comparison with other centrality measures.
Results of the percolation experiment with all centrality measures taken into account are shown in Fig. 8. In the complete graph, the rapid decline in final outbreak sizes, even for small numbers of removed nodes, is a wellknown feature of scalefree networks when nodes are targeted appropriately (not uniformly at random). For most centrality measures, the highestranked nodes tend to be nodes with high degree, and their removal leads to rapid disintegration of the connectivity structure of the network. Indeed, in cattle trade networks, markets and assembly centres act as trade hubs (Hoscheit et al. 2017; Natale et al. 2009; Bajardi et al. 2011; Salines et al. 2017) and they are highly ranked by most centralities (see Additional file 1: section 3), which leads to similar disintegration profiles. Nevertheless, outTempoRank centrality is the bestperforming measure by this metric. By contrast, TempoRank centrality performs similarly at first than the static measures we included in our analysis. However, the disintegration curves associated to most static measures exhibit a plateau after a rapid initial decline, which is not the case for TempoRank centrality. Interestingly, comparison of the fraction of markets and assembly centres in the highestranked nodes (Additional file 1) shows that outTempoRank manages to identify those nodes as influential spreaders. By contrast, there is a smaller fraction of markets and assembly centres in the highly ranked nodes according to TempoRank, yet it still manages to effectively prevent epidemic spread at around 3% of removed nodes. The results we obtained, in particular the hierarchy of centrality measures, were consistent across the parameter space for the epidemic process (Additional file 1).
In the reconstructed graph, most disintegration profiles are linear, with different slopes depending on the centrality measure used to select the removed nodes. This is again as expected, because large hubs have been removed and replaced with many farmtofarm edges (as can be seen in the exponent of the degree distribution in Table 1). This makes the node removal problem more difficult, since there are potentially many redundant paths that can be taken by infections. We see that the temporal centrality measures significantly outperform the static measures on the reconstructed network, which shows that temporal information plays a major part in the spread of infection on cattle trade networks, once its strong connectivity properties have been muted. On this network, the regular TempoRank measure outperforms outTempoRank, suggesting that the reweighting of nodes by the fraction of time that they had active outgoing edges is a poor predictor of epidemic spread on this network. The difference with the complete network is striking in that regard.
We observed no qualitative difference in the disintegration curves for outbreaks simulated on the 2015 networks, whether the centralities were computed on the 2014 or the 2015 data (see Additional file 1: section 4). This is indicative of high yeartoyear similarity of the global structure of the networks, even though at the local level, there can be significant variation in the choice of trading partners (Valdano et al. 2015). Also, since contemporary data is not always available at the time of implementation of control measures, this shows that relying on past data can still produce highquality outbreak prevention and mitigation.
Conclusion
In this work, we showed how randomwalkbased centrality measures are wellsuited for large temporal networks, since they can be efficiently computed using stochastic simulations. We demonstrate their suitability for the purpose of epidemic mitigation by targeted removal of nodes, and their improved performance when compared to measures computed on the static (timeaggregated) network.
However, there are some limitations inherent to the definition of TempoRank and outTempoRank centralities. Indeed, they are defined as timeaveraged quantities as can be seen from their computation through the stationary distributions of random walks on the timewrapped network \(\mathcal{G}^\text {wrap}\). This makes them robust to small local changes in the network, but fails to take into account heterogeneous behaviour, such as seasonality (Vidondo and Voelkl 2018) or changes in network dynamics which would make the recent past a better predictor of future outbreaks than older temporal patterns. It should be possible to account for such ruptures, provided they can be accurately detected (Ranshous et al. 2015; Donnat and Holmes 2018; Monnig and Meyer 2018) by appropriately reweighting timeslices in the definition of TempoRank centrality (10). Other, socalled online centrality measures update the scores as new interactions are added to the dataset (Béres et al. 2018; Rozenshtein and Gionis 2016) but fail to identify older, periodically active nodes which might have an important role to play in epidemic spread in specific timeframes.
An important next step will be the use of centrality measures for targeted control measures more subtle than the outright removal procedure studied here. For instance, targeted vaccination campaigns or diagnostic strategies are some of the tools available for the control of cattle disease, but they need to be weighted against their economic impact. Better focused strategies could yield similar epidemiological outcome at lower economic cost.
In a similar fashion, the effect of parameters \(q\) and \(d\) on final epidemic size should be explored further. For instance, on temporal networks with different geometries (such as sexual contact networks), it would be interesting to understand whether low final outbreak sizes are always associated with low teleportation parameters in the TempoRank scores or if this is a specificity of networks that are similar to cattle trade networks.
It will also be important to obtain quantitative results on the speed of convergence of the stochastic algorithm to the TempoRank and outTempoRank centrality vectors. It is wellknown (Levin and Peres 2017) that mixing times of Markov chains are strongly related, among other things, to the spectral gap of their transition matrices. It is not clear how these results carry over to the temporal setting, and we hope that further work in that direction will enable fine tuning of the number of steps required to compute good approximations of temporal centrality measures when deterministic algorithms are not practicable.
Availability of data and materials
The “schools” dataset is available in the SocioPatterns repository http://www.sociopatterns.org. The BDNI dataset is available from the French Ministry of Agriculture but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request, subject to permission of the Ministry of Agriculture.
Notes
 1.
https://github.com/phoscheit/DynPageRank
Abbreviations
 BDNI:

Base de Données Nationale d’Identification (National Cattle Identification Database)
 SIR:

Susceptibleinfectiverecovered
 TAPE:

Total absolute percentage error
 BVDV:

Bovine viral Diarrhea virus
 RBO:

Rankbiased overlap
References
Agryzkov T, Curado M, Pedroche F, Tortosa L, Vicent JF (2019) Extending the adapted PageRank algorithm centrality to multiplex networks with data using the PageRank twolayer approach. Symmetry 11(2):1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/SYM11020284
Avrachenkov K, Litvak N, Nemirovsky D, Osipova N (2007) Monte Carlo methods in pagerank computation: when one iteration is sufficient. SIAM J Numer Anal 45(2):890–904. https://doi.org/10.1137/050643799
Bahmani B, Chowdhury A, Goel A (2010) Fast incremental and personalized PageRank. Proc VLDB Endowment 4(3):173–184. https://doi.org/10.14778/1929861.1929864
Bajardi P, Barrat A, Natale F, Savini L, Colizza V (2011) Dynamical patterns of cattle trade movements. PLoS ONE 6(5):19869. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019869
Bajardi P, Barrat A, Savini L, Colizza V (2012) Optimizing surveillance for livestock disease spreading through animal movements. J R Soc Interface R Soc 9(76):2814–25. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2012.0289
Béres F, Pálovics R, Oláh A, Benczúr AA (2018) Temporal walk based centrality metric for graph streams. Appl Netw Sci 3(1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s4110901800805
Broder AZ, Lempel R, Maghoul F, Pedersen J (2006) Efficient PageRank approximation via graph aggregation. Inf Retrieval 9(2):123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1079100671461
Büttner K, Krieter J, Traulsen A, Traulsen I (2013) Efficient interruption of infection chains by targeted removal of central holdings in an animal trade network. PLoS ONE 8(9):74292. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074292
Donnat C, Holmes S (2018) Tracking network dynamics: a survey using graph distances. Ann Appl Stat 12(2):971–1012. https://doi.org/10.1214/18AOAS1176
Durrett R (2007) Random graph dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Dutta BL, Ezanno P, Vergu E (2014) Characteristics of the spatiotemporal network of cattle movements in France over a 5year period. Prevent Veterin Med 117(1):79–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.09.005
Dutta R, Mira A, Onnela JP (2018) Bayesian inference of spreading processes on networks. Proc R Soc Math Phys Eng Sci 474(2215):20180129. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2018.0129
Enright J, Kao R (2018) Epidemics on dynamic networks. Epidemics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epidem.2018.04.003
Gates MC, Humphry RW, Gunn GJ, Woolhouse MEJ (2014) Not all cows are epidemiologically equal: quantifying the risks of bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) transmission through cattle movements. Vet Res 45(1):110. https://doi.org/10.1186/s135670140110y
Gemmetto V, Barrat A, Cattuto C (2014) Mitigation of infectious disease at school: targeted class closure vs school closure. BMC Infect Dis 14(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s1287901406959.1408.7038
Ghalmane Z, Cherifi C, Cherifi H, Hassouni ME (2019) Centrality in complex networks with overlapping community structure. Sci Rep 9(1):1–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s4159801946507y
Hanke M, Foraita R (2017) Clone temporal centrality measures for incomplete sequences of graph snapshots. BMC Bioinform 18(1):261. https://doi.org/10.1186/s128590171677x
Holme P (2020) Fast and principled simulations of the SIR model on temporal networks. arXiv preprint 1–15. 2007.14386
Hoscheit P, Geeraert S, Beaunée G, Monod H, Gilligan CA, Filipe JAN, Vergu E, Moslonkalefebvre M (2017) Dynamical network models for cattle trade: towards economybased epidemic risk assessment. J Complex Netw 5(4):604–624. https://doi.org/10.1093/comnet/cnw026
Jalili M, SalehzadehYazdi A, Asgari Y, Arab SS, Yaghmaie M, Ghavamzadeh A, Alimoghaddam K (2015) CentiServer: a comprehensive resource, webbased application and R package for centrality analysis. PLoS ONE 10(11):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143111
Kim H, Anderson R (2012) Temporal node centrality in complex networks. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys 85(2):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.85.026107
Levin DA, Peres Y (2017) Markov chains and mixing times. American Mathematical Society, Providence, p 464
Lü L, Chen D, Ren XL, Zhang QM, Zhang YC, Zhou T (2016) Vital nodes identification in complex networks. Phys Rep 650:1–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2016.06.007
Lv L, Zhang K, Zhang T, Li X, Zhang J, Xue W (2019) Eigenvector centrality measure based on node similarity for multilayer and temporal networks. IEEE Access 7:115725–115733. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2936217
Monnig ND, Meyer FG (2018) The resistance perturbation distance: a metric for the analysis of dynamic networks. Discrete Appl Math 236:347–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2017.10.007
Mweu MM, Fournié G, Halasa T, Toft N, Nielsen SS (2013) Temporal characterisation of the network of Danish cattle movements and its implication for disease control: 2000–2009. Prevent Vet Med 110(3–4):379–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.02.015
Natale F, Giovannini A, Savini L, Palma D, Possenti L, Fiore G, Calistri P (2009) Network analysis of Italian cattle trade patterns and evaluation of risks for potential disease spread. Prevent Vet Med 92(4):341–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.08.026
Natale F, Savini L, Giovannini A, Calistri P, Candeloro L, Fiore G (2011) Evaluation of risk and vulnerability using a disease flow centrality measure in dynamic cattle trade networks. Prevent Veterin Med 98(2–3):111–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.11.013
Nöremark M, Håkansson N, Lewerin SS, Lindberg A, Jonsson A (2011) Network analysis of cattle and pig movements in Sweden: measures relevant for disease control and risk based surveillance. Prevent Vet Med 99(2–4):78–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.12.009
Payen A, Tabourier L, Latapy M (2019) Spreading dynamics in a cattle trade network: size, speed, typical profile and consequences on epidemic control strategies. PLoS ONE 14(6):0217972. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217972
Pedroche F, Romance M, Criado R (2016) A biplex approach to PageRank centrality: from classic to multiplex networks. Chaos Interdiscip J Nonlinear Sci. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4952955
Ranshous S, Shen S, Koutra D, Harenberg S, Faloutsos C, Samatova NF (2015) Anomaly detection in dynamic networks: a survey. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat 7(3):223–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.1347
Rocha LEC, Masuda N (2014) Random walk centrality for temporal networks. N J Phys. https://doi.org/10.1088/13672630/16/6/063023
Rozenshtein P, Gionis A (2016) Temporal PageRank. Mach Learn Knowl Discov Databases. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319462271
Salines M, Andraud M, Rose N (2017) Pig movements in France: designing network models fitting the transmission route of pathogens. PLoS ONE 12(10):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185858
Taylor D, Myers SA, Clauset A, Porter MA, Mucha PJ (2017) Eigenvectorbased centrality measures for temporal networks. Multiscale Model Simul 15(1):537–574. https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1066142
Taylor D, Porter MA, Mucha PJ (2019) Tunable eigenvectorbased centralities for multiplex and temporal. Networks 1904:02059
Valdano E, Ferreri L, Poletto C, Colizza V (2015) Analytical computation of the epidemic threshold on temporal networks. Phys Rev 5(2):021005. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.021005.1406.4815
Valdano E, Poletto C, Giovannini A, Palma D, Savini L, Colizza V (2015) Predicting epidemic risk from past temporal contact data. PLOS Comput Biol 11(3):1004152. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004152.g001
Valdano E, Fiorentin MR, Poletto C, Colizza V (2018) Epidemic threshold in continuoustime evolving networks. Phys Rev Lett 120(6):068302. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.068302
Vidondo B, Voelkl B (2018) Dynamic network measures reveal the impact of cattle markets and alpine summering on the risk of epidemic outbreaks in the Swiss cattle population. BMC Veterin Res 14(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s1291701814063
Webber W, Moffat A, Zobel J (2010) A similarity measure for indefinite rankings. ACM Trans Inf Syst 28(4):1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/1852102.1852106
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the help of Gaël Beaunée and Simon Labarthe. We are grateful to the INRAE MIGALE bioinformatics facility (MIGALE, INRAE, 2020. Migale bioinformatics Facility, doi: 10.15454/1.5572390655343293E12) for providing computing and storage resources.”
Funding
This work was carried out with the financial support of the French National Research Agency (ANR), project ANR16CE32000701 (CADENCE).
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
PH and EV conceived and designed the analysis. PH and EA contributed analysis tools and performed the analysis. PH and EV wrote the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Supplementary Information
Additional file 1.
Supplementary information regarding precise definitions of static centralities (Section S1), variance in the simulated outbreak sizes (Section S2), the relative weight of markets and assembly centres in highly ranked nodes (Section S3), the impact of using different yearly datasets to compute centralities (Section S4), the impact of varying epidemic parameters (Section S5), and the impact of varying random walk parameters to approximate TempoRank measures (Section S6).
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Hoscheit, P., Anthony, É. & Vergu, E. Dynamic centrality measures for cattle trade networks. Appl Netw Sci 6, 26 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109021003685
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109021003685
Keywords
 Temporal networks
 Centrality
 Cattle trade
 Epidemic mitigation