Testing Central Structure for Complex Networks

Testing whether two populations of networks share the same edge probabilities is a basic problem in network inference. How hard it is depends on the norm used to measure the difference. For the inhomogeneous Erdős--Rényi (IER) model, the optimal sample complexity is known for every integer $L_r$ norm and for $1\le r<2$. For non-integral $r>2$, however, the known upper and lower bounds do not match, and the lower bound was conjectured to be tight. We study this gap for two-sample testing on aligned vertices. We propose a test that runs two published statistics, of orders $2$ and $\lceil r\rceil$, on the same data and rejects if either one rejects. Its thresholds come from Hölder interpolation, so that both statistics have the same sample cost. We prove that this test attains the conjectured rate. Combined with earlier results, this shows that for every fixed $r\ge1$ the minimax sample complexity is of order $n^{\max\{4/r-1,\,2/r\}}/ε^2$, even when the separation changes with $n$. In simulations with $n$ between 32 and 256, the number of graphs needed for 80% power at level $0.05$ grows with $n$ at a rate consistent with the theory. For $r=2.5$, for example, the fitted exponent is $0.78$, against the theoretical value $0.8$. Interestingly, the two statistics split the work as the interpolation argument suggests: the higher-order statistic is more powerful when only a few edges change, and the $L_2$ statistic when many edges change.

A composite structural index summarises a network in one number, and for a triangle-based index it is spectrally redundant: Tr(A^3) is the third moment of the adjacency spectrum. The non-redundant content sits one level down, in diag(A^3), which depends on eigenvectors and is not spectrally determined. A corollary in the theory paper predicted that the global scalar should tie sharpened spectral baselines rather than beat them, while the node-wise attribution should do better where the number of structural epicentres is unknown. We construct Omega-N by localizing each of the four factors. The direct localization is badly conditioned; two corrections from published practice fix it, a configuration-null excess per factor and a personalized-PageRank neighbourhood at several scales, giving ten interpretable features per node, with no attributes, training or embeddings. Against a recursive feature engine at five levels of recursion, Omega-N wins on three and ties on two of the six in-domain evaluations, the sixth a declared null where every arm returns chance, with ten features against its 28 to 252 before pruning. Two statistics from the graph and labels, not from performance, partition the eight benchmarks without error, and the two they exclude are the two on which it loses. The strongest application is drug-target prioritisation on protein interaction networks: +0.032 to +0.103 AUPRC over a six-feature centrality battery and +0.084 to +0.208 over the four-feature one, across three constructions, replicated on an independent AP-MS network and label source (degree-matched: +0.0723 on STRING, +0.0560 on BioPlex, p=0.00195). Adding Omega-N to centralities plus Node2Vec changes nothing. The claim is narrow and it is the point: ten named features, computed without training, match or beat hand-crafted centralities and a recursive engine, and do not touch learned representations.

Quantifying influence in networks is important across science, economics, and public health, yet widely used centrality measures remain limited: they rely on static representations, heuristic network constructions, and purely endogenous notions of importance, while offering little semantic connection to observable activity. We introduce HawkesRank, a dynamic framework grounded in multivariate Hawkes point processes that models exogenous drivers (intrinsic contributions) and endogenous amplification (self- and cross-excitation). This yields a principled, empirically calibrated, and adaptive importance measure. Classical indices such as Katz centrality and PageRank emerge as mean-field limits of the framework, clarifying both their validity and their limitations. Unlike static averages, HawkesRank measures importance through instantaneous event intensities, enabling prediction, transparent endo-exo decomposition, and adaptability to shocks. Using both simulations and empirical analysis of emotion dynamics in online communication platforms, we show that HawkesRank closely tracks system activity and consistently outperforms static centrality metrics.