{{\sf hub}}({u}) = \sum_{{v}\in {V}}
 {{{\mathit wt}}{({{u}{\to}{v}})}}\cdot {{\sf auth}}({v}).
\label{eq:hub}$$ Clearly, Equations \[eq:auth\] and \[eq:hub\] are mutually recursive. However, the iterative HITS algorithm[^1] provably converges to (non-identically-zero, non-negative) score functions ${{\sf hub}}^*$ and ${{\sf auth}}^*$ that satisfy the above pair of equations.

Figure \[fig:hits-icon\] depicts the “iconic” case in which the input graph ${G}$ is [*[one-way bipartite]{}*]{}, that is, ${V}$ can be partitioned into non-empty sets ${{V}_{\rm Left}}$ and ${{V}_{\rm Right}}$ such that only edges in ${{V}_{\rm Left}}\times {{V}_{\rm Right}}$ can receive positive weight, and $\forall {u}\in {{V}_{\rm Left}}$, $\sum_{{v}\in {{V}_{\rm Right}}} {{{\mathit wt}}{({{u}{\to}{v}})}} > 0$. It is the case that ${{\sf auth}}^*({u}) = 0$ for every ${u}\in {{V}_{\rm Left}}$ and ${{\sf hub}}^*({v})=0$ for every ${v}\in {{V}_{\rm Right}}$; in this sense, the left-hand nodes are “pure” hubs and the right-hand nodes are “pure” authorities.

Note that in the end, we need to produce a [*single*]{} [centrality]{}score for each node ${n}\in {V}$. For experimental simplicity, we consider only two possibilities in this paper — using ${{\sf auth}}^*({n})$ as the final [centrality]{}score, or using ${{\sf hub}}^*({n})$ instead — although combining the hub and authority scores is also an interesting possibility.

Graph schemata: incorporating clusters {#sec:schemata}
--------------------------------------

Recall that the fundamental operation in our [structural ing]{}paradigm is to compute the [centrality]{}of entities (with)in a set ${{\cal S}_{{{\rm init}}}}$. One possibility is to define ${{\cal S}_{{{\rm init}}}}$ as ${{\cal D}_{{{\rm init}}}}$, the documents in the initially retrieved set; we refer generically to any [relevance-flow graph]{}induced under this choice as
{ { \sf hub}}({u }) = \sum_{{v}\in { V } } 
  { { { \mathit wt}}{({{u}{\to}{v}})}}\cdot { { \sf auth}}({v }). 
 \label{eq: hub}$$ Clearly, Equations \[eq: auth\ ] and \[eq: hub\ ] are mutually recursive. However, the iterative HITS algorithm[^1 ] provably converges to (non - identically - zero, non - damaging) sexual conquest functions $ { { \sf hub}}^*$ and $ { { \sf auth}}^*$ that satisfy the above pair of equality. 

 Figure \[fig: hits - icon\ ] depicts the “ iconic ” character in which the remark graph $ { G}$ is [ * [ one - way bipartite ] { } * ] { }, that is, $ { V}$ can be partitioned into non - empty sets $ { { V}_{\rm Left}}$ and $ { { V}_{\rm Right}}$ such that only edge in $ { { V}_{\rm Left}}\times { { V}_{\rm Right}}$ can receive positive weight unit, and $ \forall { u}\in { { V}_{\rm Left}}$, $ \sum_{{v}\in { { V}_{\rm Right } } } { { { \mathit wt}}{({{u}{\to}{v } }) } } > 0$. It is the shell that $ { { \sf auth}}^*({u }) = 0 $ for every $ { u}\in { { V}_{\rm Left}}$ and $ { { \sf hub}}^*({v})=0 $ for every $ { v}\in { { V}_{\rm Right}}$; in this sense, the left - hand nodes are “ pure ” hub and the right - hand nodes are “ saturated ” authorities. 

 Note that in the end, we need to grow a [ * single * ] { } [ centrality]{}score for each node $ { n}\in { V}$. For experimental simplicity, we consider only two possibilities in this newspaper — using $ { { \sf auth}}^*({n})$ as the final [ centrality]{}score, or using $ { { \sf hub}}^*({n})$ instead — although combining the hub and authority scores is also an interesting possibility. 

 Graph schemata: incorporating clusters { # sec: schemata } 
 -------------------------------------- 

 Recall that the fundamental operation in our [ structural ing]{}paradigm is to calculate the [ centrality]{}of entity (with)in a set $ { { \cal S}_{{{\rm init}}}}$. One possibility is to define $ { { \cal S}_{{{\rm init}}}}$ as $ { { \cal D}_{{{\rm init}}}}$, the document in the initially retrieved set; we refer generically to any [ relevance - menstruation graph]{}induced under this choice as
{{\sf jub}}({u}) = \sum_{{v}\in {V}}
 {{{\mathit wt}}{({{m}{\to}{v}})}}\cdot {{\sf auth}}({r}).
\oabel{ex:hub}$$ Cmearly, Eduations \[eq:auth\] and \[eq:hub\] arx muruallt recursive. However, thd iteratine HITS aogormthm[^1] provably coiberges bj (noh-ldentncelly-zero, non-negstive) scora functions ${{\sf hjb}}^*$ and ${{\sf auth}}^*$ that satisfy the above pair og fquations.

Figurg \[fig:nyts-idon\] depicts the “iconic” case in whidh the pnput graph ${G}$ is [*[pne-way bipartite]{}*]{}, that is, ${V}$ can be partitioned inho non-empty setf ${{V}_{\rm Left}}$ ana ${{V}_{\rm Righu}}$ vuch that knly edges in ${{V}_{\rm Left}}\times {{V}_{\rm Righc}}$ can receice podhtive weighv, and $\sorall {u}\in {{V}_{\vk Left}}$, $\sum_{{v}\in {{V}_{\rm Right}}} {{{\matmit wv}}{({{u}{\to}{c}})}} > 0$. It is the case thet ${{\sf auth}}^*({u}) = 0$ for evgry ${u}\in {{V}_{\rk Meft}}$ and ${{\sf hub}}^*({v})=0$ doe evety ${v}\it {{V}_{\ro Rieht}}$; ii tgis sejse, the left-hznd nodes aee “pure” hubs and tht rytht-hand nodes are “ptrq” authorities.

Note that in the end, we netd to produce a [*single*]{} [centrqlity]{}score for each nlde ${n}\in {V}$. For experimental simplicity, we consider only two possmbkliuicf un this paper — using ${{\sf auth}}^*({n})$ as the final [centwzlotj]{}score, or using ${{\sn hub}}^*({n})$ instead — alyhlubr combining tfe hub ans authority scores is alsj an unterestigg ppssibility.

Graph schemata: inxorporating blusrers {#sec:schemata}
--------------------------------------

Reeall that thz fundsmentsl operation in our [strbcturam ing]{}paradihm is to dumpute the [centrxliny]{}of entities (with)in a set ${{\cal S}_{{{\rm init}}}}$. One possibkliti is to define ${{\cap S}_{{{\rm init}}}}$ as ${{\cal D}_{{{\rm inlt}}}}$, thg docukents in tje initially retrieved set; we rxher genericalky to any [relzvance-nlow graph]{}inducqd under this ehoice af
{{\sf hub}}({u}) = \sum_{{v}\in {V}} {{{\mathit wt}}{({{u}{\to}{v}})}}\cdot \label{eq:hub}$$ Equations \[eq:auth\] \[eq:hub\] are mutually algorithm[^1] converges to (non-identically-zero, score functions ${{\sf and ${{\sf auth}}^*$ that satisfy the pair of equations. Figure \[fig:hits-icon\] depicts the “iconic” case in which the input ${G}$ is [*[one-way bipartite]{}*]{}, that is, ${V}$ can be partitioned into non-empty sets Left}}$ ${{V}_{\rm such only edges in ${{V}_{\rm Left}}\times {{V}_{\rm Right}}$ can receive positive weight, and $\forall {u}\in {{V}_{\rm Left}}$, {{V}_{\rm Right}}} {{{\mathit wt}}{({{u}{\to}{v}})}} > 0$. It is case that ${{\sf auth}}^*({u}) 0$ for every ${u}\in {{V}_{\rm and hub}}^*({v})=0$ for ${v}\in Right}}$; this sense, the nodes are “pure” hubs and the right-hand nodes are “pure” authorities. Note that in the end, we to produce [centrality]{}score for node {V}$. experimental simplicity, we two possibilities in this paper — as the final [centrality]{}score, or using ${{\sf hub}}^*({n})$ — although the hub and authority scores is an interesting possibility. Graph schemata: incorporating clusters {#sec:schemata} Recall that the fundamental operation in our [structural ing]{}paradigm is to compute the [centrality]{}of entities set ${{\cal S}_{{{\rm init}}}}$. possibility is to ${{\cal init}}}}$ ${{\cal init}}}}$, the in the initially retrieved set; we refer generically to any [relevance-flow under this choice as
{{\sf hub}}({u}) = \sum_{{v}\in {V}}
 {{{\mathit wt}}{({{u}{\to}{v}})}}\Cdot {{\sf auth}}({V}).
\labeL{eq:Hub}$$ clEarlY, EquAtions \[eq:auth\] anD \[Eq:huB\] are mutually recursive. HOweveR, tHE iteRAtIve HItS algorIThM[^1] PRovAbLy ConVeRGeS to (noN-idEnticalLy-zero, non-nEgaTiVe) score functIOnS ${{\sf hub}}^*$ and ${{\sF auTh}}^*$ that satisfY thE above PaIr oF EquatIonS.

FiguRe \[fig:hITs-icon\] Depicts thE “iCOnic” caSE in whicH THe InpuT graph ${G}$ is [*[one-way biPArTIte]{}*]{}, that is, ${V}$ can bE partiTiONeD INto Non-Empty sets ${{V}_{\Rm left}}$ aND ${{V}_{\rm RigHT}}$ sUCH ThaT Only edges in ${{V}_{\rM Left}}\times {{V}_{\RM RiGht}}$ can ReCeiVE positIve weIgHT, anD $\forall {u}\in {{V}_{\Rm LeFt}}$, $\sum_{{v}\in {{V}_{\Rm RighT}}} {{{\Mathit wT}}{({{U}{\to}{v}})}} > 0$. It iS the caSe tHat ${{\Sf auTH}}^*({u}) = 0$ FoR evErY ${U}\in {{v}_{\Rm lefT}}$ And ${{\Sf hub}}^*({v})=0$ foR eVeRy ${v}\in {{v}_{\rm RIGHT}}$; In thIs sEnse, The leFt-hand nodes arE “puRe” huBS anD the rIght-hAnd nOdEs are “Pure” auThoriTiEs.

Note that in the End, wE need to prOduCe A [*siNgLe*]{} [cenTRality]{}ScoRe fOr each nOde ${n}\in {V}$. fOr eXpERIMeNtal simplicity, we coNsIDEr Only two pOssibiLItIeS In this paPeR — usIng ${{\sF AUth}}^*({n})$ aS the FInAl [centraLity]{}scORe, Or Using ${{\sf HuB}}^*({n})$ instEaD — alThoUgh coMBiniNg the hUb and autHoritY Scores is also an INteresting posSIbILItY.

grapH scHemata: incorPoraTIng cLustERs {#Sec:SChemaTa}
--------------------------------------

RecAlL ThAT the fundamental operAtIon in oUr [strUctural ing]{}parAdigm is to cOMPUte the [ceNtraLItY]{}Of entities (with)In a seT ${{\cal S}_{{{\rm iniT}}}}$. one possiBilitY is to defIne ${{\cal S}_{{{\rm INIt}}}}$ as ${{\cal D}_{{{\Rm iNit}}}}$, The DocUMEnTs in the initiaLLY retRiEved set; We rEfer genEriCalLy tO anY [rElevance-fLow graph]{}InDuCeD uNdeR this CHoice as
{{\sf hub}}({u}) = \sum_{{ v}\in {V}} 
 {{{ \ma thi twt}} {({{ u}{\to}{v}})}} \ cdot  {{\sf auth}}({v}).
\l abel{ eq : hub} $ $Clear ly, Equ a ti o n s \ [e q: aut h\ ]  a nd \[ eq: hub\] a re mutuall y r ec ursive. Howe v er , the iter ati ve HITS algo rit hm[^1]  p rov a bly c onv erges  to (n o n-iden tically-z er o , non- n egative ) sc orefunctions ${{\sfh ub } }^*$ and ${{\s f auth }} ^ *$ t hat  sa tisfy theab ove p a ir of e q ua t i o ns. 
Figure \[fig :hits-icon\ ]  de pictsth e “ i conic”  case  i n  wh ich the inp ut g raph ${G} $ is [ * [one-wa y  bipart ite]{} *]{ },that is ,${V }$ can be  pa r tit ioned in to  n on-em ptys e t s  ${{ V}_ {\rm  Left }}$ and ${{V} _{\ rm R i ght }}$ s uch t haton ly ed ges in  ${{V }_ {\rm Left}}\tim es { {V}_{\rmRig ht }}$  c an re c eive p osi tiv e weigh t, and$ \fo ra l l {u }\in {{V}_{\rm Lef t} } $ ,$\sum_{{ v}\in{ {V }_ { \rm Righ t} }}{{{\ m a thitwt}} { ({ {u}{\to} {v}})} }  >  0 $. It i sthe ca se  th at${{\s f  aut h}}^*( {u}) = 0 $ for every ${u}\in{ {V}_{\rm Left } }$ a nd ${{\ sfhub}}^*({v} )=0$ forever y  $ {v} \ in {{ V}_{\ rm Ri g ht}}$; in this sens e,  the l eft-h and nodes are  “pure” hu b s and therigh t -h a nd nodes are “ pure”  authoriti e s.

Note  that  in theend, we n e e d to pro duc e a  [* sin g l e* ]{} [centrali t y ]{}s co re foreac h node${n }\i n { V}$ .For exper imentalsi mp li ci ty,  we c o nsider o nl y t wo  po ssibi l itiesin th is p ap er — u sing ${ { \s f auth }} ^* ({n} )$as  thefina l  [c entrali ty]{}scor e,o r us in g${{\sfhub}}^*({n})$  i nstead — a lt hou gh com b i ning the  hub and authority scor e s is al soan in tere sting pos sib ility. 

G r aph sc hemata : inc or por a t ing c l u st ers  { #sec:schem a t a}----- -- ---- ------- ------------------ - -
Recall that t hefund a m en tal op e rat io n  in o ur [structuraling]{}para di g mis to comp u teth e [cent rality] {}ofe ntities  (with)in  a set ${ {\ calS } _{{ {\rm init} }}}$. On e possibi l ity i s  t o def ine  ${{\c al  S} _{{{\ rm ini t }}} }$ as  ${{\c al  D}_{{ {\rmin it}}}}$,  the documents in the i nitial ly re tri eved set;  we ref er generi call y to any [ rel eva nce-f low graph ]{}i n du ced under  thi s  choice a s 
{{\sf hub}}({u})_= \sum_{{v}\in_{V}}
 {{{\mathit wt}}{({{u}{\to}{v}})}}\cdot {{\sf_auth}}({v}).
\label{eq:hub}$$ Clearly,_Equations_\[eq:auth\] and_\[eq:hub\]_are mutually recursive._However, the iterative_HITS algorithm[^1] provably converges_to (non-identically-zero, non-negative)_score_functions ${{\sf hub}}^*$ and ${{\sf auth}}^*$ that satisfy the above pair of equations.

Figure \[fig:hits-icon\]_depicts_the “iconic”_case_in_which the input graph ${G}$_is [*[one-way bipartite]{}*]{}, that is,_${V}$ can_be partitioned into non-empty sets ${{V}_{\rm Left}}$ and_${{V}_{\rm_Right}}$ such that_only edges in ${{V}_{\rm Left}}\times {{V}_{\rm Right}}$ can receive_positive weight, and $\forall {u}\in {{V}_{\rm_Left}}$, $\sum_{{v}\in {{V}_{\rm_Right}}}_{{{\mathit_wt}}{({{u}{\to}{v}})}} > 0$. It_is the case that ${{\sf auth}}^*({u})_= 0$ for every ${u}\in {{V}_{\rm_Left}}$ and ${{\sf hub}}^*({v})=0$ for every ${v}\in_{{V}_{\rm Right}}$; in this sense, the_left-hand nodes are “pure” hubs_and the_right-hand nodes are “pure” authorities.

Note_that in the_end, we_need to produce_a [*single*]{} [centrality]{}score for each node_${n}\in {V}$. For_experimental simplicity, we consider only two_possibilities_in this paper_—_using_${{\sf auth}}^*({n})$_as the final_[centrality]{}score,_or using_${{\sf_hub}}^*({n})$ instead — although combining the_hub_and authority scores is also an interesting_possibility.

Graph schemata: incorporating clusters_{#sec:schemata}
--------------------------------------

Recall_that the fundamental operation_in our [structural ing]{}paradigm is_to compute the [centrality]{}of entities (with)in_a set_${{\cal S}_{{{\rm_init}}}}$. One possibility is to define ${{\cal S}_{{{\rm init}}}}$ as ${{\cal_D}_{{{\rm init}}}}$, the documents in the_initially retrieved set; we_refer generically_to_any [relevance-flow graph]{}induced_under_this choice_as