since strogatz and watts @xcite found the small - world effect and barabsi and albert @xcite found the scale - free property of the world wide web , researches on complex networks have greatly increased .
these pioneering efforts sought to find some universal principles and invariants , but when people encounter a specific complex network , some questions often arise : `` can we identify the most important nodes in the network?'';``are these nodes more important than other nodes ? '' etc .. these problems are related to data analysis of complex networks . in this field ,
the node importance is a foundational problem . only when we know how to measure the importance of nodes , can we answer the questions mentioned above .
the problem of the node importance appears in various fields .
for example , studies of the most important scientists@xcite , the most dangerous terrorists@xcite , the most critical proteins or genes@xcite , etc .. in some circumstances , we may also need to know the relative important scientists , the relative dangerous terrorists , the relative critical proteins , etc .. besides , even if some real - world complex networks are not very large and with the help of computer visualization technologies , people can not yet understand their holistic features .
for example , the internet@xcite . we need to find some subnetworks which are combined with some special nodes to obtain holistic understanding of the whole network@xcite .
`` the importance of nodes '' is a vague concept , although many academic papers use it to describe the properties of networks .
researchers have reached little consensus on this concept , but fortunately most concede that it can indeed be described by some rules or the intuitive ideas . as a reference , studies of social networks , which are certainly regarded as a kind of complex networks , inspired us . in the field of social networks ,
the importance of nodes is related to `` centrality''@xcite .
moreover , in the field of web search engines , the importance of nodes often relies on the importance of neighborhoods , such as in pagerank@xcite and hits@xcite .
some papers also propose new ideas on the definition of importance , such as the failure of system owing to the deletion of one node@xcite .
considering that all these definitions are very different , when people deal with some specific applications , they may choose a subset of these definitions .
based on the investigations on these definitions , we suggest that a set of four rules can be used to characterize the node importance in common circumstances .
of course , the rules can be inserted or removed as needed to accommodate the particular real world situations .
however , these rules often conflict to the others .
we need a solution to resolve the conflicts .
mathematically , each of the four rules defines an order relationship on the importance of nodes .
for example , if we define the important nodes as those with more neighbors ( larger degree value ) then the degree value actually is a measure of the node importance . because the node importance needs more than one rule to characterize , when we have characterized the concept and chosen corresponding rules and formulas
, we need to focus on how to deal with the conflicts among these order relationships and aggregate the results of the rules .
usually , the aggregation should not have bias on any rule .
there are two relative works on the aggregation . in the field of web search engines
, people use a smart method named `` rank aggregation''@xcite to deal with this problem . in another way ,
if we treat every rule as an optimization object , this problem can be transferred to a multi - objective optimization problem . in the field of evolutionary algorithms for multi - objective optimization problems ,
this is commonly tackled with a mathematical tool , called the dominance relationship .
the dominance relationship can categorize the nodes into the equivalence classes .
every equivalence class will indicate the same ordinal number of the nodes in it .
the first equivalence class would only include the most important nodes , which are also called `` the skyline''@xcite in the field of database management system ( dbms ) and `` the pareto front''@xcite in the field of evolutionary computation .
here we suggest that the equivalence classes can be used to resolve the conflicts among the indicators based on the following reasons : 1 ) this approach has no bias on any rule ; 2 ) this approach can obtain diverse and representative important nodes ; 3 ) this approach can guarantee that a good node would certainly have a good ordinal , which is very important to the explanation of the ordered results ; 4 ) this approach has a mathematical foundation , i.e. , it is related to the maximum vector problem@xcite ; 5 ) this approach has been used in various fields , such as dbms and evolutionary computation .    because pagerank and hits are very successful in web searching
, some researchers believe that they will perform well in ranking the nodes of complex networks and then use them as benchmark algorithms to measure the effectiveness of the other algorithms @xcite , but whether they can perform well or not when applying them for very different purposes has not been discussed before . though pagerank and hits are perfect under their assumptions , the impossibility theorems restrict their extensions@xcite , so that they can not be taken for granted as benchmarks .
assume that we set the intuitive rules as the benchmark , thus , are the results of pagerank and hits similar to the rules of the node importance here ?
considering that both the results of the rules and the results of these algorithms can be represented as sequences , we suggest the kendall s @xmath0@xcite as the measure indicator .
based on this idea , we define a measure indicator and three sub - indicators , and introduce an algorithm to calculate them . these sub - indicators can be regarded as the effectiveness of the ranking algorithms relative to the framework .
to validate our ideas , we chose three well - known real - world networks , i.e. , the metabolic network@xcite , the dolphins network@xcite and the zachary karate club network@xcite as the examples to carry out the experiments .
the experimental results show that the framework can produce representative and diverse nodes .
moreover , we also calculate the effectiveness measure sub - indicators .
the experimental results show that pagerank and hits perform well even though they were not designed for the undirected networks .
however , the results also show that both algorithms have bias .    in general , our work tries to provide a framework for issues on ranking / sorting the node importance .
this framework addresses three main issues .
first , how to reasonably define the node importance ?
our solution is to clarify the concept of the node importance from the intuition by analyzing the concept with rules that define every aspect of this concept respectively .
second , how to resolve conflicts among rules ?
our solution is to aggregate the results of the rules by importing a mathematical tool that categorizes them into the equivalence classes and then assemble them into a partially ordered sequence .
third , how to measure the effectiveness of the compared algorithms ?
our solution is to compute the similarity between the results of the framework and that of the compared algorithm .
we uses three widely used networks to validate the approach .
finally , we apply the proposed approach to analyze the structure of the internet .
the importance of nodes is related to many fields , and it is currently attracting more and more interests .
the evaluation of the node importance is based on the researches in graph theory and graph - based data mining@xcite , and we can say that this field can be regarded as a branch of graph - based data mining .
however , research on the node importance origins from the study of social networks . after the emergence of complex networks , other applications in technical networks , biological networks , etc . were also proposed .    to clarify the node importance
, we need to solve three main problems .
the first one is that what are the suitable rules to define the node importance .
the second one is how to resolve the conflicts among all the rules .
the third one is how to measure the effectiveness .
the importance of nodes was discussed in social networks as `` centrality '' . before the work of freeman , there is no unanimity on what is `` centrality '' and what is the conceptual foundation of `` centrality '' ; of course , there is no unanimity on what is the proper measure of `` centrality''@xcite .    in 1976
, freeman reviewed the measure of `` centrality''@xcite and suggested three measure indicators for point ( node ) centrality .
first , `` degree '' is a proper measure , it can be used to measure the communication activity in a network .
second , `` betweenness '' is based upon the frequency with which a node falls between pairs of other nodes on the shortest or geodesic paths connecting them , and is used to exhibit a potential for control of the communication .
third , `` closeness '' is based upon the degree to which a node is close ( approximates ) to all other nodes in the network and is used to exhibit the independence or efficiency of communication .
these three measure indicators are referenced as three different structural attributes .
the work of freeman has achieved a great success .
many researchers use the `` centrality '' under freeman s suggestion now .
the importance of nodes was defined recursively in pagerank and hits when dealing with the web documents , that is , the importance of a node relies on the importance of neighbors , and the neighbors relies on neighbors neighbors , etc .. essentially , the importance of nodes is related to the degree of nodes .
based on this idea , pagerank and hits need to iteratively calculate the node importance . however , both these algorithms were designed to deal with directed graphs . because this paper mainly focuses on undirected graphs ,
the undirected vertex are treated as a couple of vertexes with opposite directions to make both the algorithms feasible .
the importance of nodes also was defined as the failure of system@xcite .
if a node is removed from a connected graph , and the new graph is not connected , then this node is important .
actually , literature@xcite and the related papers emphasize on the importance of node sets . for a single node ,
this definition may include less information because the nodes mostly do not break the network only by itself .
moreover , this definition can be partially represented by the betweenness .
moreover , when considering the spreading process on complex networks , the k - shell@xcite can be used to define the most central , or the most important nodes .
notice that this paper focuses on the static structure , the k - shell and the importance definition on failure@xcite are not applicable .
moreover , the definitions of pagerank and hits can be represented as the neighborhood importance , therefore , four rules among these definitions are suggested to measure the node importance .
if we regard every rule as an optimization object , the problem how to resolve the conflict among the rules could be transferred to a multi - objective optimization problem . in the field of multi - objective optimization
, the simplest way is to set weights@xcite , which reflects the users preference for every rule .
because the weights in the weighted sum method are uncertain , this method can not be used for a benchmark purpose .
maybe we can refer to a smart technology named `` rank aggregation''@xcite in web search engine .
the aim of the rank aggregation is to obtain a sequence which has a minimal distance to all ranking results from different measure indicators or ranking algorithms .
if we use this method , that means we actually assume that the sequence with minimal distance would be most satisfactory to the definition of the node importance .
this assumption is not necessary .
moreover , this method would not guarantee that the good node has a good ordinal .
for example , if node @xmath1 is more important than node @xmath2 under all the rules , the rank aggregation may set that node @xmath2 is more important than node @xmath1 to minimize the distance .
in the field of multi - objective optimization , `` dominance relationship '' is used to deal with the conflicts@xcite .
in contrast to the weighted sum method , this method does not need parameters , and moreover , it is not sensitive to the small difference of scores of nodes , because it is based on order relationships .
this method can keep the diversity to obtain representative important nodes .
for example , the best node under every rule should certainly be regarded as one of the most important nodes .
furthermore , when using it as a benchmark , if node @xmath1 is better than node @xmath2 in all aspects , node @xmath1 would certainly be more important than node @xmath2 .
this feature is useful for a reasonable explanation .
moreover , the concept of `` pareto front '' is used to describe the set of `` the most important nodes '' .
cotta and merolo@xcite referred to the work of scientific collaboration network @xcite and computed the degree , the betweenness and the closeness of the scholars majoring in evolutionary computation and obtained interesting results .
they also listed the `` pareto front''the most important scholars . in this paper
, we extend this method and used it as a good benchmark , and formally describe the detailed mechanism and introduce how to pack the results into a sequence and how to compare to other algorithms .      when we have obtained the results from the benchmark and compared algorithm , how to define the effectiveness measure indicator(s ) is an important problem . because both the results can be expressed as the sequences , the effectiveness actually is the `` distance '' between two sequences .
two popular measures are related to this issue : the spearman s @xmath3 and the kendall s @xmath0@xcite .
kendall s @xmath0 is based on such an idea : how many times to transfer a sequence to the other by neighbor swapping .
when applying kendall s @xmath0 to compute the effectiveness , the compared algorithms can `` cheat '' the measure indicator by generating too many equivalent nodes , so we use two sub - indicators to bound it and a sub - indicator to indicate the degree of `` cheating '' .    here , we have introduced the problems , then we will introduce more detailed information on the solutions in the next subsections .
people reached little consensus on the concept of `` the importance of nodes '' , but most concede that the node importance can be described by intuitive ideas .
for example , `` degree '' is used as a measure indicator for the communication activity in human communication .
a person with more social relationships is treated as more important ; and in a pure network , from one aspect , the nodes with larger degree are regarded as more important .
this description on the node importance in networks is obviously based on intuition .
therefore , when we discuss the node importance , we must extract the formal representation from the intuition .
we choose four rules to evaluate the node importance according to the existing researches .    1 .   1 : commonly , the nodes with larger degree would have a larger influence on the network , so we think that the nodes with larger degree are more important . that is , if the degree of node @xmath1 is larger than that of node @xmath2 , then node @xmath1 is more important than node @xmath2 .
2 .   2 : if a node connects two or more communities , it is a key node , because this node can control the communication between the communities .
we know , the potential of controlling the communication can be measured by betweenness .
as such , if the betweenness of node @xmath1 is larger than that of node @xmath2 , then node @xmath1 is more important than node @xmath2 .
3 .   3 : if a node is closer to `` the center '' of the network , it is more important . because closeness is the proper indicator , we have , if the closeness of node @xmath1 is larger than that of node @xmath2 , then node @xmath1 is more important than node @xmath2 .
4 .   4 : if a node has neighbors with larger influence , then this node is more important
. that is , if the neighbors of node @xmath1 have larger influence than that of node @xmath2 , then node @xmath1 is more important than node @xmath2 .
the intuition of rules 1 , 2 and 3 come from the field of social networks , and the intuition of rule 4 from the web search engine .
though we list four rules to describe the concept of the node importance , mathematical formalization still is necessary .
we denote `` the importance of node @xmath1 is greater than that of node @xmath2 '' as @xmath4 , and `` the importance of node @xmath1 equals that of node @xmath2 '' as @xmath5 .    according to the definitions above , the rules can be formalized as follows ,    rule 1 involves the degree as the measure indicator .
we note the degree of node @xmath1 as @xmath6 .
@xmath7 where ,    @xmath8    rule 2 can be measured by betweenness , @xmath9 would represent the betweenness of node @xmath1 and is defined as follows ,    assume that @xmath10 is the number of shortest paths ( geodesic paths ) between node @xmath11 and @xmath12 , and have @xmath13 , @xmath14 is the number of shortest paths between node @xmath11 and @xmath12 and through the node @xmath1 .
then we have ,    @xmath15    rule 3 actually is based upon the closeness , we use @xmath16 to represent the closeness measure of node @xmath1 , @xmath17 to represent the length of the shortest paths between node @xmath11 and @xmath12 and @xmath18 to represent the set of all nodes in the network .
then we have ,    @xmath19    as to rule 4 , we use a function of degrees of the neighbors of the node to measure it .
we use @xmath20 to represent the set of the immediate neighbors of node @xmath1 , that is , all elements in @xmath20 would have and only have a hop / transimition from node @xmath1 .
and we suggest such a function , @xmath21{{\sum\limits_{i \in nb(a ) } { degree(i)^{nk } } } } \ ] ] if @xmath22 then the neighboring nodes with larger degree would contribute more to the value of this indicator , but this may make a dilemma that the nodes with larger degree may be inferior to its neighbors with larger degree under this rule . for example
, when the network structure is a star or a wheel , the central nodes would have an inferior indicator value . and v.s .
, if @xmath23 , then the neighboring nodes with larger degree would contribute less , which is unfair , unless for some specific purposes .
so we suggest @xmath24 .
based on the definitions above , the rules would be depicted as follows ,    1 .
1:@xmath25 2 .
2:@xmath26 3 .
3:@xmath27 4 .
4:@xmath28 5 .
5:@xmath29      four rules tell us the order relationships under different measure aspects . because they may be conflicting , we need a method to aggregate their results . here
we employ a kind of strict partial order relationship called dominance relationship to order the nodes .
for an illustration , we assume only two rules 1,2 and three nodes @xmath1 , @xmath2 , @xmath30 .
assume that under rule 1 , @xmath31 ; and under rule 2 , @xmath32 ; then , for rule 1 , we set values of @xmath1 , @xmath30 , @xmath2 as 1 , 2 , 3 ; for rule 2 , we set values of @xmath30 , @xmath1 , @xmath2 as 1 , 2 , 3 .
so @xmath1 , @xmath2 , @xmath30 would have coordinates @xmath33 . here , smaller number represents more importance .
[ fig.ranking.sketch ] .
+    because node @xmath1 is more important than @xmath2 for rule 1 and rule 2 , so we say node @xmath1 * _ dominates _ * node @xmath2 or , @xmath2 * _ is dominated _ * by node @xmath1 . obviously , @xmath1 and @xmath30 are not dominated by any other nodes , so we say they rank 1 . if we erase all non - dominated nodes , that is , node @xmath1 and node @xmath30 , from fig .
[ fig.ranking.sketch ] , then node @xmath2 would not be dominated by any other nodes , so we say node @xmath2 ranks 2 .    for each node
, it is assigned four values to represent the ordinals under the corresponding rules .
that is , the node importance can be represented by a vector with four elements . for node @xmath1 ,
we denote @xmath34 , here @xmath35 represents the ordinal value under rule 1 , @xmath36 represents the ordinal value under rule 2 and so on .
therefore , rule 1 to rule 4 can be rewritten as follows ,    1 .
1:@xmath37 2 .
2:@xmath38 3 .
3:@xmath39 4 .
4:@xmath40    according to the rules , the set of the importance vector of all nodes is a strict partial order set based on the dominance relationship and satisfies the irreflexive , transitive , asymmetric relationships .
because the dominance relationships are a kind of strict partial order relationship , and a strict partial order relationship should respond to a non - strict partial order relationship '' over a set which is reflexive , antisymmetric , and transitive ; a strict partial order relationship `` @xmath41 '' is a binary relation over a set which is irreflexive and transitive , and therefore asymmetric . ] . under the non - strict partial order relationship
, the nodes can be packed into the equivalence classes , that is , all the nodes in the same equivalence class are equivalent in certain relationship .
we give formal definition for the dominance relationship below ,    given node @xmath1 and node @xmath2 , @xmath42 ( m is the number of the selected rules ) is said to dominate @xmath43 ( denoted by @xmath44 ) , if and only if @xmath1 is less than or equivalent to @xmath2 for each element and @xmath45 , i.e. + @xmath46    given a set a , the non - dominated set ( denoted as nds ) is the set that contains all the nodes which are not dominated by any other nodes .
mathematically , _ nds _ is defined as : @xmath47    here nds is `` the pareto front '' , or `` the skyline set''@xcite .
mathematically , nds is the maxima of a set of vectors@xcite .    given a set a , the elements in @xmath48 would rank 1 .
@xmath49 is the dominated set , and if it is not empty , it would have its nds , all the elements in @xmath49 s nds would rank 2 .
every nds in different hierarchies is an equivalence class .
when we set the ordinal to every node , we can categorize all the nodes into the equivalence classes based on iterative non - dominated sets , and every equivalence class means a ranking number .
therefore , the procedure to rank the nodes by the importance actually is the procedure to iteratively obtain the non - dominated set from the remaining set which has eliminated the non - dominated nodes .
once we determine the measure indicators of the importance , then we have determined the results of the equivalence classes based on the dominance relationship , that is , the iterative non - dominated sets .
so we need an algorithm to compute the equivalence classes .    in the field of dbms ,
several algorithms have been proposed to compute the skyline set efficiently . for examples , block - nested - loops algorithm , divide - and - conquer algorithm and b - tree algorithm proposed by brzsnyi et al.@xcite , the progressive skyline algorithms proposed by tan et al.@xcite and the online algorithm proposed by kossmann et al.@xcite .
these algorithms can also be used to compute the equivalence classes efficiently by iteratively computing the skyline set .
here we just introduce a simple algorithm , regardless of efficiency , to categorize the nodes into the equivalence classes .
assume that the input is a set named @xmath50 , we define a set named @xmath48 to store the non - dominated nodes , and a set named @xmath51 to store dominated nodes in current iteration step .
when an iteration step is executed , the equivalence classes and the rank numbers of the equivalence classes can be output step by step .
the pseudocode of this algorithm is depicted as fig .
[ fig.pseudocode.ec ] .
+      once the rules are determined , the nodes could be categorized into the equivalence classes by their importance .
the nodes in the same equivalence class will share the same rank number , so all the nodes could be packed into a partially ordered sequence .
but the further problem would be , because several algorithms have been used to sort / rank the nodes by the importance , how to measure the effectiveness of algorithms ?
i.e. , how to measure the similarity between the aggregation of the results of the selected rules from intuition and the results of the ranking algorithms ?    pagerank@xcite and hits@xcite are the most famous algorithms and they were designed to automatically determine the importance of web pages . here
we use them for the analysis of complex networks like the previous works@xcite , and we try to investigate how much pagerank and hits are similar to the equivalence classes approach .
pagerank and hits are the `` global ranking / sorting '' , that is , it will generate a totally ordered sequence .
a totally ordered sequence means that every element in this sequence can be ordered by a property and has an identical ordinal .
because both the results of the rules and the results of the compared algorithm can be expressed as sequences , we can use the distance between the partially ordered sequence generated by the equivalence classes approach and the totally ordered sequence generated by the compared algorithms to measure the effectiveness of the algorithms .
if we use the partially ordered sequence as a benchmark for comparison , every opposition to the partially ordered sequence is regarded as a unit of distance . according to this idea
, the distance can be defined .
actually , the distance is an indicator of the similarity . when we know the maximum of distance , we can define the similarity ratio .
we use the term `` coverage '' to represent the similarity ratio .
we use a short example to illustrate the concept of coverage .
assume that there is a partially ordered sequence , denoted as @xmath52,[3,4]\}$ ] which means @xmath53 is an equivalence class , and @xmath54 is another , and a totally ordered sequence , @xmath55 which means @xmath56 .
then how to measure the distance between two sequences ?
we use the counting of swapping between the neighboring nodes to define the distance , that is , how many times we swap the neighbors to transfer the totally ordered sequence to meet the partially ordered sequence , the least number of actions can be defined as the distance . as to the example , we need at least 4 times , that is , @xmath57 ; therefore , the distance is 4 .
actually , the distance means the violation of the order relationships to the partially ordered sequence .
notice that the position relationship between @xmath58 and @xmath59 ( similar for @xmath60 and @xmath61 ) is not considered .
once the distance is defined , the coverage can be defined as the opposition of the ratio of violation . as to the example , because 4 is the possible largest value for all possible totally ordered sequence , so the coverage is zero .    in many circumstances ,
the algorithms would estimate some inequivalent nodes as equivalent , so we define two sub - indicators  the best and worst coverage  to evaluate the coverage in the best and worst circumstances , that is , if we want to get the worst coverage and the compared algorithms obtain a sequence @xmath62 , 1\}$ ] , that means no .
3 node equals to no .
2 node , because for the partially ordered sequence , no . 2 node is prior to no .
3 node , so we rewrite it as @xmath63 , 1\}$ ] , such that the relative position of no . 2 node and no . 3 node is different from that of the partially ordered sequence , here , the coverage is the worst coverage .
here we formally depicted the concept of coverage as follows ,    given two sequences @xmath64 and @xmath65 , if @xmath66 $ ] such that @xmath67 and @xmath68 and for arbitrary @xmath69 , then we say , there exists one time of neighbor swapping to transfer the sequence @xmath1 to @xmath2 , denoted @xmath70
.    given two sequences @xmath1 and @xmath2 , if there exist the least k sequences @xmath71 such that @xmath72 , ns(s_j , s_{j+1})=1 \wedge   ns(a , s_1)=1 \wedge ns(s_k , b)=1 $ ] , then we say @xmath73 and the distance from @xmath1 to @xmath2 is @xmath74 .    a partially ordered sequence can actually be regarded as a set of sequences , so the distance between a sequence and a partially ordered sequence is the minimum distance from a sequence to a set of sequences .
given a sequence @xmath1 and a sequence set @xmath50 , the distance from @xmath1 to @xmath50 is @xmath75 .    for a given network ,
assume that the partially ordered sequence of the equivalence classes approach is @xmath76 , and the compared sequence is @xmath77 , and all the possible sequences of @xmath76 would construct a set denoted @xmath78 .
then the coverage can be depicted as follows , @xmath79    when the sequences of the compared algorithms are totally ordered sequences , this indicator is enough to characterize the similarity between these sequences to the sequence of the equivalence classes approach . but some algorithms would generate some equivalent nodes , then , how to define the similarity ratio ?    as to the sequences with some equivalent nodes , we can regard it as a sequence set and choose the best sequence and the worst sequence in the sequence set to represent it , therefore , we define the best coverage and the worst coverage .
if we regard the compared sequence with the equivalent nodes as a set of sequences ( denoted @xmath50 ) , we have the definition of two sub - indicators , best coverage and worst coverage , based on coverage as follows ,    @xmath80    notice that the best coverage does not measure the best effectiveness , because when all the nodes are in an equivalence class , the best coverage is 1 , here it is meaningless , because the worst coverage is 0 .
the worst coverage is a more proper measure indicator to measure the worst effectiveness . and
the gap between the best coverage and the worst coverage would mean the number of nodes which are incorrectly regarded as equivalent nodes . here
we define other sub - indicator `` certainty ratio '' that are denoted as `` certratio '' to indicate the incorrect degree .
if the compared algorithm can identify the equal nodes and does not regard the inequivalent nodes as equivalent , its certratio is 0 .
actually , if the algorithm treats every nodes uniformly , and does not import extra information , the symmetric nodes will not be assigned different ranking values .
under such an assumption , the certratio is only related to the gap between the best coverage and the worst coverage . here
we define the certratio as equation [ eqn.certratio ] , which is not suitable for some special algorithms which include extra information .
@xmath81      the calculation of coverage includes two steps .
the first step is the calculation of the distance between @xmath77 and @xmath76 .
the minimum neighbor swapping seemly is difficult to be counted , but there is an easy algorithm to solve this problem .
every node would have two property values .
one is the rank number , the other is the importance value assigned by the compared algorithms . if we sort the nodes by the importance value , then the distance is the counting of neighbor swapping to sort the nodes by the rank number .    for example , if there are four nodes @xmath82 , the rank numbers are @xmath83 .
assume that the compared algorithm has generated a sequence , that is , @xmath84 , so the corresponding rank number sequence is @xmath85 , the minimum counting of neighbor swapping is the counting of neighbor swapping to ascendingly sort the rank number sequence .    to obtain the minimum of neighbor swapping ,
no neighbor swapping could be duplicated .
we use the greedy strategy to deal with the problem .
that is , we define an array which records the difference between every node and its successor , then the maximum difference is preferred to be eliminated , that is , this corresponding node and its successor is firstly swapped .
so we use the array @xmath86 $ ] ( here n is the number of the nodes ) to record the difference of the array of the nodes @xmath87 $ ] , and iteratively swap the nodes with maximum difference to its successor . notice that when the rank value sequence are sorted , the elements in array @xmath86 $ ] are -1 or 0 , so the stopping criteria of this algorithm is that the maximum of elements in @xmath86 $ ] is smaller than zero . the algorithm can be depicted as fig .
[ fig.pseudocode.distance ] .
+    the second step is the calculation of maximum possible distance to the partially ordered sequence .
the intuitive idea is to construct the furthest sequence and count the neighbor swapping .
but there is a simper formula .
assume that the nodes are categorized into @xmath88 equivalence classes denoted as @xmath89 , and the sizes are @xmath90 .
notice that the maximum distance between arbitrary nodes is @xmath91 , each equivalence class @xmath92 would result in a subtract of @xmath93 , so we have , @xmath94    based on the methods above , the best coverage and the worst coverage is easy to calculate , because we only need to deal with the nodes with equivalent importance . before the calculation of the minimum of the distance , if we sort the nodes with the same importance according to the same orders in the sequences of the equivalence classes approach , then we obtain the best sequence . if according to reverse orders , the we obtain the worst sequence .
we choose three real - world networks to validate the proposed approach .
the selected networks are the metabolic network , the dolphins network and the zachary karate club network .
these three real - world networks are widely used as examples .
protein interaction networks are deeply investigated in biology .
the metabolic network is a kind of protein interaction network .
here we chose a single module in the metabolic network of _
thaliana _ , because the module is simple , but it has many typical features .
there are 30 nodes and 34 edges in this network and the edge represents that two nodes participate in the same metabolic activities .
see in fig .
[ fig.netdraw.metabolic ] .
+    the dolphins network owes to the work of d. lusseau .
dr . d. lusseau observed a community of 62 bottlenose dolphins ( tursiops spp . ) over a period of 7 years from 1994 to 2001 . according to the observation they constructed the dolphins network .
the nodes represent the dolphins , and the ties between nodes represent associations between dolphin pairs occurring more often than expected by chance .
node 37 is a very important node , when node 37 disappeared , the network broke into two communities , one big and one small , but when it returned , two communities got united .
the whole network has 62 nodes and 159 ties .
see in fig .
[ fig.netdraw.dolphins ] .
+    the zachary karate club network is a famous social network .
wayne zachary observed a karate club in a university for a period of three years , from 1970 to 1972 .
in addition to direct observation , the history of the club prior to the period of the study was reconstructed through informants and club records in the university archives .
the nodes represent the members of the club , and the edges represent the friendship between the nodes .
the 34th node , john a. is the chief administrator and the 1st node , mr .
hi is the karate instructor . because of the conflicts between mr .
hi and mr .
john , the network broke into two clubs .
this network includes 34 nodes and 78 edges .
see in fig .
[ fig.netdraw.zachary ] .
+      based on the proposed approach , we calculated the equivalence classes of the tested networks . here
we set @xmath95 . besides , we also computed the results of the measure indicators of degree , betweenness , closeness with the tool ucinet@xcite .
the equivalence classes of the metabolic network are listed in table [ tab.po.metabolic ] .
@xmath96 [ tab.po.metabolic ]    from table [ tab.po.metabolic ] , we can see that no .
9 node belongs to the first class of nodes , because no .
9 node has better values of degree , betweenness , closeness and neighbors indicators .
9 node undoubtedly is the most important protein .
according to the same approach , we list the equivalence classes of the dolphins network and the zachary karate club network in table [ tab.po.dolphins ] and table [ tab.po.zachary ] .
@xmath97 [ tab.po.dolphins ]    from table [ tab.po.dolphins ] , we can see that the nodes no .
2 , 15 , 37 , 38 and 41 are the most important . here
node 37 is the most important node between two communities , node 2 belongs to the small community and the nodes no .
15 , 38 and 41 belong to the big community . here
this result shows that the equivalence classes approach can obtain representative nodes .
@xmath98 [ tab.po.zachary ]    from table [ tab.po.zachary ] , we can see that nodes no .
1(mr . hi ) and
34 ( the chief administrator ) are the most important , because they are the kernel nodes in the separated clubs .
all the results show that the equivalence classes approach can identify the most important nodes .
pagerank and hits are two famous algorithms to sort / rank web documents by importance .
web documents are linked by the hyperlinks and construct a directed network . here , they are used to deal with the undirected network , the same as that the other researchers did .
we calculate their effectiveness with the proposed framework to check this kind of applications . moreover , to compare their results to four chosen basic measure indicators , i.e. , degree , betweenness , closeness , neighbors , we compute the coverage values of these four indicators .    when computing the importance score by pagerank and hits , we set the transition probability as 0.15 and the iteration times as 200 for pagerank , the maximum of iteration times as 500 for hits .
the results here is obtained by the tool jung@xcite .
@xmath99[0cm]{pagerank } & best & 0.814721 & 0.868226 & 0.885081 \\ \cline{2 - 5 }   & worst & 0.814721 & 0.868226 & 0.885081 \\ \cline{2 - 5 }   & certratio & 0.000000 & 0.000000 & 0.000000 \\
\hline \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{hits } & best & 0.809645 & 0.759840 & 0.895161 \\ \cline{2 - 5 }   & worst & 0.809645 & 0.759840 & 0.895161 \\
\cline{2 - 5 }   & certratio & 0.000000 & 0.000000 & 0.000000 \\ \hline \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{degree } & best & 0.984772 & 0.926982 & 0.991935 \\ \cline{2 - 5 }   & worst & 0.723350 & 0.848260 & 0.866935 \\ \cline{2 - 5 }   & certratio & 0.261422 & 0.078722 & 0.125000 \\
\hline \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{betweenness } & best & 0.977157 & 0.937250 & 0.977823 \\ \cline{2 - 5 }   & worst & 0.878173 & 0.918426 & 0.868952 \\
\cline{2 - 5 }   & certratio & 0.098984 & 0.018824 & 0.108871 \\ \hline \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{closeness } & best & 0.829949 & 0.881346 & 0.943548 \\
\cline{2 - 5 }   & worst & 0.819797 & 0.869937 & 0.913306 \\ \cline{2 - 5 }   & certratio & 0.010152 & 0.011409 & 0.030242 \\
\hline \raisebox{-1.50ex}[0cm][0cm]{neighbors } & best & 0.890863 & 0.879064 & 0.907258 \\ \cline{2 - 5 }   & worst & 0.832487 & 0.858528 & 0.899194 \\
\cline{2 - 5 }   & certratio & 0.058376 & 0.020536 & 0.008064 \\
\hline \end{array}$ ] [ tab.effectiveness ]    from table [ tab.effectiveness ] , we can see that all the certainty ratios of pagerank and hits are equal to zero , meaning that both algorithms can successfully determine the nodes with equivalent importance and do not disregard the inequivalent nodes as equivalent .
moreover , hits outperforms pagerank in the zachary network , but fails in the metabolic network and the dolphins network .    from table
[ tab.effectiveness ] , we can see that both algorithms outperform the degree indicator .
moreover , the closeness indicator outperforms both the algorithms in all the best coverage values and the worst coverage values .
hits gets a worst score in the dolphins network and pagerank gets a worst score in the metabolic network .    in general , as to pagerank and hits , they get scores of about 76% - 90% for similarity ratio , and 100% for certainty ratio .
this proves their good effectiveness , although they were not designed for the undirected networks .
the statistic results need an explanation in details . here
we choose the metabolic network as the anatomic object .
the experimental results can illustrate the preferences of both the algorithms .    here
we list the results of both two algorithm in table [ tab.pagerankmetab ] and [ tab.hitsmetab ] .
@xmath100 [ tab.pagerankmetab ]    from table [ tab.pagerankmetab ] we can see that pagerank prefers to the degree indicator and marginal nodes . for examples , though node 7 is more important than node 5 in all aspects , pagerank sets a worst ranking value ; the relationships among the nodes no . 1 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 17 and 20 clearly demonstrate the marginal preference .
this is the reason that pagerank does not obtain higher scores .
@xmath101 [ tab.hitsmetab ]    from table [ tab.hitsmetab ] , we can see that hits prefers to the neighbors and closeness . for examples , in the results of hits , node 8 and node 17 are more important than node 5 , node 25 is more important than node 26 .
these preferences would lead to a result that important bridge and small community may be somehow ignored .
the bad score of hits on the dolphins network also can be explained on these preferences .
the bias of hits can be explained by itself .
hits determines two values for a node : the authority and the hub value , which are mutually recursively defined .
the authority value of a node is the sum of the scaled hub values that point to this node .
the hub value of a node is the sum of the scaled authority values of the nodes that this node points to . when all the links are two - way , because of the iterations , the central nodes are emphasized and certainly , the nodes connecting to the central nodes are also emphasized .
generally speaking , pagerank and hits are both good to identify the node importance , but we must be aware of their bias .
based on bgp tables posted at archive.routeviews.org , mark newman reconstructed a network representing the structure of the internet . in this network , each node represents a domain and each edge represents an inter - domain interconnection .
this network has 22963 nodes and 48436 edges .
this paper uses the equivalence classes approach to analyze the internet , and lists the top 10 equivalence classes as table [ tab.po.internet ] .
@xmath102 [ tab.po.internet ]    for table [ tab.po.internet ] we can see that the most important nodes are no .
4 , 15 , 23 , 27 .    as we have known , the internet is a scale - free network@xcite .
a few hub nodes have a great amount of links , and most nodes have a few links .
the internet also have the rich - club phenomenon@xcite , that is , the hub nodes tend to link to the others .
this paper retracts a sub - network which only contain the nodes in table [ tab.po.internet ] with the proposed approach , and the result demonstrates that the internet has the rich - club phenomenon with the visualization technology as fig .
[ fig.internet ] .    from fig .
[ fig.internet ] , the average degree of this subnetwork is 31.0423 , contrarily , the whole network is 2.1093 , meaning that the hub nodes forms a dense kernel . from fig .
[ fig : subfig : a ] , the most important 4 nodes are red , and they form a complete graph . moreover , the proposed approach can demonstrate the hierarchy of the internet . as shown in fig .
[ fig : subfig : b ] , the red nodes form a very dense graph , however , the graph lacks some links to become a complete graph , that is , if the node is more important , it is more likely linked by the kernel .
this paper proposes a framework to investigate the node importance .
the proposed framework suggests four rules to characterize the node importance and suggests the use of the equivalence classes to describe the relationship among nodes because of the desired features of the equivalence classes approach .
this paper also suggests that the equivalence classes approach can be used as a benchmark to measure the effectiveness of the other ranking / sorting algorithms , and proposes three sub - indicators based on the coverage indicator .
this paper demonstrates how to apply this framework .
three real - world networks are used to calculate the effectiveness of pagerank and hits , and the experimental results show that both algorithms perform well .
moreover , the analysis on the metabolic network showed that : pagerank would wrongly order some nodes because of the bias on degree and marginal nodes ; hits has the biases on neighbors and closeness .
these results imply that we must be aware of the bias of pagerank and hits when using them as a benchmark in such a field . on the other hand ,
considering the scores of both the algorithms , they may be capable of being used as rapid algorithms on this issue . from the experimental results we can see that this framework is feasible .
moreover , this paper applies the proposed approach to analyze the internet .
the experimental results show that the internet has a kernel with dense links and have the rich - club phenomenon with the computer visualization technologies .    in the future
, we will extend it to more complicated cases , for example , the directed and weighted networks .
the proposed method is potential to be applied into the analysis of critical proteins and find the drug targets and other fields .
the authors thank for ucinet and jung for the convenience .
the authors gratefully thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers for the improvement of the quality of this paper .                    c.  winter , j.  roy , g.  kristiansen , s.  kersting , d.  aust , t.  knosel , p.  rummele , b.  jahnke , v.  hentrich , f.  ruckert , m.  niedergethmann , w.  weichert , m.  bahra , h.  j. schlitt , u.  settmacher , h.  friess , m.  buchler , h .-
saeger , m.  schroeder , r.  grutzmann , c.  pilarsky . , google goes cancer : improving outcome prediction for cancer patients by network - based ranking of marker genes , plos computational biology 8  ( 5 ) ( 2012 ) e1002511 .
j.  horn , n.  nafpliotis , d.  e. goldberg , a niched pareto genetic algorithm for multiobjective optimization , in : proceedings of the first ieee conference on evolutionary computation , ieee world congress on computational intelligence , vol .  1 , piscataway , new jersey , 1994 , pp . 8287 .                            j.  han , x.  yan , p.  s. yu , mining , indexing , and similarity search in graphs and complex structures , in : data engineering , 2006 .
proceedings of the 22nd international conference on , 2006 , pp . 106106 .


in recent years the inner structure of dark matter haloes has been the topic of some discussion .
observations suggest that the dark matter distribution in disk galaxies has a roughly constant density core , with a typical size of order a few kpc .
a recent analysis suggests a shallow power - law mass density distribution @xmath1 with @xmath2 @xcite . on the other hand ,
numerical simulations based on the ( @xmath0)cold dark matter ( cdm ) paradigm suggest a very steep inner mass density distribution , a so - called `` cusp '' @xcite [ nfw ] .
the most recent simulations suggest slopes with @xmath3 @xcite .
there is strong consensus that this slope can not be as shallow as the observations suggest .
the rotation curves of low surface brightness ( lsb ) galaxies are considered particularly clean tests of the cdm paradigm at galaxy scales .
lsb galaxies are dominated by dark matter @xcite , and their dynamics should thus give a more or less direct map of the dark matter distribution .
lsb galaxy rotation curves , together with the missing dwarf or substructure problem ( e.g.  @xcite ) , currently form the most serious challenges for the cdm model . there has been much debate on this topic in recent years .
this is however not the place to review this debate , and the reader is referred to the summaries by e.g.  @xcite and @xcite and references therein .    on the theoretical side the `` universal mass density profile '' ( with its characteristic @xmath4 cusp ) as proposed by @xcite ,
has long been a corner - stone of cdm ( but see @xcite ) .
recent simulations presented in @xcite and @xcite [ hereafter h04 ] show that simulated cdm haloes may actually contain a range of slopes in their inner regions ( though the slopes remain steep ) . the shallowest inner slope measured is @xmath5 , with an average over the simulated haloes of @xmath6 ( at the innermost reliably resolved radius for galaxy mass haloes ) . with this scatter in mind , h04 argue that simple fitting functions ( such as `` the '' nfw halo ) do not capture the full variety and diversity in shapes and slopes , and suggest that this may partly explain the discrepancy between observations and simulations .
they claim that the inner slope is difficult to constrain , both observationally as well as theoretically and point out that rotation curve constraints are strongest where numerical simulations are least reliable .
this , as well as the potential for systematic effects in the observations , has , at least according to h04 , led to an `` unwarranted emphasis '' on the value of the inner slope , at the cost of evaluation of the data and simulations over their full radial extent .
h04 present a novel method to fit rotation curves derived from their simulations as well as lsb galaxy rotation curves from the literature .
their method is able to describe the variety present in data and simulations and from the distributions of respective fitting parameters h04 conclude that the observed curves _ are _ consistent with the cdm paradigm ; a conclusion that contradicts a large body of observational work .    for their analysis ,
h04 make use of the rotation curves presented in @xcite , @xcite and @xcite , and derive circular velocity curves for haloes from their simulations .
to quantify both sets of observed and simulated rotation curves they use a three - parameter fitting formula ( see e.g.  @xcite ) :    @xmath7    here @xmath8 is the asymptotic velocity of the flat part of the rotation curve , @xmath9 is a scale radius ( the transition radius between the rising and flat part of the rotation curve ) and the parameter @xmath10 describes the abruptness of the turn - over between the rising and flat parts of the rotation curve . a higher value of @xmath10 results in an abrupt transition , a low value in a more gradual turn - over .
note that this function was designed to fit observed rotation curves : it specifically assumes a solid - body rise in the inner parts and a flat rotation curve in the outer parts .
h04 fit the two sets of rotation curves with this function , constraining the fit parameters slightly by insisting that    1 .
@xmath11 , 2 .
@xmath12 , 3 .
@xmath13 ,    with @xmath14 the maximum observed velocity in the rotation curve . fits with @xmath15 [ rejected by condition ( 1 ) ] correspond with very abrupt transitions between the rising and flat parts of the curve .
condition ( 3 ) prevents some of the solid - body rotation curves where the asymptotic velocity is not well - constrained , from producing fits with extremely large @xmath8 .
conditions ( 1)(3 ) thus help removing unrealistic values for the fit parameters .
figure [ fig : hayashidata ] ( after h04 , their fig .
9 ) shows the results presented in h04 .
the lsb rotation curves show a broad distribution in @xmath10 with two pronounced peaks : one around @xmath16 and a narrower one at @xmath17 .
some 70 per cent of the fits have @xmath18 .
the @xmath10 distribution of the simulated cdm haloes is markedly different .
it is narrow and centered around @xmath19 with a dispersion of @xmath20 .    at first sight
the two distributions seem quite incompatible , and one might conclude that the lsb rotation curves are not consistent with the cdm simulations .
h04 argue however that for most of the lsb galaxy rotation curves the reduced @xmath21 distribution is quite broad and shallow , so that by constraining the fit parameters slightly more , a fit can be found that is consistent with the simulations , at the cost of only a small increase in @xmath22 .
they define these cdm - compatible constraints as :    1 .
@xmath23 2 .
@xmath12 3 .
@xmath13 4 .
@xmath24 .
here @xmath25 is the average density within the radius where the velocity reaches half its maximum value ( alam et al 2002 ) .
see h04 for a justification of these additional constraints , here it is sufficient to note that for the lsb galaxies @xmath25 is derived from the fit of eq .
( 1 ) to the rotation curves , whereas @xmath26 is the predicted value for a galaxy with @xmath27 in the @xmath0cdm model presented in @xcite and @xcite ( see also fig .  2 in @xcite and fig .
11 in h04 ) .
the constraint on @xmath25 ensures that only fits are considered with average densities close to those predicted in a standard @xmath0cdm universe .
h04 find that for the majority ( @xmath28 70 per cent ) of the galaxies fits can be found for which both the best - fit @xmath29 [ using constraints ( 1)-(3 ) ] and the constrained @xmath30 [ using constraints ( i)-(iii ) ] .
this group of galaxies ( group a using the terminology in h04 ) is thus considered to be consistent with cdm . for the remaining galaxies no cdm - compatible fit could be found ( group b in h04 ) , or the curves were too irregular to be well fitted by eq .  ( 1 ) ( group c in h04 ) .
the main claim in h04 is thus that most of the lsb galaxies can still be fitted reasonably well with these extra constraints and without a large increase in @xmath22 .
they conclude , based on the agreements of the constrained , cdm - compatible @xmath10 and @xmath25 distributions with those of the simulations , that `` this sample of lsb rotation curves is not manifestly inconsistent with the predictions of @xmath0cdm cosmological models . ''
this conclusion thus contradicts most observational work on lsb rotation curves which argues the opposite .    in this paper
i discuss these conclusions and investigate the method with which they are derived .
i find that the method presented in h04 can not distinguish between shallow and steep mass - density slopes , and illustrate this by showing that with this method even core - dominated , pseudo - isothermal halos would be inferred to be consistent with cdm .
i introduce an additional criterion that does take the inner mass - density slope into account , and find that only a quarter of the lsb galaxies investigated are possibly consistent with cdm .
however , most of these galaxies fit parameters are so weakly constrained that this is not a very strong conclusion .
only 3 out of the 51 galaxies investigated have tightly constrained solutions that are not significantly inconsistent with cdm . however , two of them are high surface brightness galaxies that are likely dominated by their stellar population .
the net result is that in the total sample there is only one galaxy that is likely to be dark matter dominated and not significantly inconsistent with cdm .
lsb galaxies that are consistent with cdm seem to be rare indeed .    in sect .
2 i derive an analytical expression for the slope of a rotation curve , based on eq .
3 compares the slopes in both data and simulations at identical physical radii . in sect .
4 i show that the constraints imposed by h04 are not sufficient to prove or disprove agreement with cdm . in sect .  5 a new constraint
is introduced that does take the slope into account .
the results are summarised in sect .
equation  ( 1 ) is a flexible , analytical function that can describe a wide range of rotation curves ( see @xcite for more examples ) .
one can , analogous to h04 , use the fitting function to investigate the properties of the underlying data . assuming a spherical halo dominated by dark matter we can use the inversion used in e.g.  @xcite to derive the corresponding mass - density distribution :    @xmath31    in combination with eq .
( 1 ) yields    @xmath32.\ ] ]    the logarithmic slope of the mass density distribution can now be derived from eq .
( 3 ) :    @xmath33    the logarithmic , or power - law slope @xmath34 thus _ depends on both @xmath10 and @xmath9_. fig .
[ fig : courslope ] shows @xmath34 for a number of values of @xmath10 and @xmath9 , where the values have been chosen to cover the range shown by the lsb rotation curve fits from h04 . changing @xmath10 has the effect of changing the shape of the slope - radius relations ; changing @xmath9 shifts the relations horizontally without affecting the shape for any particular @xmath10 .
most of the plotted slopes are remarkably _ shallow _ at small radii .
an inner asymptotic value of @xmath35 is predominant .
the cdm slope @xmath5 can only be reproduced with eqs .
( 1 ) and ( 4 ) for small values of @xmath9 and/or extremely small values of @xmath10 .
similarly , at large radii the slope converges to @xmath36 .
these are not naturally occurring values for @xmath0cdm mass profiles , with asymptotic slopes @xmath37 in the inner parts and @xmath38 in the outer parts .
equation ( 1 ) is really built to mimic the same striking features of rotation curves that led to the introduction of the pseudo - isothermal ( iso ) halo , namely a solid - body rise in the inner parts , and a constant ( `` flat '' ) rotation velocity in the outer parts .
one needs to make very specific choices of fitting parameters to make this function resemble an nfw profile .
the h04 simulations predict steep slopes , even at the smallest reliably resolved radii , defined by the so - called convergence radius @xmath39 @xcite . for the h04 dwarf galaxy models @xmath40 kpc or @xmath20 kpc for @xmath41 .
the slope at @xmath39 in the simulations varies between @xmath5 and @xmath42 .
equation  ( 4 ) can be used to derive the slopes implied by the fits to the observed lsb rotation curves . for this one
needs to choose a radius at which the slopes will be evaluated . in the rest of this paper two choices will be used .
firstly , the radius of the innermost measured point of the rotation curve as given in @xcite and @xcite will be considered . here a value of @xmath43 is used ( converted using the appropriate distance ) , which is the typical spacing between data points for the curves presented there . ] .
one might argue that at @xmath44 a different radius is probed for each rotation curve , so , secondly , a constant radius @xmath45 kpc @xmath46 kpc for all curves will be used as well .
one should not expect dramatically different results from both choices though : the average value of @xmath47 is @xmath48 kpc , very much comparable with @xmath39 .
it should be kept in mind that even though we evaluate the slope at these particular choices for the radius , the @xmath10 and @xmath9 parameters ( and therefore the slope ) are constrained by the _ entirety _ of the curve .
figure [ fig : hayslope3 ] shows the distribution of inferred mass density slopes derived using the lsb rotation curves and the best - fit @xmath10 and @xmath9 parameters listed in table 2 of h04 .
the slopes for both @xmath49 and @xmath50 kpc are shown .
it is clear that the distributions are heavily biased towards shallow slopes and very different from the values found in the simulations at these radii @xmath51 .
the small values of @xmath52 derived in h04 indicate that eq .
( 1 ) fits the data well , and the problem is thus not with the quality of the fits . in fig .
[ fig : hayslope3 ] is also indicated the distribution of slopes for the galaxies that h04 claim are consistent with cdm ( their group a with @xmath53 and @xmath54 ) .
this distribution is not markedly different from that of the entire sample . from fig .
[ fig : hayslope3 ] one could thus conclude that the majority of slopes are inconsistent with the cdm prediction .
how can this be reconciled with the h04 conclusions ?    as discussed above , h04 add an extra constraint to the @xmath10-parameter , and argue that the resulting agreement with the range of @xmath10-values shown by the simulations implies consistency with cdm .
this point will be explored in more detail below , but one can already see here that this does not solve the problem of the discrepancy between observed and simulated slopes . consider the distribution of slopes of the subset of group a for which @xmath55 ( and both @xmath56 ) , i.e. galaxies for which the best fit is ( apparently ) already consistent with cdm .
the distribution of slopes of this sub - group is also plotted in fig .
[ fig : hayslope3 ] . the selection criteria for this sub - group favour galaxies with steeper slopes ,
and it should thus come as no surprise that the dominant peak at @xmath57 has disappeared .
nevertheless it is remarkable that the distributions are still dominated by slopes @xmath58 .
the distribution using @xmath59 peaks at @xmath60 .
the distribution using @xmath61 kpc peaks at @xmath62 .
as we are probing the slope at @xmath63 kpc and not in the centre , we should not expect all iso haloes to have a flat slope at this radius .
the distribution of slopes found is consistent with that expected at @xmath45 kpc for an ensemble of pseudo - isothermal ( iso ) halos with core - radii between @xmath64 and @xmath65 kpc .
the decrease in mass - density at this radius is thus much less steep than expected for a cdm halo .
the steepest slope expected for a realistic iso halo ( i.e.  consistent with the smallest value @xmath66 kpc measured in real lsb galaxies ; see results in @xcite ) is @xmath67 , with the large majority of iso haloes having slopes less steep than that .
the slopes measured in the h04 simulations at @xmath45 kpc vary between @xmath68 and @xmath42 , firmly inconsistent with the observed distributions .
the reason for the discrepancy can best be appreciated by realizing that according to eq .
( 4 ) the slope is a function of both @xmath10 and @xmath9 .
this is shown graphically in fig .
[ fig : gammartfits ] which shows iso - slope contours in the @xmath69 plane , as evaluated at @xmath63 kpc .
it is immediately obvious that @xmath70 is not a unique function of @xmath10 , but depends equally strongly on @xmath9 .
most combinations of @xmath10 and @xmath9 with @xmath71 and @xmath72 yield slopes shallower than @xmath73 . only a very small part of parameter space results in steep , cdm - compatible slopes ( essentially only the area with @xmath74 and/or @xmath75 ) .
constraining @xmath76 does not actually constrain the slope to steep , cdm - like values , but still allows values up to @xmath77 .
over - plotted in fig .
[ fig : gammartfits ] are the best - fit @xmath10 and @xmath9 values of the lsb rotation curves as determined by h04 .
a distinction is made between the entire sample ( groups a , b and c ) , the `` cdm - compatible '' group a , and the sub - group discussed above where the best fit is apparently already cdm - compatible .
the distribution of the points is not very different from group to group , though the @xmath78 subgroup tends to have slightly steeper slopes , as already shown in fig .
[ fig : hayslope3 ] . regardless of how the total sample is divided up ,
the very large majority of the galaxies have slopes inconsistent with the values @xmath37 derived in the h04 simulations .
note again that the slopes in simulations and observations are compared at _ identical radii _ , and that the @xmath10 and @xmath9 values were derived using the _ entirety of the rotation curves_. the extra constraints introduced by h04 are thus insufficient conditions for agreement with cdm , as constraining to @xmath76 does not automatically imply a mass - density slope consistent with cdm . unless one is prepared to allow for shallow slopes in cdm at these radii ( making it inconsistent with its own simulations ) an extra constraint on the slope is needed to ensure agreement with cdm
adding this extra constraint to the four introduced by h04 is only necessary if these prior constraints are insufficient to make a unique distinction between cdm and non - cdm models .
if , for example , rotation curves known to be inconsistent with cdm are not rejected as such , the prior constraints are clearly insufficient to address cdm - related questions .
one can test the strength of these constraints by `` observing '' a sample of simulated iso haloes .
this will show that the h04 constraints are not sufficient as they imply that the majority of these iso haloes , all with easily detectable shallow slopes , are consistent with cdm .
iso haloes form of course the one model known to be certainly inconsistent with cdm ( if they were not , there would be no cusp / core controversy ) .
the modeling procedure as described in @xcite [ hereafter db03 ] is used .
the reader is referred to that paper for an extensive description of these models . the aim there was to estimate the impact of systematic effects on the observations . for that purpose
many different rotation curves were simulated and `` observed '' after the addition of observational uncertainties due to e.g.  resolution effects and random motions .
db03 used the same datasets as the basis of their models as h04 use for their analysis , and the db03 procedure can be directly applied here to test the fitting method and make comparisons with the h04 results .
the iso halo parameters are chosen in such a way that the resulting curves resemble minimum disk iso fits to the observed rotation curves .
fig .  10 from @xcite shows that mass models of lsb galaxies have asymptotic velocities @xmath79 ) < 2.2 $ ] ( between @xmath80 and @xmath81 km s@xmath82 ) .
central dark matter core densities vary between @xmath83 ) < 0 $ ] ( between @xmath84 and @xmath85 @xmath86 pc@xmath87 $ ] ) .
the core radius @xmath88 follows from these two parameters , and has a range @xmath89 ) < 0.83 $ ] ( between @xmath90 and @xmath91 kpc ) . for the models a random @xmath92 and @xmath93
are chosen from the respective logarithmic intervals .
note that these intervals encompass the entire observed parameter range .
no account is taken of any correlations that might exist between these parameters , nor of any other uncertainties that might be present in the determination of halo parameters .
this is reflected in the range of core - radii , which is somewhat larger than that found from observations ( typically @xmath94 kpc ) .
the choice of parameter ranges is therefore liberal , but sufficient for our purposes : this is not an attempt to model individual galaxies but a _ reductio ad absurdum _ proof of principle .    for each model halo an inclination , resolution and sampling interval
are chosen randomly from the observed distributions described in db03 .
error - bars are assigned to each sampled point , again modeled on the observed distribution of uncertainties , with a minimum value of 4 km s@xmath82 .
the curve is then corrected for inclination with a corresponding increase in the size of the error - bars . to each data point a random velocity component between @xmath95 and @xmath96 km s@xmath82 is added .
this is slightly simpler than the method used in db03 , but results in similarly sized random motions .
lastly , as real rotation curves do not all extend out to the same radius , for each galaxy a random outer radius between 3 and 20 kpc is defined , out to which the galaxy is `` observed '' .
figure [ fig : panel ] shows a small selection of the artificial iso curves . over - plotted is the eq .
( 1 ) fit using the best - fit constraints ( 1)-(3 ) , as given in sec .  1 .
the reduced @xmath21 and the fit parameters are also given in the figure .
figure  [ fig : modelgamma ] shows the distribution of the best - fit @xmath10 parameters for 100 different realisations of the model .
some @xmath97 per cent of the iso galaxies have @xmath18 .
this number should be compared with h04 where it was found that @xmath98 per cent of the lsb rotation curves had @xmath18 .
the @xmath10-distribution of lsb galaxies is at least in this respect consistent with that of iso haloes .
[ fig : modelslopes ] shows a histogram of the slopes at @xmath63 kpc , both for the input iso models and the `` observed '' output models , the latter derived using the best - fit @xmath10 and @xmath9 parameters .
both the input and output slopes show a clear peak at @xmath35 with a tail towards steeper slopes where the data are probing the edge of the dark matter core kpc and not in the center , we do not expect to find flat slopes for all iso haloes .
the steepest iso slopes expected are nevertheless significantly less steep than the predicted cdm values .
cf .  the remarks in sect .  3
the output distribution has a less pronounced peak at @xmath35 , and a longer tail towards steeper slopes , but as the discussion in @xcite shows , this is fully consistent with the effects of the limited resolution used to `` observe '' the input distribution .
the range in slopes found is slightly larger than that exhibited by real lsb galaxies shown in fig .
[ fig : hayslope3 ] .
this is entirely due to the larger range in core - radii used .
fits of eq .
( 1 ) to a set of model iso rotation curves `` observed '' under the same conditions as the samples of lsb galaxies under investigation here are thus able to retain and retrieve the presence of shallow inner slopes .    in order for the h04 criteria to make a valid discrimination between cdm and non - cdm models they thus need to be able to reject the majority of the iso models presented here . applying these criteria to the iso models and again fitting using eq .
( 1 ) , one finds that reducing the upper limit of @xmath99 to @xmath100 has only a modest effect on @xmath22 and almost the entire iso sample can still be fitted reasonably well with eq .
( 1 ) and constraints ( i)-(iii ) , as can be seen from the representative examples in fig .
[ fig : panel ] . cdm constraint ( iv ) turns out to be the most restrictive one .
it rejects about @xmath101 per cent of the simulated iso haloes with @xmath102 ( note that h04 show that a similar fraction of the lsb galaxies have incompatible densities as well ) .
the bottom row of fig .
[ fig : panel ] shows a few of the rejected models .
these do not look any different from the cdm - compatible iso curves : condition ( iv ) merely removes some fraction of the iso haloes that do not have a cdm - compatible density , without any particular selection against specific values of @xmath10 , @xmath9 , @xmath8 or other relevant parameters .
the most surprising outcome though is that of this sample of random iso haloes almost 60 per cent match the h04 cdm criteria .
a comparison of the distribution of slopes in this cdm - compatible sample of haloes with the total distribution shows that there has been no selection against shallow slopes ( fig .
[ fig : slopescomp3 ] ) . of the total sample of 100 observed iso models ,
@xmath103 per cent has an observed slope @xmath104 .
once condition ( iv ) is applied , 57 haloes remain , of which 82 per cent have best - fit slopes @xmath105 .
even when the slopes are derived using the constrained `` cdm compatible '' fit parameters , one still finds that 70 per cent has a shallow slope @xmath104 .
as the range in core - radii used for the models is slightly larger than found observationally , the fractions mentioned here should be considered lower limits .
regardless of how the slope is defined , shallow slopes are still profusely present ( and detectable ! ) in the models .
a comparison with the input iso halo parameters shows that the rejected haloes are not abnormal in any way . in fig .
[ fig : rho0 ] @xmath25 is plotted against the input iso halo central density @xmath93 .
there is a clear relation , as might be expected : the average density of a halo is related to its central density .
galaxies are plotted with different symbols depending on whether they meet the @xmath25 constraint or not .
it is clear that the halo models that do not meet the cdm criteria are only guilty of having average densities that are too high or too low .
they are not degenerate , nor do they suffer from e.g.  larger error bars .
a more finely - tuned choice of halo parameters could bring the rejection rate down significantly , but as the input ranges of @xmath93 and @xmath106 are based on observed distributions , it is more likely that real galaxies have a wider range of densities than predicted by cdm , and condition ( iv ) merely selects from a much broader spectrum of galaxy properties those galaxies that happen to lie in the cdm - compatible range .
figure [ fig : chi2 ] compares the values of @xmath22 for the best - fit parameters and the cdm - compatible parameters .
haloes that were rejected by the @xmath25 criterion are indicated in the right - hand side of the plot . following h04
one can divide the haloes in three categories : _
( group a ) : _ rotation curves that are well fit by eq .  ( 1 ) and for which a good fit with apparently cdm - compatible parameters can also be found , i.e. @xmath107 and @xmath108 . _
( group b ) : _ rotation curves that are well fit by eq .
( 1 ) but for which no good fit with cdm - compatible parameters can be found , usually because of a discrepant value of @xmath25 ; these curves have @xmath109 and @xmath110 or undefined ( i.e. , with @xmath25 out of range ) . _ ( group c ) : _ rotation curves that are poorly fit by eq .
( 1 ) , i.e. @xmath111 and @xmath110 .
the latter category only contains a few galaxies , as there are no large - scale asymmetries in the model rotation curves , and most rise smoothly and monotonically with radius . note the numerical agreement between the observational @xmath112 values presented in h04 and those of the iso models , showing that the additional uncertainties introduced in those models are a good representation of the true observational uncertainties .
models in group a are , according to h04 , `` consistent with @xmath0cdm in terms of their inferred central densities and the shape of their rotation curves . ''
one now has to add several caveats to this statement .
firstly , even with @xmath113 and @xmath114 a steep slope is not guaranteed .
the constraints used to define group a are not sufficient to filter out the shallow slopes that are still present and detectable in the iso models , even after the addition of observational uncertainties .
secondly , as the inner slopes are well - defined and not necessarily steep , the shapes of the rotation curves are also not necessarily consistent with @xmath0cdm .
constraints ( i)-(iii ) thus seem to have had hardly any effect in improving the agreement with cdm .
the only restrictive constraint is condition ( iv ) , the @xmath25 criterion , but even this seems to have only selected models with a certain range in average density from amongst a much larger range of models .
this is illustrated in fig .
[ fig : bullock ] where a comparison is made between average @xmath25 densities of the iso models from group a and b with those expected in a @xmath0cdm universe .
galaxies in groups a and b are indicated separately . in the h04 interpretation
the iso halos from group a are consistent with cdm in terms of shape and average density , while group b is consistent in terms of shape but not density , even though groups a and b both consist of pure iso haloes , with easily detectable shallow slopes .
the cdm constraints ( i)-(iv ) fail to take this into account and are thus insufficient to distinguish between cdm and non - cdm models .
they can not exclude the possibility that lsb galaxies have shallow inner mass - density slopes , even at @xmath115 .
additional constraints are needed to make a unique identification of galaxies compatible with cdm .
now that it is established that constraints ( i)-(iv ) are not sufficient to uniquely identify cdm - compatible galaxies , the next step is to identify additional conditions that can .
figures  [ fig : courslope ] and [ fig : gammartfits ] show that the inner slope and therefore the shape of the rotation curve do not depend on @xmath10 alone , but that there is an equally strong dependence on @xmath9 .
these figures also explain why h04 came to the conclusion that their four constraints were sufficient : implicit in their analysis is the assumption that the shape of the rotation curve depends on @xmath10 alone .
while it is true that for @xmath116 kpc a smaller @xmath10 implies a steeper slope , this does not ensure a steep slope in an absolute sense . for @xmath76 , depending on the value of @xmath9 ,
slopes as shallow as @xmath117 are still possible .
furthermore , it is shown above that the h04 method does not take these shallow slopes into account , and thus allows models with easily detectable and prominent shallow slopes purpose - built in to pass the cdm test with flying colours .    in order to identify galaxies that are really compatible with cdm ,
an additional constraint is needed , in such a way that only @xmath118 combinations are allowed that yield a steep slope [ as well as pass conditions ( i)-(iv ) ] . in practice
this means that @xmath69 parameter space needs to be searched for the minimum @xmath21 value that still results in a steep slope , one needs to take that parameter into account as well .
this is done by stepping through values of @xmath8 at fixed @xmath10 and @xmath9 , and choosing the value that yields the lowest @xmath21 .
therefore @xmath119 $ ] . ] . in order to compare directly with the simulations the slopes
are again evaluated at @xmath63 kpc . at this radius
the h04 simulations show slopes @xmath120 , and strictly speaking one ought to restrict the search of @xmath121 space to slopes @xmath122 .
however , to take into account uncertainties in data and simulations , and give the cdm models as much leeway as possible , a more liberal range of @xmath123 will be used .
[ fig : slopeonly ] shows that this is the steepest slope we can expect at this radius from an ultra - compact iso halo with @xmath124 kpc , and this value thus cleanly separates the iso and cdm domains .    at this point
a short digression on the significance of @xmath112 is useful . in testing the goodness - of - fit of a model , the reduced @xmath21 , that is
, the total @xmath21 divided by the degrees of freedom of the data , is often used .
a value of @xmath125 is then taken as an indication that the model is a good description of the data .
the reduced @xmath21 is an appropriate statistic when comparing different models to a single set of data , or data with a similar number of degrees of freedom .
an example would be the testing of an nfw model versus an iso model for a single rotation curve , or a set of curves with a similar number of data points .
h04 determine for each lsb rotation curve the reduced @xmath21 for the best - fitting @xmath118 model , as well as the minimum @xmath112 value using their cdm constraints .
they argue that for most of the galaxies the cdm constraints only cause a small increase in the _ reduced _
@xmath21 , and that therefore the cdm - constrained models are not much worse than the best - fit models .
this is not necessarily so .
remember that the reduced @xmath21 is the @xmath21 divided by the degrees of freedom of the data ( the number of data points minus the number of parameters in the model ) .
it is easy to see that in order to cause the same change in _ reduced _ @xmath21 the change in _ absolute _
@xmath21 must be much larger for a rotation curve with a large number of data points than for a rotation curve with a small number of data points .
in other words , a small change in @xmath22 can be very significant ( that is , unlikely to be consistent with the uncertainties in the data points ) for a curve with a large number of data points , while it can be insignificant ( entirely consistent with the uncertainties ) for a curve with only a small number of data points .
the observed sample we are dealing with here contains a large number of rotation curves , with a wide range in the number of data points , varying from @xmath126 to over 350 .
the relevant parameter when judging whether a change in fit parameters yields a model that is still consistent with the data is thus _ not _ the reduced @xmath21 , but the _ change in absolute @xmath21_. the confidence level of any parameter combination is given by the corresponding change in @xmath21 with respect to the minimum value . for a model with three free parameters @xmath127
as used here , the @xmath128 confidence intervals for any fit are given by @xmath129 , respectively .
using these criteria , a rotation curve can be defined to be consistent with cdm if the best - fit values of @xmath10 and @xmath9 lie within @xmath130 of the closest @xmath118 combination with a @xmath131 slope . in order for the fit to give any meaningful constraints
, one should furthermore require that the area enclosed by the @xmath130 confidence level is a small fraction of the total area of parameter space investigated is not crucial .
we have tested the analysis with a @xmath132 level as well .
though the number of badly constrained fits increases , the relative proportions of cdm consistent _ vs _ inconsistent fits does not change appreciably . ] .
if the latter is not the case , then any conclusions regarding agreement or disagreement with cdm are only very weak at best .    here the group a rotation curves , defined in h04 to be consistent with their definition of cdm , are investigated again using the new constraints .
groups b and c are already inconsistent with cdm using the more relaxed h04 constraints , and will therefore not be investigated further . for each rotation curve from group a the minimum @xmath21
was found using eq .
( 1 ) , and the change in @xmath21 necessary to be consistent with a slope @xmath123 was determined .
the @xmath133-confidence interval corresponding to this @xmath134 was also calculated , as well as the ratio @xmath135 of the area enclosed by the @xmath130 contour and the total area of @xmath121 parameter space searched @xmath136 kpc ) . as described above
, the ratio @xmath135 is used to determine whether a solution is well - constrained or not .
small values of @xmath135 indicate that the @xmath130 area is only a small fraction of total parameter space , and therefore yield significant solutions .
large values of @xmath135 indicate that the fit does not constrain models in a significant way .
the results are given in table [ table : fit ] , where the galaxies are sorted in order of the number of data - points in each individual rotation curve .
[ fig : chi2surface ] shows the @xmath128 confidence contours for a number of representative galaxies as described below . from studying the plots of the @xmath21 contours for all galaxies
, it was found that a value @xmath137 is a reasonable discriminator between well - constrained and badly constrained fits , but the precise value of @xmath135 is not critical ( see fig .
[ fig : chi2lim ] for some examples of @xmath138 fits ) .
the galaxies in table [ table : fit ] fall in four distinct categories :    1 .   _
well - constrained solutions , consistent with cdm : _ objects with best fits within @xmath130 of a steep slope @xmath123 parameter combination , and with a well - constrained @xmath139 solution .
an example is ngc3274 , as shown in fig .
[ fig : chi2surface ] .
this category consists of 3 out of the 36 galaxies in group a. 2 .
_ well - constrained solutions , inconsistent with cdm : _ objects with best fits more than @xmath130 away from a steep slope @xmath123 parameter combination , and with a well - constrained @xmath139 solution .
an example is ugc 11819 , as shown in fig .
[ fig : chi2surface ] .
this category contains 17 out of 36 galaxies .
badly constrained solutions , consistent with cdm : _ objects with best fits within @xmath130 of a steep slope @xmath123 parameter combination , but with a badly constrained @xmath140 solution .
an example is f563 - 1 , as shown in fig .
[ fig : chi2surface ] .
this category contains 12 out of 36 galaxies .
badly constrained solutions , inconsistent with cdm : _ objects with best fits more than @xmath130 away from a steep slope @xmath123 parameter combination , and with a badly constrained @xmath140 solution .
an example is ddo 185 , as shown in fig .
[ fig : chi2surface ] .
this category contains 4 out of 36 galaxies .
it is clear that only galaxies from the first two categories , i.e.  with @xmath139 , can help constrain halo models .
a glance at table [ table : fit ] shows that most of the solutions that are consistent with cdm are actually badly constrained .
this is investigated further in fig .
[ fig : resolve ] . here
@xmath135 is plotted against the number of data points in each rotation curve .
a distinction is made between rotation curves that are consistent with cdm and those that are inconsistent with cdm using the constraints introduced here .
table [ table : fit ] and fig .
[ fig : resolve ] lead to several conclusions .
firstly , of the 15 galaxies that are consistent with cdm , 13 have less than 30 data points .
furthermore , of these 13 galaxies , only 1 has @xmath139 ( i.e.  is well - constrained ) .
looking at the 21 galaxies that are inconsistent with cdm , only 10 have less than 30 data points .
of these 10 galaxies , all except one have @xmath139 .
rotation curves with more than 30 data points tend to be better constrained on average , as well as have a tendency to be inconsistent with cdm .
it is also interesting to note that even amongst galaxies with only a limited number of data points , the most constrained solutions ( small @xmath135 ) tend to be those inconsistent with cdm .
the majority of solutions @xmath141 per cent ) that are consistent with cdm have only a small number of data points _ and _ are ill - constrained .
these ill - constrained solutions therefore do not decide between any model one way or the other , and statements that these galaxies are consistent with cdm are thus not very strong . of the well - constrained solutions
the large majority is inconsistent with cdm .
furthermore , of the 13 galaxies with more than 30 data points only 2 are consistent with cdm .
these two galaxies ( ngc 3274 and ngc 4455 ) also happen to have the smallest optical scale - lengths and highest surface brightnesses from all galaxies with available photometry in the @xcite , @xcite and @xcite samples : both galaxies have @xmath142 mag arcsec@xmath143 .
these galaxies are therefore unlikely to be dominated by dark matter in their inner parts and it is very likely that the steep slopes in these two galaxies simply reflect the stellar mass distribution ( see also the discussion on ngc 3274 in sec .  9.2.2 of @xcite ) .    amongst the rotation curves with less than 30 points
there is only one galaxy with @xmath144 that seems consistent with cdm .
this is ugc 731 , a bona - fide lsb dwarf , and is the best and only candidate in the entire observed sample for a cdm - consistent , dark - matter - dominated galaxy with a well - constrained solution .
the level of agreement is not perfect though , ugc 731 is consistent with a @xmath145 slope at the @xmath146 confidence level , with the confidence level decreasing to @xmath147 for an @xmath4 slope , which is still only the upper limit of the range of slopes expected from the simulations .
once the steep slope constraint is added to the h04 constraints there are thus only 3 galaxies left that have a well - constrained fit consistent with a steep slope and @xmath0cdm . of these 3 galaxies , 2 are of very high surface brightness and are likely to be dominated by stars in the inner parts , leaving only one possible candidate with a well - constrained cdm - compatible fit .
the large majority of the well - constrained fits strongly prefer shallow slopes .
the 2@xmath133 limit used here already indicates that for many galaxies it is difficult to adjust the fit parameters to get a cdm - compatible fit .
restrictive as this criterion is , it really only gives an upper limit to the true probability .
while one has the freedom to adjust the parameters of an individual fit to test the likelihood of an hypothesis for one particular rotation curve , this becomes problematic when dealing with many fits .
if every fit is individually adjusted to fit a particular model , does that still constitute a proper test ?
an analogue can perhaps be found in some of the first supernova results that indicated the existence of a cosmological constant ( e.g.@xcite ) . the majority of the supernovae in that early work were each individually consistent within @xmath130 with the _ _ non-__existence of @xmath0 .
even though the data showed a systematic trend , each measurement could have been corrected individually to fit the no-@xmath0 model .
however , the joint result of these small inconsistencies has formed the basis for the discovery of the effects of @xmath0 on the expansion of the universe . while it would be presumptuous to compare those results with the current analysis ,
it does show that it is important to pay attention to the global conclusion that is forced upon us by the data .
one thing that is clear is that galaxies that are significantly consistent with @xmath0cdm in terms of their inferred central densities and the shapes of their rotation curves seem to be rare indeed .
i have investigated the claim by h04 that the majority of rotation curves of lsb galaxies are not inconsistent with cdm .
i have shown that the method used is unable to distinguish between shallow and steep slopes , even when these are obviously present and easily detectable .
i illustrate this by showing that with the h04 method one would infer even pseudo - isothermal , core - dominated haloes to be consistent with cdm .
an extra constraint based on the mass - density slope is thus needed to make more definitive statements on any ( dis)agreement with cdm . using this extra criterion
i show that only a quarter of the lsb galaxies can be said to be consistent with cdm , as opposed to the three quarters found by h04 .
the majority of these cdm - consistent lsb galaxies do however have fit parameters that are so ill - constrained , that they are consistent with virtually anything . restricting the analysis to galaxies with well - constrained solutions ,
i find that only 3 out of the 20 well - constrained galaxies are possibly consistent with cdm ; two of these are high surface brightness dwarf galaxies that are likely to be dominated by stars .    in summary , a comparison of the circular velocity profiles of cdm haloes with rotation curves of lsb galaxies indicates that the shapes and inferred central densities of most lsb galaxies are mostly _ inconsistent _ with those of simulated haloes within the limitations imposed by observational error .      alam , s.  m.  k. , bullock , j.  s. , weinberg , d.  h.  2002 , , 572 , 34 binney , j.  2004 , iau symposium , 220 , 3 bullock , j.  s. , kolatt , t.  s. , sigad , y. , somerville , r.  s. , kravtsov , a.  v. , klypin , a.  a. , primack , j.  r. , & dekel , a.  2001 , , 321 , 559 courteau , s.  1997 , , 114 , 2402 de blok , w.  j.  g.  2004 , iau symposium , 220 , 69 de blok , w.  j.  g. , bosma , a.  2002 , , 385 , 816 de blok , w.  j.  g. , mcgaugh , s.  s.  1997 , , 290 , 533 de blok , w.j.g . ,
mcgaugh , s.s . ,
rubin , v.c .
2001 , , 122 , 2396 de blok , w.  j.  g. , mcgaugh , s.  s. , bosma , a. , & rubin , v.  c.  2001 , , 552 , l23 de blok , w.  j.  g. , bosma , a. , & mcgaugh , s.  2003 , , 340 , 657 fukushige , t. , kawai , a. , & makino , j.  2004 , , 606 , 625 ghigna , s. , moore , b. , governato , f. , lake , g. , quinn , t. , & stadel , j.  2000 , , 544 , 616 hayashi , e. , navarro , j.f . , power , c. , jenkins , a. , frenk , c.s . ,
white , s.d.m .
, springel , v. , stadel , j. , quinn , t.r .
2004 , , 355 , 794 jing , y.  p. , mo , h.  j. , borner , g. , & fang , l.  z.  1995 , , 276 , 417 klypin , a. , kravtsov , a.  v. , bullock , j.  s. , & primack , j.  r.  2001 , , 554 , 903 mcgaugh , s.  s. , rubin , v.  c. , & de blok , w.  j.  g.  2001 , , 122 , 2381 moore , b. , governato , f. , quinn , t. , stadel , j. , & lake , g.  1998 , , 499 , l5 moore , b. , ghigna , s. , governato , f. , lake , g. , quinn , t. , stadel , j. , & tozzi , p.  1999
, , 524 , l19 navarro , j.f .
, frenk , c.s . , white , s.d.m .
1996 , , 462 , 563 navarro , j.f . , frenk , c.s . ,
white , s.d.m .
1997 , , 490 , 493 navarro , j.  f. , et al .
2004 , , 349 , 1039 power , c. , navarro , j.  f. , jenkins , a. , frenk , c.  s. , white , s.  d.  m. , springel , v. , stadel , j. , & quinn , t.  2003 , , 338 , 14 riess , a.  g. , et al .
1998 , , 116 , 1009 swaters , r.  a. , madore , b.  f. , van den bosch , f.  c. , & balcells , m.  2003 , , 583 , 732 wechsler , r.  h. , bullock , j.  s. , primack , j.  r. , kravtsov , a.  v. , & dekel , a.  2002 , , 568 , 52      f563 - 1 & 10 & 1.92 & 0.67 & 0.54 & m01 + eso 4250180 & 11 & 24.94 & 0.25 & 4.31 & m01 + eso 4880490 & 12 & 1.07 & 0.27 & 0.28 & m01 + eso 3020120 & 12 & 1.72 & 0.62 & 0.48 & m01 + ddo 189 & 14 & 0.75 & 0.79 & 0.18 & db02 + eso 1870510 & 15 & 0.02 & 0.45 & 0.0011 & m01 + ugc 4115 & 15 & 0.36 & 0.87 & 0.064 & m01 + f568 - 3 & 16 & 43.27 & 0.13 & 5.99 & m01 + f583 - 1 & 17 & 15.12 & 0.43 & 3.14 & m01 + f571 - 8 & 19 & 93.60 & 0.10 & @xmath148 & m01 + f563 - 1 & 19 & 0.02 & 0.56 & 0.0011 & db02 + ugc 11583 & 19 & 4.31 & 0.57 & 1.20 & m01 + eso 1200211 & 19 & 2.09 & 0.45 & 0.59 & m01 + f583 - 4 & 19 & 19.67 & 0.13 & 3.72 & m01 + eso 2060140 & 20 & 9.57 & 0.06 & 2.28 & m01 + ugc 11819 & 23 & 181.61 & 0.07 & @xmath148 & m01 + f730-v1 & 24 & 18.66 & 0.04 & 3.60 & m01 + ugc 4173 & 24 & 0.00 & 0.62 & 0.00 & db02 + ugc 11616 & 26 & 105.32 & 0.05 & @xmath148 & m01 + ddo 47 & 26 & 0.05 & 0.91 & 0.0040 & db02 + ugc 731 & 28 & 4.95 & 0.11 & 1.35 & db02 + ugc 11454 & 28 & 218.96 & 0.05 & @xmath148 & m01 + ugc 5005 & 28 & 1.47 & 0.87 & 0.40 & db02 + ugc 1230 & 34 & 20.27 & 0.31 & 3.79 & db02 + ugc 628 & 37 & 8.92 & 0.05 & 2.17 & db02 + ddo 185 & 42 & 19.23 & 0.44 & 3.67 & db02 + ugc 10310 & 49 & 32.78 & 0.20 & 5.09 & db02 + ugc 3371 & 57 & 11.68 & 0.57 & 2.63 & db02 + ngc 3274 & 66 & 0.00 & 0.01 & 0.00 & db02 + ugc 3137 & 72 & 24.17 & 0.15 & 4.23 & db02 + ngc 4455 & 80 & 1.63 & 0.10 & 0.45 & db02 + ugc 4325 & 84 & 76.41 & 0.24 & @xmath148 & db02 + ddo 52 & 86 & 41.8 & 0.02 & 5.87 & db02 + ngc 100 & 92 & 21.16 & 0.03 & 3.90 & db02 + ngc 5023 & 149 & 95.96 & 0.01 & @xmath148 & db02 + ngc 4395 & 355 & 23.51 & 0.01 & 4.16 &