  Networks are frequently used to model complex systems comprised of
interacting elements. While edges capture the topology of direct interactions,
the true complexity of many systems originates from higher-order patterns in
paths by which nodes can indirectly influence each other. Path data,
representing ordered sequences of consecutive direct interactions, can be used
to model these patterns. On the one hand, to avoid overfitting, such models
should only consider those higher-order patterns for which the data provide
sufficient statistical evidence. On the other hand, we hypothesise that network
models, which capture only direct interactions, underfit higher-order patterns
present in data. Consequently, both approaches are likely to misidentify
influential nodes in complex networks. We contribute to this issue by proposing
five centrality measures based on MOGen, a multi-order generative model that
accounts for all indirect influences up to a maximum distance but disregards
influences at higher distances. We compare MOGen-based centralities to
equivalent measures for network models and path data in a prediction experiment
where we aim to identify influential nodes in out-of-sample data. Our results
show strong evidence supporting our hypothesis. MOGen consistently outperforms
both the network model and path-based prediction. We further show that the
performance difference between MOGen and the path-based approach disappears if
we have sufficient observations, confirming that the error is due to
overfitting.
