1: \documentstyle[aps,pre,epsfig]{revtex}
2:
3: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
4: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
5: \newcommand{\bc}{\begin{center}}
6: \newcommand{\ec}{\end{center}}
7: \newcommand{\bi}{\begin{itemize}}
8: \newcommand{\ei}{\end{itemize}}
9: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
10: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
11: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.\ }}
12: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.\ }}
13: \newcommand{\ignore}[1]{}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16: \draft
17: \twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname
18: @twocolumnfalse\endcsname
19:
20: \title{Epidemic threshold in structured scale-free networks}
21:
22: \author{V\'{\i}ctor M. Egu\'{\i}luz$^{1,2,3}$\cite{vme} and
23: Konstantin Klemm$^{1,3,}$}
24:
25: \address{
26: $^1$Instituto Mediterr\'aneo de Estudios Avanzados IMEDEA (CSIC-UIB),
27: E07071 Palma de Mallorca, Spain
28: \\$^2$Departamento de F\'{\i}sica, Universidad de las Islas Baleares,
29: E07071 Palma de Mallorca, Spain
30: \\$^3$Center for Chaos and Turbulence Studies,
31: Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, DK-2100 Copenhagen \O, Denmark
32: }
33:
34: \date{\today}
35:
36: \maketitle
37:
38: \begin{abstract}
39:
40: We analyze the spreading of viruses in scale-free networks with high
41: clustering and degree correlations, as found in the Internet graph. For the
42: Suscetible-Infected-Susceptible model of epidemics the prevalence undergoes a
43: phase transition at a finite threshold of the transmission probability.
44: Comparing with the absence of a finite threshold in networks with purely
45: random wiring, our result suggests that high clustering and degree
46: correlations protect scale-free networks against the spreading of viruses.
47: We introduce and verify a quantitative description of the
48: epidemic threshold based on the connectivity of the neighborhoods of the
49: hubs.
50:
51: \end{abstract}
52: \pacs{PACS: 89.75.Hc, 89.20.Hh, 87.23.Ge}
53: ]
54:
55: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
56:
57: The description of the properties of several real networks has manifested
58: that, despite their different nature, they share some common features
59: \cite{Watts98,Barabasi99,Amaral00,Strogatz01}. They typically show a
60: scale-free distribution of degree, high clustering, and a short average
61: pathlength \cite{Albert01}. Although their topological properties have been
62: studied in detail, a natural question that arises is the dynamical properties
63: that result from the different topologies \cite{Strogatz01}. An example where
64: the interaction network is crucial for the dynamics is the case of disease
65: spreading. The study of complex networks as models of social, technological
66: and biological interaction has been shown to give valuable insights of how
67: viruses, diseases and rumours spread
68: \cite{Lloyd01,Pastor01,Kuperman01,Zanette01}.
69:
70: Most of these investigations have been performed assuming networks with
71: homogeneous connectivity, where all individuals have approximately the same
72: number (degree) of contacts with others. The network is typically modeled as
73: a regular lattice, a random graph, or a superposition of these two
74: \cite{Watts98}. For such topologies the number of infected individuals
75: undergoes a phase transition: The single contact transmission probability
76: needs to exceed a critical threshold for a disease to become epidemic
77: \cite{Diekmann00,Marro99}.
78: Recently, however, it has been discovered that many networks involved in the
79: spread of diseases have a {\rm scale-free} distribution of degree with a
80: regime of power law decay. In particular, the web of human sexual contacts
81: \cite{Liljeros01}, the web of electronic mail communication \cite{Ebel02} and
82: the Internet \cite{Pastor01b} all contain highly connected individuals or
83: nodes, so-called {\em hubs}, which had been disregarded by the assumption of
84: homogeneous connectivity in previous works. The first model studies of
85: disease spread in scale-free networks including hubs have revealed the
86: absence of an epidemic threshold. Therefore it has been claimed that in
87: technological and sociological networks even viruses with extremely low
88: transmission probability can spread, and any prophylactic strategies aiming
89: at a reduction of the average infectiveness would never result in a total
90: eradication of a prevalent virus. However, the alarming predictions have been
91: obtained assuming random mixing. Apart from the scale-free degree
92: distribution, all non-trivial topological properties of real-world
93: sociological and technological networks have been neglected.
94:
95: This Letter is dedicated to the analysis of virus spreading in networks with local
96: structure. In order to account for the large clustering coefficient and the
97: presence of degree correlations \cite{Pastor01b} we model the potentially
98: infective contacts by highly clustered scale-free networks \cite{Klemm01}.
99: We find that the single-contact transmission probability needs to exceed
100: a finite threshold for a virus to spread and prevail. Thus the behavior of
101: epidemics is qualitatively different in highly clustered scale-free networks
102: as compared with randomly wired scale-free networks. We conjecture that the
103: difference can be explained by the presence or absence of connections between
104: the hubs. Based on this conjecture, we define a new quantity, the secondary
105: reproductive number, which predicts the epidemic threshold for highly
106: clustered and randomly wired scale-free networks, as well as for the Internet
107: graph as an example of a real-world scale-free network \cite{Faloutsos99}.
108:
109: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
110: We consider the susceptible-infected-susceptible (SIS) model,
111: as a simple description of epidemic spreading in a population
112: \cite{Diekmann00}. Each individual in the population is either infected or
113: susceptible at any point in time. The potential infection pathways are
114: described by interpreting the individuals as the nodes of a network. The
115: time-discrete dynamics is defined by synchroneously updating the states of
116: all individuals with the following rules: If individual $A$ is infected at
117: time $t-1$, it is susceptible at time $t$. If, otherwise, individual $A$ is
118: susceptible at time $t-1$ and is connected to at least one individual
119: infected at the same time, then with probability $\lambda$ individual $A$ is
120: infected at time $t$. An important observable is the prevalence $\rho$. It is
121: the time average of the fraction of infected individuals reached after a
122: transient from the initial condition. Given a network, the only parameter of
123: the model is the infection probability $\lambda$. The information on the
124: global spreading of a disease is contained in the function $\rho(\lambda)$.
125:
126: The individuals are connected by highly clustered scale-free networks
127: \cite{Klemm01}. They are constructed by iteratively adding nodes and links in
128: the following way: Generate a new node and connect it with all active nodes.
129: Set the new node active as well. Set inactive one of the active nodes. The
130: probability for deactivating node $i$ is inversely proportional to its
131: current number of links $k_i$. Close the iteration loop by generating the
132: next new node and so forth, until the network size reaches the desired value
133: $N$. Starting from an initial network of $m$ fully interconnected active
134: nodes, a network with an average degree $\langle k \rangle = 2m$ links per
135: node is generated. The degree distribution follows a power law $P(k)=2m^2
136: k^{-3}$, and the clustering coefficient $C=5/6$. Note that the deactivation
137: mechanism mentioned here is part only of the growth mechanism of the network.
138: It is not related to the dynamics of the SIS model which is applied after the
139: network has been constructed.
140:
141: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
142: By extensive simulations we have obtained the prevalence $\rho(\lambda)$ for
143: populations of $N=10^5$ individuals connected by highly clustered scale-free
144: networks. In Fig.~\ref{fdis} we plot the fraction of infected individuals in
145: the stationary state, $\rho$, for different values of the average
146: connectivity. Only when $\lambda$ is increased above a value $\lambda_c$
147: a significant prevalence is observed. The effect of the topological properties
148: of the highly clustered scale-free networks becomes clear when comparing
149: the shape of the prevalence curves with those obtained for randomly wired
150: scale-free networks. In the latter case no change of behavior is apparent
151: as the prevalence and its slope vary smoothly when $\lambda$ is increased.
152:
153: Further insight into the behavior of epidemics in highly clustered scale-free
154: networks is gained from the time evolution of the survival probability $P_s$
155: shown in the inset of Fig.~\ref{fdis}. Taking initial conditions with exactly one
156: randomly chosen site infected, $P_s(t)$ is the fraction of realizations that
157: contain at least one infected site after $t$ time steps. For values of
158: $\lambda$ well below the threshold $\lambda_c$ the disease dies out
159: exponentially whereas for $\lambda$ above $\lambda_c$ the survival
160: probability $P_s$ approaches a non-zero plateau value.
161: The change of behavior from
162: rapid eradication to non-zero prevalence is observed at a finite value of the
163: transmission probability, independent of the system size. Thus the prevalence
164: of the SIS model in highly clustered scale-free networks undergoes a phase
165: transition at a finite critical value $\lambda_c$ of the transmission
166: probability. In other words, viruses with a low transmission probability do
167: not prevail in these networks.
168:
169: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
170: In order to understand the role played by the
171: topology we consider the average connectivity of the
172: neighbors of a node $i$
173: \be
174: k_i^{nn} = \frac{1}{k_i} \sum_{j\in{\cal V}} k_j~,
175: \ee
176: where $k_j$ is the degree of node $j$ and the neighborhood of node
177: $i$ (\ie, the set of nodes directly connected to node $i$)
178: is called ${\cal V}$.
179:
180: The structure of the highly clustered scale-free networks gives rise to correlations between the
181: degree of a node and the degrees of its neighbors (see Fig.~\ref{fknn}). For
182: weakly connected nodes, $\langle k^{nn} \rangle$ decays. For
183: the hubs, $k \gg \langle k \rangle$, it reaches a constant value \cite{clust}
184: \be
185: \langle k_h^{nn} \rangle = \langle k \rangle-1~.
186: \label{hcsf}
187: \ee
188:
189: In order to unify the treatment of random and structured networks we also
190: calculate $\langle k^{nn}\rangle$ for random scale-free networks. If
191: $P_c(k^\prime|k)$ is the conditional probability that a link belonging to a
192: node with connectivity $k$ points to a node with connectivity $k^\prime$,
193: then
194: \be
195: \langle k^{nn} \rangle
196: = \sum_{k^\prime} k^\prime P_c(k^\prime |k)
197: = \sum_{k^\prime} \frac{(k^\prime)^2}{\langle k \rangle} P(k^\prime)
198: = \frac{\langle k^2 \rangle}{\langle k \rangle} ~,
199: \label{k2}
200: \ee
201: where we have used
202: $P_c(k^\prime |k) \propto k^\prime P(k^\prime)$ for random networks.
203: Now we specifically consider randomly wired scale-free networks
204: with the degree distribution $P(k) = 2m^2 k^{-3}$, the same distribution as
205: in the highly clustered scale-free networks considered before. The
206: networks are generated using the algorithm introduced in
207: Ref.~\cite{Barabasi99}. Ordering the nodes with respect to decreasing degree,
208: every node is identified by its rank $i$. The degree of node $i$ is given
209: by
210: \be
211: k_i(N) = \frac{\langle k \rangle}{2} \left(\frac{N}{i}\right)^{0.5}~.
212: \ee
213: Inserting
214: $
215: \langle k^2 \rangle = \sum_{i=1}^{N} k_i^2 (N) = \langle k \rangle^2 /4
216: \ln N + {\cal O} (N^{-1})
217: $
218: into Eq.~(\ref{k2}) we obtain
219: \be
220: \langle k^{nn}\rangle = \frac{\langle k \rangle}{4} \ln N~,
221: \ee
222: independent, on average, of the node under consideration. This
223: independence is confirmed numerically, see Fig.~\ref{fknn}. It reflects
224: the absence of correlations in the connectivity. Figure \ref{fknn2}
225: shows the logarithmic dependence of $\langle k^{nn} \rangle$ on
226: system size, in contrast with the constant value obtained for the hubs
227: in the structured (highly clustered scale-free) networks.
228:
229: Now the different connectivity of the hubs in the highly clustered and random
230: scale-free networks (both having the same degree distribution) is clear:
231: Whereas in the random case a hub is connected to other highly connected nodes,
232: in the highly clustered networks the hubs are almost exclusively connected to low
233: degree nodes. This difference will result essential for the epidemic dynamics.
234:
235: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
236: But how is this topological property related to the transmission
237: threshold found of the SIS model?
238: Let us define the {\em secondary reproductive number} as
239: \be
240: R_2 = \lambda \langle k^{nn}_h \rangle~.
241: \label{R2}
242: \ee
243: We show below that the condition $R_2=1$ recovers a previous prediction for
244: the epidemic threshold in randomly wired networks
245: networks, and gives a good estimate for the highly clustered
246: scale-free networks and the Internet graph.
247:
248: Previously, the behavior of the epidemics has been described in terms
249: of the {\em basic reproductive number}, $R_0$ \cite{May87}.
250: It is defined as the average number of
251: secondary infections produced by an infectious individual in a totally
252: susceptible population and indicates whether a disease can ever invade a
253: population. For random networks with broad degree distribution, the
254: basic reproductive number is given by
255: \be
256: R_0 = \lambda \frac{\langle k^2 \rangle}{\langle k\rangle}~.
257: \label{R0}
258: \ee
259: Only if $R_0$ is larger than unity the infection prevails.
260: Employing Eq.~(\ref{k2}) we find $R_0=R_2$, such that in randomly
261: wired networks the basic and secondary reproductive number coincide.
262: Therefore the condition $R_2=1$ recovers the standard prediction of
263: the epidemic threshold used in epidemiology, assuming random mixing
264: of the population.
265:
266: For the highly clustered scale-free networks, applying the condition $R_2 = 1$ and using
267: Eq.~\ref{hcsf} predicts a threshold
268: \be
269: \lambda_c = \frac{1}{(\langle k \rangle -1)}~.
270: \ee
271: The onset of non-zero prevalence found numerically (Fig.\ \ref{fdis}) is in good
272: agreement with the prediction. Note that for the highly clustered scale-free networks
273: in general $R_2\neq R_0$. In particular, $R_0$ diverges with system size $N$ as
274: $\ln N$ leading to a false prediction of $\lambda_c=0$ in the limit of large
275: highly clustered scale-free networks.
276:
277: In order to check the applicability of the secondary reproductive number to
278: empirical networks we investigate the Internet graph. We simulate the SIS model
279: in the network of the Autonomous Systems at three different time stages
280: of its evolution \cite{as}. Figure~\ref{finf} shows the prevalence of the SIS model as
281: a function of the transmission probability. The threshold values predicted by
282: the condition $1=\lambda_c \langle k_h^{nn} \rangle$ give a good estimate of
283: the minimum transmission rate above which the disease spreads. However, using
284: the basic reproductive number instead (Eq.~(\ref{R0})), gives threshold values
285: 0.012, 0.009, 0.007 for years 1997, 1998, 2000, respectively. This
286: understimates the threshold found in the simulations by at least one order of
287: magnitude. Similar to the highly clustered scale-free networks
288: the Internet graph displays considerable degree correlations \cite{Pastor01b}.
289: The mean connectivity in the neighborhoods of the hubs is much lower than
290: expected for random wiring. This explains the failure of the description by
291: the basic reproductive number which neglects the strong correlations. The
292: secondary reproductive number, however, gives a satisfactory prediction.
293:
294: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
295: We have shown the existence of a finite epidemic
296: threshold in highly clustered scale-free networks in the limit of inifinite
297: system size. Our study has considered
298: for the first time scale-free networks with realistic topological properties
299: as a model for the potentially infective contacts between individuals or
300: nodes. We have conjectured that the value of the threshold is related to
301: the degree correlations in the network, such that the product of the
302: transmission probability $\lambda$ and the mean connectivity
303: $\langle k^{nn}_h\rangle$ of the neighbors of the hubs needs to exceed
304: unity for the epidemic to prevail. This criterion holds precisely for
305: highly clustered scale-free networks. For randomly wired scaele-free
306: networks it coincides with the standard prediction in epidemiology given
307: by the basic reproductive number. The transmission probability required for spreading on the real Internet graph is approximated well by our criterion,
308: whereas the basic reproductive number drastically underestimates the value.
309:
310: The existence of an epidemic threshold in highly clustered scale-free
311: networks contrasts with the result for randomly wired networks, where
312: arbitrarily weak viruses show finite prevalence. This suggests that
313: the spreading of viruses in networks with scale-free degree distribution
314: may be suppressed by non-random wiring. In particular, degree correlations
315: including the absence of direct connections between highly connected nodes,
316: may provide protection against epidemics.
317:
318: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
320: \bibitem[\star]{vme}{email: {\tt victor@imedea.uib.es}}
321:
322: \bibitem{Watts98}
323: D.J. Watts, S.H. Strogatz, Nature {\bf 393}, 440 (1998).
324:
325: \bibitem{Barabasi99}
326: A.-L. Barab\'asi, R. Albert, Science {\bf 286}, 509 (1999).
327:
328: \bibitem{Amaral00}
329: L.A.N. Amaral, A. Scala, M. Barth\'el\'emy, H.E. Stanley,
330: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. {\bf 97}, 11149 (2000).
331:
332: \bibitem{Strogatz01}
333: S.~H. Strogatz, Nature {\bf 410}, 268 (2001).
334:
335: \bibitem{Albert01}
336: R. Albert, A.-L. Barab\'asi, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 74}, 47 (2002) and references
337: therein.
338:
339: \bibitem{Lloyd01}
340: A.L. Lloyd, R.M. May, Science {\bf 292}, 1316--1317 (2001)
341:
342: \bibitem{Pastor01}
343: R. Pastor-Satorras, A. Vespignani,
344: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 3200--3203 (2001);
345: R. Pastor-Satorras, A. Vespignani,
346: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 63}, 066117 (2001);
347:
348: \bibitem{Kuperman01}
349: M. Kuperman, G. Abramson, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 2909 (2001).
350:
351: \bibitem{Zanette01}
352: D.H. Zanette, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 64}, 050901 (2001).
353:
354: \bibitem{Diekmann00}
355: O. Diekmann, J. Heesterbeek, {\sl Mathematical epidemiology of infectious
356: diseases: model building, analysis and interpretation}, John Wiley \& Sons
357: (2000)
358:
359: \bibitem{Marro99}
360: J. Marro and R. Dickman, {\sl Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions in Lattice Models}
361: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).
362:
363: \bibitem{Liljeros01}
364: F. Liljeros, C.R. Edling, L.A.N. Amaral, H.E. Stanley, Y. Aberg,
365: Nature {\bf 411}, 907--908 (2001)
366:
367: \bibitem{Ebel02}
368: H. Ebel, L.-I. Mielsch, S. Bornholdt, {\tt cond-mat/0201476}
369:
370: \bibitem{Pastor01b}
371: R. Pastor-Satorras, A. V\'azquez, A. Vespignani,
372: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 258701 (2001)
373:
374: \bibitem{Klemm01}
375: K. Klemm, V.M. Egu\'{\i}luz, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 65}, 036123 (2002).
376:
377: \bibitem{Faloutsos99}
378: M. Faloutsos, F. Faloutsos, C. Faloutsos, Comput. Comm. Rev. {\bf 29}, 251
379: (1999).
380:
381: \bibitem{clust}
382: $\langle k_h^{nn} \rangle$
383: can be related to the local clustering $C(k)$ of a node of degree $k$:
384: $C(k) = (\langle k \rangle-2)/(k-1) + {\cal O}(k^{-2})$ \cite{Klemm02}.
385: For the hubs we have
386: $\langle k_h^{nn} \rangle \approx C(k) k + 1$,
387: where the first term accounts for the contribution of links to other nodes
388: in the neighborhood of the hub, and the last term reflects the link to the
389: hub itself. The limit $k \to \infty$ gives Eq.~(\ref{hcsf}).
390:
391: \bibitem{Klemm02}
392: K. Klemm, V.M. Egu\'{\i}luz, Phys. Rev. E (2002) to appear [also in
393: {\tt cond-mat/0107607}].
394:
395: \bibitem{May87}
396: R.M. May, R.M. Anderson, Nature {\bf 326}, 137--142 (1987);
397: R.M. May, R.M. Anderson, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B {\bf 321}, 565 (1988);
398: R.M. Anderson, R.M. May, {\sl Infectious diseases of humans: dynamics and
399: control}, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991);
400: R.M. May, A.L. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 64}, 066112 (2001);
401:
402: \bibitem{as}
403: See {\tt http://moat.nlanr.net}
404:
405: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
406: \end{thebibliography}
407:
408: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
409: \vspace*{2mm}
410: \begin{figure}
411: \centerline{\epsfig{file=fig1.eps,width=.45\textwidth,angle=0}}
412: \caption{
413: Prevalence $\rho$ (fraction of infected individuals in the stationary
414: state) as a function of the spreading rate $\lambda$ for highly
415: clustered scale-free networks, with $\langle k \rangle = 4$ (circles),
416: 6 (squares), and 10 (diamonds), and for random scale-free networks with
417: $\langle k \rangle = 6$ (solid curve). The
418: simulations have been run in networks containing $10^5$ nodes and
419: averaging over 100 different realizations. Inset: Survival probability, $P_s$, for a localized infection after $t$
420: time steps. Parameter values (from bottom to top) $\lambda=0.15$, 0.18, 0.2,
421: 0.22, 0.25; and $\langle k \rangle = 6$.
422: }
423: \label{fdis}
424: \end{figure}
425:
426: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
427: \begin{figure}
428: \centerline{\epsfig{file=fig2.eps,width=.5\textwidth}}
429: \caption{
430: Average degree of the neighbors of a node with connectivity $k$ in the
431: structured networks
432: with $\langle k \rangle =4$ (circles), 6 (open squares), 10 (diamonds). The
433: asymptotic values for large $k$ are $3.0 \pm 0.1$, $5.1 \pm 0.3$, and $9 \pm
434: 1$ to be compared with the theoretical prediction $\langle
435: k_h^{nn}\rangle=\langle k \rangle-1 = 3$, 5, and 9 respectively (cf. Eq.~3).
436: The filled squares is the average degree of the neighbors in random scale-free
437: networks with $\langle k \rangle =6$.
438: }
439: \label{fknn}
440: \end{figure}
441:
442: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
443: \begin{figure}
444: \vskip 1cm
445: \centerline{\epsfig{file=fig3.eps,width=.5\textwidth}}
446: \caption{Dependence of the average degree of the neighbors of a node with
447: system size $N$. For the casse of highly clustered scale-free networks, the value has been obtained
448: averaging for nodes with $k > 1000$. The theoretical predictions ($\langle k
449: \rangle -1$) is
450: also plotted (dashed-dotted line).
451: For the case of the BA networks, the values are the average
452: over the full range of available connectivities.
453: The theoretical prediction $\langle k \rangle/4 \ln N$ is also plotted (dashed line). }
454: \label{fknn2}
455: \end{figure}
456:
457: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
458: \begin{figure}
459: \centerline{\epsfig{file=fig4.eps,width=.4\textwidth}}
460: \caption{Prevalence $\rho$
461: as a function of the spreading rate $\lambda$ for the Internet graph at
462: three different times. The large filled symbols indicate the trasmission
463: threshold calculated according to the secondary reproductive number
464: (Eq.~(\ref{R2})). The value of $\langle k_h^{nn} \rangle$ has been
465: obtained as an average over the two largest hubs.}
466: \label{finf}
467: \end{figure}
468:
469:
470: \end{document}
471: