1: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,pre]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,pre]{revtex4}
3:
4: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \preprint{}
9:
10: \title{Reaction-diffusion processes on correlated and uncorrelated
11: scale-free networks}
12:
13: \author{Lazaros K. Gallos}
14: \author{Panos Argyrakis}
15: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece}
16:
17: \date{\today}
18:
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21: We compare reaction-diffusion processes of the $A+A\to 0$ type on scale-free networks
22: created with either the configuration model or the uncorrelated configuration model.
23: We show via simulations that except for the difference in the behavior of the two models, different
24: results are observed within the same model when the minimum number of connections
25: for a node varies from $k_{\rm min}=1$ to $k_{\rm min}=2$. This difference is attributed to
26: the varying local properties of the two systems. In all cases we are able to
27: identify a power law behavior of the density decay with time with an exponent $f>1$,
28: considerably larger than its lattice counterpart.
29: \end{abstract}
30:
31: \pacs{82.20.-w, 05.40.-a, 89.75.Da, 89.75.Hc}
32:
33: \maketitle
34:
35:
36: Recently, a growing interest for dynamic processes taking place on scale-free networks
37: has arisen \cite{AB,DM}. A scale-free network is one where the node connectivity $k$ (number of links
38: on a node) follows a power-law distribution of the form
39: \begin{equation}
40: \label{Pk}
41: P(k) \sim k^{-\gamma} \,,
42: \end{equation}
43: where $\gamma$ is a positive number, typically in the range $2<\gamma<4$.
44: In this frame, we recently presented \cite{GA} simulation results for reaction-diffusion processes both of the type
45: $A+A\to 0$ and $A+B\to 0$, where the substrate for diffusion is a scale-free network.
46: Following this, Catanzaro et al. \cite{CBPSa} developed an elegant theory for the $A+A\to 0$
47: process, which applies on networks created with the uncorrelated configuration model (UCM) \cite{CBPSb}.
48: Their analytic results were found to be in good agreement to their simulations, but were
49: deviating from the results in Ref. \cite{GA}, where the networks were created with
50: the configuration model (CM). The authors attributed the difference of the results on
51: the different method of preparing the networks. In this Brief Report we directly compare
52: results for both the UCM and CM models.
53:
54: \begin{figure}
55: \includegraphics{fig1.eps}
56: \caption{\label{fig1} Plot of the reaction progress $1/\rho-1/\rho_0$, as a function of
57: time for the A+A$\to$0 reaction on scale-free networks of (a) $\gamma=2.5$, and (b) $\gamma=3.0$.
58: Results correspond to CM (thin lines) and UCM (thick lines) models, with $k_{\rm min}=1$ (solid lines)
59: and $k_{\rm min}=2$ (dashed lines).
60: The initial density was $\rho_0=0.5$. All results correspond to networks of $N=10^6$ nodes.
61: }
62: \end{figure}
63:
64: The Configuration Model (CM) has become more or less the standard for simulating networks of a given $\gamma$
65: value in the literature. For each one of the $N$ system nodes a random $k$ value is assigned, drawn from
66: the probability distribution function of Eq.~(\ref{Pk}). Pairs of links are then randomly chosen between the nodes,
67: taking care that no double links between two nodes or self-links in the same node are established. When the
68: maximum value of $k$ is not pre-defined, then the natural upper cutoff scales with the system size as
69: $k_{\rm max}\sim N^{1/(\gamma-1)}$. This model is known to create correlations in the connectivity distribution
70: between the system nodes for $\gamma<3$, in the sense that the average connectivity of a node's neighbors depends on its
71: rank $k$. In other words, nodes that are highly connected prefer to attach to nodes with lower $k$-values, rather than to
72: equally well-connected nodes.
73: The Uncorrelated Configuration Model (UCM) uses the same construction algorithm, with the difference
74: that the upper cutoff is fixed in advance to $k_{\rm max}=N^{1/2}$. Then, it has been shown \cite{CBPSb} that connectivity
75: correlations dissapear and the average connectivity for the neighbors of any node is constant.
76:
77: In Ref.~\cite{GA} we had found that the reaction rate was evolving surprisingly faster than
78: on regular lattices. The variation of the particle concentration $\rho(t)$ was still following a
79: power law with time $t$ of the form
80: \begin{equation}
81: \label{rho}
82: \frac{1}{\rho(t)}-\frac{1}{\rho_0} \sim t^f \,,
83: \end{equation}
84: but with a value $f>1$ for $\gamma<3.5$. This result was valid asymptotically within the simulation accuracy, and before
85: finite-size effects settled in. The
86: networks that we had used had been created with the CM model with a minimum value for the connectivity
87: of a node (lower cutoff) $k_{\rm min}=1$. Since this process may create isolated clusters, we only had
88: used the largest cluster which, depending on the value of $\gamma$, would span from 35\% to 100\% of the
89: system nodes.
90:
91:
92: In Ref.~\cite{CBPSa} the $A+A\to 0$ process was studied, and it was analytically found that for an infinite size
93: network the exponent $f$ of Eq.~(\ref{rho}) is given by $f=1/(\gamma-2)$ when $2<\gamma<3$, i.e.
94: again $f>1$. For $\gamma=3.0$ the behavior was predicted analytically to be $1/\rho\sim t\ln{t}$.
95: However, for finite size networks and long times the behavior of $1/\rho$ is masked for all $\gamma$ by the mean-field
96: exponent $f=1$, which seems to also be valid asymptotically from the simulation results. Both the
97: analytic solution and the simulations in that paper were based on networks created under the UCM
98: model, with a lower cutoff value of $k_{\rm min}=2$. The authors of Ref.~\cite{CBPSa} reported that
99: in their simulations it was not possible to find a noticeable regime with $f>1$, and they attribute the
100: discrepancy between the two studies solely in the different network creation method. We here argue that a
101: power law regime with $f>1$ is indeed present and clearly identified in all cases. Additionally, a very
102: important factor is the lower cutoff value, $k_{\rm min}$.
103:
104:
105: In the present Report we present and compare simulation results for both the CM and UCM models with $k_{\rm min}=1$
106: and $k_{\rm min}=2$. Results for the time evolution of the particle density in all four possible cases
107: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
108: All four curves in the case of $\gamma=2.5$ (Fig.~\ref{fig1}a) behave differently from each other. The CM and UCM models
109: clearly yield different results, but even within UCM or CM the curves for $k_{\rm min}=1$ and $k_{\rm min}=2$ deviate
110: from each other.
111: The main difference is that the crossover to the power law behavior for $k_{\rm min}=1$ appears later in time,
112: and the asymptotic mean-field behavior ($f=1$) also exhibits itself roughly one decade later.
113:
114: The case of $\gamma=3.0$ (Fig.~\ref{fig1}b) is simpler. For this $\gamma$
115: value the two models (CM and UCM) are expected to coincide, since in general the natural upper cutoff in
116: the CM model scales as $k_c\sim N^{1/\gamma-1}$, and for $\gamma=3.0$ the value $k_c=N^{1/2}$ is exactly the
117: same as in the UCM model. This coincidence is shown to be valid in the figure. However, the results for $k_{\rm min}=1$
118: are still different than the results for $k_{\rm min}=2$. The crossover to the power-law behavior is not as prominent as in
119: the case of $k_{\rm min}=1$.
120:
121: \begin{figure}
122: \includegraphics{fig2.eps}
123: \caption{\label{fig2} Results for networks with $\gamma=2.5$.
124: Plots of inverse particles density ($1/\rho-1/\rho_0$)
125: divided by (a) $t$ and (b) $t^f$, as a function of time. Thick lines correspond to the UCM and thin lines to the CM model
126: while in solid curves $k_{\rm min}=1$ and in dashed lines $k_{\rm min}=2$. In (b) the $f$ values
127: are shown on the plot.}
128: \end{figure}
129:
130:
131: We then assess whether there exists an observable power-law behavior in these curves and whether asymptotically
132: a linear regime masks this power-law. The results for $\gamma=2.5$ are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig2}. In the first
133: plot we divide the curves of Fig.~\ref{fig1}a by the linear function $t$. If asymptotically the expected behavior
134: is linear ($f=1$ in Eq.~\ref{rho}) then we expect that this division will yield a constant value, i.e. a
135: horizontal line parallel to the x-axis. The only case which is close to this behavior is that of the UCM model
136: and $k_{\rm min}=2$ (thick dashed line in the plot). Even then, the result is not entirely satisfactory, and the
137: curve seems to have a slope greater than 0. Notice also that although from Fig.~\ref{fig1}a one can visually get the
138: impression that a slope of 1 is describing quite accurately this curve, the more detailed analysis in Fig.~\ref{fig2}a reveals
139: that this is not true. In all other
140: cases, there are only weak hints for a parallel line, but it cannot be argued that this linear relation is in
141: general valid, and this is why it was not observed in Ref.~\cite{GA}.
142: The abruptly falling curves at longer times are due to very low particle densities, where
143: less than 10 particles remain in the system.
144:
145: \begin{figure}
146: \includegraphics{fig3.eps}
147: \caption{\label{fig3} Results for networks with $\gamma=3.0$. Plots of inverse particle density ($1/\rho-1/\rho_0$)
148: divided by (a) $t^f$ and (b) $t \ln{t}$, as a function of time. The CM and UCM models yield the same curves, so we
149: only present results for CM with $k_{\rm min}=1$ (solid lines) and $k_{\rm min}=2$ (dashed lines).}
150: \end{figure}
151:
152:
153: In Fig.~\ref{fig2}b, we also test the hypothesis for power-law behavior by dividing the raw data
154: of Fig.~\ref{fig1}a by $t^f$. Since curves corresponding to different models exhibit varying exponents
155: $f$ we choose the value of $f$ that maximizes the extent of the horizontal part in each line.
156:
157:
158:
159: The presence of a power law regime is clear in all occasions, but it is also noteworthy that the validity of the power law
160: lies in a narrower time range for $k_{\rm min}=2$, and especially from the UCM model, rendering this estimation more
161: difficult. Most probably, this is the reason that the authors of Ref.~\cite{CBPSa} did not characterize this regime.
162: The case where in a simulation a particular power law shows only in a very limited time domain is not unusual,
163: see e.g. the Zeldovich behavior of the $A+B$ reaction on a 3-dimensional lattice,
164: where the density exponent has
165: a nominal value of $f=0.75$, which shows only in one time decade \cite{Argyrakis}.
166: The slopes of the curves for $k_{\rm min}=1$ are
167: consistently larger compared to the slopes of the $k_{\rm min}=2$ curves. We also note that the
168: analytical prediction of Ref.~\cite{CBPSa} predicts a slope of $f=2.0$, which is very close to the slope of
169: the CM model for $k_{\rm min}=1$, but deviates remarkably from the slope of the UCM model, although this
170: prediction was based on the uncorrelated network hypothesis.
171:
172:
173: We have already seen that when $\gamma=3.0$ the CM and UCM models are identical. For clarity in Fig.~\ref{fig3}
174: we analyze only the results of CM. Again, the hypothesis that asymptotically there is a linear increase is not
175: directly supported from our simulation results. On the contrary, if we consider a power law fit for the intermediate time regime,
176: we observe an extended horizontal part that spans a few decades. The slope for both $k_{\rm min}=1$ and 2
177: are similar and close to $1.3$.
178: An increase
179: in the network size $N$ has been shown to further extend the region of validity for the power-law behavior in the $f>1$ regime (see e.g. Fig.~1 of \cite{GA}
180: and Fig.~6 of \cite{CBPSa}).
181:
182:
183: The analytic considerations in Ref.~\cite{CBPSa} for $\gamma=3.0$ predict a logarithmic correction
184: ($1/\rho\sim t\ln{t}$). In general, it is not easy to distinguish between this form and a power law curve.
185: However, when we divide our raw simulation data with the $t\ln{t}$ function in Fig.~\ref{fig3}b, we observe
186: that for $k_{\rm min}=2$ there is an excellent agreement, but this function fails to reliably describe the
187: results for $k_{\rm min}=1$.
188:
189: The most probable explanation for the difference in the results for the varying $k_{\rm min}$ values is that
190: the local environment in the case of $k_{\rm min}=1$ is remarkably different than when $k_{\rm min}=2$.
191: Although $k_{\rm min}=2$ is known to yield one giant connected cluster \cite{Cohen}, its structural
192: characteristics seem to be modified, basically because of the tree-like features (many nodes are connected to
193: just one neighbor). Bottlenecks and revisitations are, thus, more frequent than in the case where a larger lower cutoff is used.
194:
195: In short, the value of the exponent characterizing a reaction-diffusion process on scale-free
196: networks depends not only on the network construction model, but is also sensitive to the lower cutoff value
197: for the connectivity $k_{\rm min}$, although such a dependence has not been predicted analytically.
198: More importantly, we have verified the existence of a power law regime that is large enough
199: to be observable in all cases, while a careful analysis also revealed that an asymptotic linear behavior is not
200: in general valid.
201:
202:
203: \begin{thebibliography}{}
204: \bibitem{AB} R. Albert and A.-L. Barabasi, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 74}, 47 (2002).
205: \bibitem{DM} S.N. Dorogovtsev and J.F.F. Mendes, Adv. Phys. {\bf 51}, 1079 (2002).
206: \bibitem{GA} L.K. Gallos and P. Argyrakis, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 138301 (2004).
207: \bibitem{CBPSa} M. Catanzaro, M. Bogu\~{n}\'{a} and R. Pastor-Satorras, e-print cond-mat/0407447 (2004).
208: \bibitem{CBPSb} M. Catanzaro, M. Bogu\~{n}\'{a} and R. Pastor-Satorras, e-print cond-mat/0408110 (2004).
209: \bibitem{Argyrakis} P. Argyrakis and R. Kopelman, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 45}, 5814 (1992).
210: \bibitem{Cohen} R. Cohen, K. Erez, D. ben Avraham, and S. Havlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 4626 (2000).
211:
212: \end{thebibliography}
213:
214: \end{document}
215: