1: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
3:
4: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
5: \usepackage{graphicx,epsf} %Include figure files
6: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
7: \usepackage{bm}% bold math \usepackage{hyperref}
8: \usepackage{latexsym}
9: \newcommand{\kav}{\langle k \rangle}
10: \newcommand{\xsize}{\epsfxsize=7.0cm}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \author{Gerald~Paul}
15: \email{gerryp@bu.edu}
16: %\affiliation{Center for Polymer Studies and Dept.\ of Physics, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA}
17:
18: \author{Sameet Sreenivasan}
19: %\affiliation{Center for Polymer Studies and Dept.\ of Physics, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA}
20:
21: \author{H.~Eugene Stanley}
22: %\affiliation{Center for Polymer Studies and Dept.\ of Physics, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA}
23:
24: \affiliation{Center for Polymer Studies and Dept.\ of Physics, Boston
25: University}
26:
27: \pacs{84.35.+i, 02.50.Cw, 05.50.+q, 64.60.Ak}
28:
29: \title{Resilience of Complex Networks to Random Breakdown}
30:
31: \begin{abstract}
32:
33: Using Monte Carlo simulations we calculate $f_c$, the fraction of nodes
34: which are randomly removed before global connectivity is lost, for
35: networks with scale-free and bimodal degree distributions. Our results
36: differ with the results predicted by an equation for $f_c$ proposed by
37: Cohen, et al. We discuss the reasons for this disagreement and clarify
38: the domain for which the proposed equation is valid.
39:
40: \end{abstract}
41:
42: \maketitle
43:
44: \section{Introduction}
45: It has been shown \cite{Molloy,Cohen2000,Callaway,Cohen2002} that random
46: uncorrelated networks with degree distribution $P(k)$ lose global
47: connectivity when
48: %
49: \begin{equation}
50: \kappa\equiv\frac{\langle k^2 \rangle}{\kav} < 2.
51: \label{kappa2}
52: \end{equation}
53: %
54: As explained in Ref.~\cite{Cohen2000,Cohen2002}, random removal of a
55: fraction $f$ of nodes from a network with degree distribution $P_0(k)$
56: results in a new degree distribution
57: %
58: \begin{equation}
59: P(k) = \sum_{k_0 = k}^K P_0(k_0) \binom{k_0}{k} \left( 1 - f \right)^k
60: f^{k_0 - k}.
61: \label{rand}
62: \end{equation}
63: %
64: Using this degree distribution to calculate $\kav$ and $\langle k^2
65: \rangle$ after random removal of sites it was determined
66: \cite{Cohen2000,Cohen2002} that
67: %
68: \begin{equation}
69: f_c=1-{1 \over{\kappa_0-1}}
70: \label{fc}
71: \end{equation}
72: %
73: where $\kappa_0$ is the value of $\kappa$ computed from the original
74: degree distribution, before the random removal. Equation (\ref{fc}) was
75: observed to hold for a number of network types, including random networks
76: that have a Poisson degree distribution, and was used in the analysis of
77: scale-free networks that have power-law degree distributions
78: \cite{Cohen2000,Cohen2002}.
79:
80: Using Monte-Carlo simulations we find that Eq.~(\ref{fc}) does not hold for
81: networks with (i) self-loops and multiple edges and/or (ii) high
82: variance in $f_c$. We illustrate our findings using scale-free and
83: bimodal networks and clarify the domains where Eq.~(\ref{fc}) is valid.
84:
85: \section{Monte Carlo Simulations}
86:
87: We create random networks having specified degree distributions using
88: the method described in Ref.~\cite{Molloy}. We then randomly delete
89: nodes in the network and after each node is removed, we calculate
90: $\kappa$. When $\kappa$ becomes less than 2 we record the number of
91: nodes $i$ removed up to that point. This process is performed for
92: many realizations of random graphs with a specified degree distribution
93: and, for each graph, for many different realizations of the sequence of
94: random node removals. The threshold $f_c$ is defined as
95: %
96: \begin{equation}
97: f_c \equiv \frac{ \langle i \rangle}{N}
98: \label{fcdef}
99: \end{equation}
100: %
101: where $\langle i \rangle$ is the average value of $i$.
102:
103: \section{Scale-Free Networks}
104: \label{sf}
105:
106: We study scale-free random networks with degree distribution
107: %
108: \begin{equation}
109: P(k)\sim k^{-\lambda} \qquad\qquad [m \le k \le K].
110: \end{equation}
111: %
112: We choose the lower cutoff $m=4$ and the upper cutoff $K=N$. In
113: Figs.~\ref{pk}(a), (b) and (c), we show the dependence on $\lambda$ of
114: $1-f_c^{\rm MC}$ obtained by the Monte Carlo simulations and compare it
115: with $1-f_c^{\rm th}$ obtained theoretically from Eq.~(\ref{fc}). The
116: simulation results agree well with Eq.~(\ref{fc}) for
117: $\lambda>\lambda^\ast$, where $\lambda^\ast\approx 3$, and the agreement
118: becomes better for increasing $N$. However, for $\lambda <
119: \lambda^\ast$ there is significant disagreement, and the disagreement
120: becomes larger as $N$ increases, as seen clearly Fig.~\ref{pk} (d) in
121: which we plot the normalized difference
122: %
123: \begin{equation}
124: \Delta \equiv { f_c^{\rm th} - f_c^{\rm MC} \over{f_c^{\rm MC}} }.
125: \label{Delta}
126: \end{equation}
127: %
128:
129: The nonzero value of $\Delta$ has its root in the use of
130: Eq.~(\ref{rand}) to derive Eq.~(\ref{fc}). Equation~(\ref{rand}) is
131: valid only if, in the original network, two conditions hold: (i) There
132: are no {\it self loops}, i.e. all links from node $i$ are to distinct
133: nodes $j$ with $j \ne i$ and (ii) there are no multiple links between
134: $i$ and $j$. In graph theory networks satisfying these two conditions
135: are called {\it simple}. If the original network is not simple,
136: Eq.~(\ref{rand}) must then be interpreted as operating on the original
137: network but with self-loops and multiple links deleted. But this
138: deletion changes the properties of the degree distribution. As seen in
139: Figs.~\ref{pdist} (a), (b), and (c) the cutoff is changed, and for large
140: N, the slope of the tail of the distribution is modified. Also the
141: degrees of adjacent nodes become correlated as seen in Fig.~\ref{pcorr},
142: which shows the $\lambda$-dependence of the degree correlation
143: \cite{Newman2002}
144: %
145: \begin{equation}
146: r \equiv { {1\over \sigma_q^2}} \sum_{j,k}(e_{jk} -q_j q_k).
147: \label{r}
148: \end{equation}
149: %
150: Here $e_{jk}$ is the joint probability of the remaining degrees \cite{note1}
151: of the two vertices at either end of a randomly chosen
152: edge, $q_k$ is the probability of the remaining degree of a single
153: vertex at the end of a randomly chosen edge, and
154: %
155: \begin{equation}
156: \sigma_q^2 \equiv \sum k^2 q_k -\left(\sum_k k q_k\right)^2.
157: \label{sigmaq}
158: \end{equation}
159: %
160: Because of the degree correlations, Eq.~(\ref{kappa2}) no longer applies
161: and therefore Eq.~(\ref{fc}) no longer holds. The similarity in
162: appearance between Fig.~\ref{pk}(d) and Fig.~\ref{pcorr} confirms that
163: the nonzero correlations play a major role in the difference between
164: $f_c^{\rm MC}$ and $f_c^{\rm th}$.
165:
166: We can explain the domain of validity of Eq.~(\ref{fc}) as follows. It
167: is known \cite{Chung,Burda,Boguna,Catanzaro} that for any desired random
168: degree distribution, the networks created by such methods as those of
169: Molloy-Reed \cite{Molloy} or Chun-Lu \cite{Chung} create simple graphs
170: only if $P(k)=0$ for $k$ greater than the {\it structural cutoff}
171: %
172: \begin{equation}
173: K_s \equiv \sqrt{\kav N}.
174: \label{KcStruct}
175: \end{equation}
176: %
177: It is also known that for scale-free networks the number of nodes with
178: degree greater than the {\it natural cutoff}
179: %
180: \begin{equation}
181: K_c \equiv m N^{1/(\lambda-1)}
182: \label{KcNat}
183: \end{equation}
184: %
185: is statistically insignificant \cite{Cohen2000,Dorogovstev2002}. These
186: two facts are sufficient to understand that Eq.~(\ref{fc}) is valid for
187: scale-free networks only if $\lambda > 3$ (in which case the natural
188: cutoff $K_c$ results in nodes with degree $ \gtrsim \sqrt{N}$ being
189: statistically insignificant) or for $\lambda < 3 $ if the maximum degree
190: is less than the structural cutoff $K_s$.
191:
192: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% BI MODAL %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
193:
194: \section{Bimodal Networks}
195: \label{bimodal}
196: \subsection{Star Networks}
197:
198: First, we discuss a simple example with a bimodal degree distribution
199: for which Eq.~(\ref{fc}) fails. Consider a {\it star network} of N nodes with
200: degree distribution
201: %
202: \label{pkxx}
203: \begin{equation}
204: \label{Pk1}
205: P(k)=\begin{cases}
206: (N-1)/N & [k=1]\\
207: 1/N & [k=N-1]
208: \end{cases}
209: \end{equation}
210: %
211: and $P(k)=0$ for all other values of $k$. If nodes are randomly removed,
212: the criterion for losing global connectivity, $\kappa < 2$, is obtained
213: when the single node with degree $N-1$, the {\it hub} node, is removed
214: or when almost all of the degree 1 nodes, the {\it leaf} nodes, are
215: removed. The probability that almost all the leaf nodes are removed
216: before the hub node is removed approaches 0 for large $N$. Let $i$ be
217: the number of nodes which are removed before the hub node is
218: removed. Since the removal is random, $i$ is uniformly distributed
219: between $0$ and $N-1$ and, from Eq.~(\ref{fcdef}), $f_c=1/2$. On the
220: other hand, Eq.~(\ref{fc}) predicts $f_c=1-2/N$ which asymptotically
221: approaches unity for large $N$.
222:
223: As for the case of scale-free networks, we can understand this
224: disagreement as a result of the presence of self loops. We can also use
225: this star network example to identify another implicit assumption used in the
226: derivation of Eq.~(\ref{fc}), namely that
227: %
228: \begin{equation}
229: \langle i\rangle \equiv \langle (i|\kappa(i)=2)\rangle=(i|\langle\kappa(i)
230: \rangle=2)
231: \label{ne}
232: \end{equation}
233: %
234: where $\kappa(i)$ is the value of $\kappa$ after the removal of $i$
235: nodes. That is, we define $\langle i \rangle$ to be the
236: average of $i$ such that in each random removal $\kappa(i)=2$; the
237: derivation of Eq.~(\ref{fc}) assumes that $\langle i \rangle$ is equal
238: to $i$ such that the average of $\kappa(i)$ over all random removals
239: equals 2. Equation~(\ref{ne}) will be true in the limit in which the
240: variance $\langle(i-\langle i\rangle)^2\rangle$ is zero. But when the
241: variance becomes large as is the case for the star network,
242: Eq.~(\ref{ne}) may be not hold. Figure~\ref{pav} illustrates
243: graphically an example for which Eq.~(\ref{ne}) does not hold because
244: the variance in $i$ is large.
245:
246: \subsection{Other Bimodal Networks}
247:
248: In order to study other bimodal networks, we extend the star network to
249: networks with $q$ high degree hubs connected to the remaining nodes of
250: degree one. For networks with average degree $\kav$, the degree
251: distribution is specified as
252: %
253: \begin{equation}
254: \label{pkx}
255: P(k)=\begin{cases}
256: (N-q)/N & [k=1]\\
257: q/N & [k=k_2]
258: \end{cases}
259: \end{equation}
260: %
261: where
262: %
263: \begin{equation}
264: k_2={(\kav-1) N + q \over{q}},
265: \label{k2}
266: \end{equation}
267: %
268: and $P(k)=0$ for all other $k$. We first consider networks with
269: $\kav=2$. In Fig.~\ref{kav2}(a), for the distribution of
270: Eqs.~(\ref{pkx}) and (\ref{k2}), we plot $1-f_c$ as a function of $q$
271: for $N=10^2$, $10^3$, $10^4$, and $10^5$. Also shown in
272: Fig.~\ref{kav2}(a) are plots for approximations $f_c^{\rm high}$ and
273: $f_c^{\rm low}$ which we expect to be valid respectively for high and
274: low values of $q$. We will use these approximations to determine how
275: $f_c(q)$ scales and for which values of $q$ Eq.~(\ref{fc}) is valid. The
276: approximations are determined as follows:
277:
278: \begin{itemize}
279:
280: \item[{(i)}] When $q \sim N$, (i.e., the network is homogeneous) we expect
281: Eq.~(\ref{fc}) to hold so $f_c^{\rm high}=1-1/(\kappa_0-1)$.
282:
283: \item[{(ii)}] For small $q$, the network loses global connectivity when
284: all $q$ high degree nodes are removed. The probability that all $q$
285: high degree nodes are removed after the first $i$ nodes of all types
286: have been removed is
287: %
288: \begin{equation}
289: g(q,N,i)={ q \over{N}} { {i-1 \choose{q-1}} \over{{N-1 \choose{q-1}} }}.
290: \label{g}
291: \end{equation}
292:
293: \end{itemize}
294: %
295: Here $i$ is now the average number of nodes that must be removed before all
296: $q$ high degree nodes are removed. Then $ \langle i\rangle =\sum_{i=q}^N
297: i g(q,N,i)$ and
298: %
299: \begin{equation}
300: \label{fclow}
301: f_c^{\rm low}={\langle i\rangle \over{N}}={\sum_{i=q}^N i g(q,N,i) \over {N}}.
302: \end{equation}
303: %
304: Note that $f_c^{\rm low}$ does not depend on $\kav$ since changing
305: $\kav$ results simply in a different number of links between the high
306: degree nodes; if our criterion for collapse is the removal of all high
307: degree nodes, the number of links between them is irrelevant. As
308: expected, the plots of $f_c^{\rm low}$ and $f_c^{\rm high}$ approximate
309: the values of $f_c$ for low and high values of $q$, respectively.
310:
311: In Fig.~\ref{kav2}(b), we plot the the number of hubs, $q^*$, for which the
312: functions $f_c^{\rm low}(q)$ and $f_c^{\rm high}(q)$
313: intersect. We find that
314: %
315: \begin{eqnarray}
316: q^* \sim N^{0.5}
317: \label{qfintersect}
318: \end{eqnarray}
319: %
320: Similar plots (see Fig.~\ref{comb234}) for $\kav=3$ and $\kav=4$ also
321: exhibit scaling of $q^*$ as $N^{0.5}$ with only a change in the
322: prefactor; the scaling is independent of $\kav$.
323:
324: The simulation results suggest that $q^*$ scales as $\sqrt{N}$. We can
325: show this to be the case by solving analytically for $q^*$ for large $N$
326: as follows: For general $\kav$, using the distribution in
327: Eqs.~(\ref{pkx}), we find for $N \gg q \gg 1$
328: %
329: \begin{equation}
330: f_c^{\rm high}=1-{q \over{(\kav-1)N}}.
331: \label{fchigh}
332: \end{equation}
333: %
334: For $f_c^{\rm low}$, the sum in Eq.~(\ref{fclow}) can be performed
335: analytically, yielding
336: %
337: \begin{equation}
338: \label{fclow1}
339: f_c^{\rm low}={\Gamma(N+2)(\Gamma(q+2)-\Gamma(q+1)) \over{N \Gamma(N+1)
340: \Gamma(q+2)}}
341: \end{equation}
342: %
343: for $q >0$. For large N,
344: \begin{equation}
345: \label{fclow2}
346: f_c^{\rm low}={\Gamma(q+2)-\Gamma(q+1) \over{\Gamma(q+2)}}.
347: \end{equation}
348: %
349: To first order in $1/q$, Eq.~(\ref{fclow2}) yields
350: %
351: \begin{equation}
352: \label{fclow3}
353: f_c^{\rm low}=1-{1 \over{q}} + O({1 \over{q^2}}).
354: \end{equation}
355: %
356: Equating Eqs.~(\ref{fclow3}) and (\ref{fchigh}) we find
357: %
358: \begin{equation}
359: \label{qintersect}
360: q*=\sqrt{\kav-1} \sqrt{N}
361: \end{equation}
362: %
363: consistent with the plot in Fig.~\ref{kav2}(b) and
364: Eq.~(\ref{qfintersect}). From the fact that $q*$ scales like
365: $\sqrt{N}$, we conclude that all characteristic values of $f_c$ scale
366: like $\sqrt{N}$ with a prefactor dependent on $\kav$. In particular the
367: value of $q$ at which $f_c^{\rm MC}$ (found from Monte Carlo
368: simulations) agrees to any desired degree with the value of $f_c^{\rm
369: th}$ (from Eq.~(\ref{fc})) will scale with $N$ in the same fashion
370: in which $q^*$ scales with $N$, Eq.~(\ref{qfintersect}). For
371: simplicity, we consider Eq.(3) to be valid for $q > q^*$.
372:
373: We now confirm that the variance in $f_c$ is in fact small
374: for values of $q$ for which Eq.~(\ref{ne}) holds. In Fig.~\ref{dev}(a),
375: for $N=10^3$ and $q=1$, 5, 10, and 20, we plot $P(1-f_c)$ vs. $1-f_c$.
376: As expected, for $q=1$ (star network) the distribution is uniform
377: because there is an equal probability that the single high degree node
378: will be removed at any value of $i$. For the larger values of $q$, the
379: distributions $P(1-f_c)$ develop a well-defined peak. To quantify the
380: definition of these peaks, we plot in Fig.~\ref{dev}(b), the standard
381: deviation of $f_c$
382: %
383: \begin{equation}
384: \sigma={\sqrt{\langle i^2 \rangle - \langle i \rangle ^2} \over{N}}
385: \label{sigma}
386: \end{equation}
387: %
388: versus $q$ for $N=10^2$, $10^3$, $10^4$, and $10^5$. Each of the plots
389: has a large deviation at $q=1$ and decrease to a local minimum, the
390: position of which $\tilde q$ increases with increasing $N$. For $q$
391: greater than the $\tilde q$, the deviation is small and decreases with
392: increasing $N$. In Fig.~\ref{kav2}(b) we plot $\tilde q$ as a function
393: of $N$. We see that the values of these minima are essentially the same
394: as the values of $q^*$, the value of $q$ above which Eq.~(\ref{fc}) is
395: valid. This is consistent with our understanding that Eq.~(\ref{fc}) is
396: valid when the variance is small.
397:
398: \subsection{Domain of Validity}
399:
400: Since $q$ and the degree of the hubs $k_2$ are related by
401: Eq.~(\ref{k2}), we can determine for what values of $k_2$ Eq.~(\ref{ne})
402: is valid. Substituting Eq.~(\ref{qintersect}) in Eq.~(\ref{k2}) we find
403: that Eq.~(\ref{ne}) is valid when
404: %
405: \begin{equation}
406: k_2 < \sqrt{(\kav-1)N}.
407: \label{k2max}
408: \end{equation}
409: %
410: Thus the criterion for Eq.~(\ref{ne}) holding is essentially the same as
411: the criterion discussed in Sec.~\ref{sf} for the graph being simple.
412: The bimodal networks we study here in which a relatively small number of
413: nodes control the global connectivity of the network yield large
414: variances in $f_c$ for networks with a given number of nodes; in fact,
415: for $q=1$ the worst case variance is obtained. This suggests that the
416: criterion of Eq.~(\ref{k2max}) may hold for all degree distributions as
417: a requirement for a low variance in $f_c$. If this is the case, we can
418: use the requirement that $P(k) =0$ for $k \lesssim K_c$ as the criterion
419: for both the network being simple and $f_c$ having a small variance.
420: Note, however, that while the criteria are similar, it is not true that
421: the presence of self-loops and multiple edges implies that the
422: distribution of $f_c$ has a large variance; for example, the variance of
423: $f_c$ in scale-free networks is small even in the presence of self-loops
424: and multiple edges, as seen in Fig. ~\ref{devsf}.
425:
426: \section{Discussion and Summary}
427:
428: We have clarified the domain of validity of Eq.~(\ref{fc}), a general
429: equation for determining $f_c$, the fraction of nodes which must be
430: randomly removed before global connectivity is lost. For Eq.~(\ref{fc})
431: to be valid, (i) the highest degree of any nodes present in
432: statistically significant numbers in a random network must be less than
433: the structural cutoff $K_s \equiv \sqrt{\kav N}$ and (ii) the variance
434: of $f_c$ must be small. For bimodal networks the variance in $f_c$ is
435: small when the hubs have degree less than $\sqrt{(\kav-1) N}$. That the
436: bimodal networks we have studied represent a worst case for large
437: variance suggests that in general the criterion that the network be
438: simple is sufficient for Eq.~(\ref{ne}) to hold. It is not clear if
439: there is a deeper connection between these two criteria both of which scale
440: as $\sqrt{N}$.
441:
442: \subsubsection*{Acknowledgments}
443:
444: We thank S. Havlin for helpful discussions and ONR for support.
445:
446:
447: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
448:
449:
450: \bibitem{Molloy}M. Molloy and B. Reed, Random Struct. Algorithms {\bf 6},161
451: (1995).
452:
453: \bibitem{Cohen2000} R.~Cohen, K.~Erez, D.~ben-Avraham, and S.~Havlin,
454: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 85}, 4626 (2000).
455:
456: \bibitem{Callaway} D.~S.~Callaway, M.~E.~J.~Newmann, S.~H.~Strogatz, and
457: D.~J.~Watts, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 85}, 5468 (2000).
458:
459: \bibitem{Cohen2002} R.~Cohen, D.~ben-Avraham, and S.~Havlin,
460: in {\it Handbook of
461: Graphs and Networks}, edited by S.~Bornholdt and H.~G.~Schuster
462: (Wiley-VCH, New York, 2002), Chap.~4.
463:
464: \bibitem{Newman2002} M.~E.~J.~Newman, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 11}, 208701 (2002).
465:
466: \bibitem{Chung} F. Chung and L. Lu, Ann. Combinatorics {\bf 6}, 125 (2002).
467:
468: \bibitem{Burda} Z. Burda and A. Krzywicki, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 67} 046118 (2003).
469:
470: \bibitem{Boguna} M. Bogu$\tilde{\rm n}$\'a, R. Pastor-Sartorras, and
471: A. Vespignani, Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 38}, 205 (2004).
472:
473: \bibitem{Catanzaro} M. Catanzaro, M. Bogu$\tilde{\rm n}$\'a, and
474: R. Pastor-Satorras, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 71}, 027103 (2005).
475:
476: \bibitem{Dorogovstev2002} S. N. Dorogovtsev and J. F. F. Mendes,
477: Adv. Phys. {\bf 51}, 1079 (2002).
478:
479: \bibitem{note1} The {\it remaining} degree of a vertex is defined as the
480: degree of the vertex $-1$.
481:
482: \bibitem{note2} The notation $(x|y)$ should be read as ``x such that
483: condition y holds''.
484:
485: \end{thebibliography}
486:
487: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% scale free %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
488:
489:
490: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
491: \begin{figure}
492: \centerline{
493: \xsize
494: \epsfxsize=6.0cm
495: \epsfclipon
496: \epsfbox{pk100.ps}
497: }
498:
499: \centerline{
500: \xsize
501: \epsfxsize=6.0cm
502: \epsfclipon
503: \epsfbox{pk1000.ps}
504: }
505:
506: \centerline{
507: \xsize
508: \epsfxsize=6.0cm
509: \epsfclipon
510: \epsfbox{pk10000.ps}
511: }
512:
513:
514: \centerline{
515: \xsize
516: \epsfxsize=6.0cm
517: \epsfclipon
518: \epsfbox{pdiff.ps}
519: }
520: \newpage
521: \caption{For $N=10^2, 10^3,$ and $10^4$ respectively in (a), (b) and (c),
522: $1-f_c$ versus $\lambda$. The solid line represents the results of
523: Monte-Carlo simulations; the dashed line is the prediction of
524: Eq.~(\ref{fc}). (d) The difference $\Delta$ (see Eq.~(\ref{Delta}))
525: between the prediction of Eq.~(\ref{fc}) and Monte-Carlo simulations
526: for (from top to bottom) $N=10^2, 10^3, 10^4$. Note that if we
527: had used a larger value of the upper cutoff $K$, then $\Delta$ would
528: decrease monotonically from $\lambda=3$ to $\lambda=1$ instead of
529: having a minimum near $\lambda=2$.}
530: \label{pk}
531: \end{figure}
532: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
533:
534:
535:
536: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
537: \begin{figure}
538: \centerline{
539: \xsize
540: \epsfclipon
541: \epsfbox{pdist100.ps}
542: }
543:
544: \centerline{
545: \xsize
546: \epsfclipon
547: \epsfbox{pdist1000.ps}
548: }
549:
550: \centerline{
551: \xsize
552: \epsfclipon
553: \epsfbox{pdist10000.ps}
554: }
555: \caption{$P(k)$ versus $k$ for $N=10^2, 10^3, 10^4$ in (a),(b) and (c)
556: respectively. The solid line represents $P(k)$ after network
557: construction using the Molloy-Reed method; the dashed line is the
558: distribution after the removal of self-loops and multiple edges. }
559: \label{pdist}
560: \end{figure}
561: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
562:
563:
564: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
565: \begin{figure}
566: \centerline{
567: \xsize
568: \epsfclipon
569: \epsfbox{pcorr.ps}
570: }
571:
572: \caption{Correlation $r$ as a function of $\lambda$ for (from top to
573: bottom at left) $N=10^2, 10^3$, and $10^4$ for distributions after
574: removal of self-loops and multiple edges. Note that the correlation
575: increases with $N$ for $\lambda \protect \lesssim 3$ and decreases
576: with $N$ for $\lambda \protect \gtrsim 3$}.
577: \label{pcorr}
578: \end{figure}
579: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
580:
581:
582:
583:
584: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
585: \begin{figure}
586: \centerline{
587: \xsize
588: \epsfclipon
589: \epsfbox{pav.ps}
590: }
591: \caption{Example illustrating case in which $\langle (i|\kappa=2 \rangle
592: \ne (i | \langle \kappa \rangle =2)$ for star network of 1 hub of
593: degree 99 and 99 nodes of degree 1. Thin lines are $\kappa$ vs $i$,
594: where $i$ denotes the number of the step at which a node is deleted, for
595: cases in which the hub is deleted at step (from left to right) 1, 10,
596: 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100. The thick line is the average
597: of the thin lines. Note that the value of $i$ at which the average
598: crosses the horizontal line $\kappa=2$ is much higher than $50$, the
599: average of the values of $i$ at which the thin lines cross the
600: horizontal line $\kappa=2$. }
601: \label{pav}
602: \end{figure}
603: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
604:
605:
606:
607: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
608: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% bi modal %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
609:
610: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
611: \begin{figure}
612: \centerline{
613: \xsize
614: \epsfclipon
615: \epsfbox{p2ax.ps}
616: }
617:
618: \centerline{
619: \xsize
620: \epsfclipon
621: \epsfbox{p2bx.ps}
622: }
623:
624:
625: \caption{For $\kav=2$ and for (from left to right) $N=10^2,10^3,10^4$ and
626: $10^5$ (a) $1-f_c$ vs. number of hubs $q$. The solid lines represent
627: Monte-Carlo simulation results. Dashed lines(short) are approximation
628: $f_c^{\rm low}$; dashed lines(long) are approximation $f_c^{\rm high}$.
629: (b)Number of hubs, $q$ versus $N$. Squares represent characteristic
630: values $q^*$ at which high and low $q$ approximations
631: intersect. Triangles represent values of $q$ at which the standard
632: deviation in $1-f_c$ is minimal.}
633: \label{kav2}
634: \end{figure}
635: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
636:
637:
638: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
639: \begin{figure}
640: \centerline{
641: \xsize
642: \epsfclipon
643: \epsfbox{pqcombx.ps}
644: }
645: \caption{(a) Number of hubs, $q^*$, at which approximations for low and
646: high $q$ intersect vs. $N$. Squares, triangles and circles represent
647: networks with $\kav=2,3,$ and 4 respectively.}
648: \label{comb234}
649: \end{figure}
650: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
651:
652:
653:
654: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
655: \begin{figure}
656: \centerline{
657: \xsize
658: \epsfclipon
659: \epsfbox{ppc.ps}
660: }
661:
662:
663: \centerline{
664: \xsize
665: \epsfclipon
666: \epsfbox{pdev.ps}
667: }
668: \caption{(a) $P(1-f_c)$ the probability distribution of $1-f_c$ for
669: $N=10^3$ and $q=1$(dashed line) and (from left to right in order of
670: increasing position of peaks) $q=5,10,$ and $20$. (b) Standard
671: deviation $\sigma$ versus $q$ for $N=10^2,10^3,10^4$ and $10^5$
672: (from left to right in order of increasing length of the tails of the
673: distributions). Note that the second peak in this plot which is most
674: pronounced for smaller $N$ is an artifact of finite size}.
675: \label{dev}
676: \end{figure}
677: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
678:
679:
680:
681:
682: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
683:
684: \begin{figure}
685: \centerline{
686: \xsize
687: \epsfclipon
688: \epsfbox{pdevsf.ps}
689: }
690: \caption{For random scale-free networks with $4 \le k \le N$, standard
691: deviation $\sigma_{fc}$ versus $\lambda$ for $N=10^2,10^3,10^4$ and
692: $10^5$ (from top to bottom).}
693: \label{devsf}
694: \end{figure}
695: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
696:
697:
698:
699:
700:
701:
702: \end{document}
703:
704:
705: \section{Notes}
706:
707:
708: -sort out prefactors of $ K_s, K_c $
709:
710: -Show in plots how Cohen eq amplifies correlations(show fc using detA method)
711:
712: -Explain ``worst case'' aspect of bimodal
713:
714: -Explain more clearly why criteria that network be simple is also good
715: for variance criteria.
716:
717: \newpage
718:
719:
720: \bibitem{Bar99} A.-L. Barab\'asi, and R. Albert, Science {\bf 286}, 509 (1999).
721:
722: \bibitem{Faloutsos} M. Faloutsos, P. Faloutsos, and C. Faloutsos,
723: Computer Communications Review {\bf 29}, 251(1999).
724:
725: \bibitem{Barabasi} A. -L. Barab\'asi, R. Albert, and H. Jeong, Physica
726: A {\bf 281}, 69 (2000).
727:
728: \bibitem{Broder} A. Broder, R. Kumar, F. Maghoul, P. Raghaven,
729: S. Rajogopalan, R. Stata, A. Tomkins, and J. Wiener, Computer Networks
730: {\bf 33}, 309 (2000).
731:
732: \bibitem{Ebel} H. Ebel, L.-I. Mielsch and S. Bornholdt, Phys. Rev. E. {\bf 66},
733: 128701 (2002).
734:
735: \bibitem{Redner} S. Redner, Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 4}, 131 (1998).
736:
737: \bibitem{Jeong} H. Jeong, B. Tombor, R. Albert, Z. N. Oltvai, and
738: A.-L. Barab\'asi, Nature {\bf 407}, 651 (2000).
739:
740:
741: \bibitem{Mendes} J. F. F. Mendes, S. N. Dorogovtsev, and A. F. Ioffe,
742: {\it Evolution of Networks: From Biological Nets to the Internet and
743: the WWW\/} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003).
744:
745: \bibitem{RPT} R. Pastor-Satorras and A. Vespignani, {\it Evolution and
746: Structure of the Internet: A Statistical Physics Approach\/} (Cambridge
747: University Press, 2004).
748:
749:
750:
751:
752: