1: \documentclass[aps,pre,twocolumn,floatfix,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx,epsf}
3: \usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts} % to use \mathbb
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \newcommand{\EQ}{Eq.~}
8: \newcommand{\EQS}{Eqs.~}
9: \newcommand{\FIG}{Fig.~}
10: \newcommand{\FIGS}{Figs.~}
11: \newcommand{\SEC}{Sec.~}
12: \newcommand{\SECS}{Secs.~}
13:
14: \title{Extremal dynamics on complex networks: Analytic solutions}
15:
16: \author{N. Masuda}
17: \affiliation{Laboratory for Mathematical Neuroscience, RIKEN Brain
18: Science Institute, 2-1, Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan}
19: \author{K.-I. Goh}
20: \author{B. Kahng}
21: \affiliation{School of Physics and Center for Theoretical Physics,
22: Seoul National University, 151-747, Korea}
23: \date{\today}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: The Bak-Sneppen model displaying punctuated equilibria in
27: biological evolution is studied on random complex networks. By
28: using the rate equation and the random walk approaches, we obtain
29: the analytic solution of the fitness threshold $x_c$
30: to be $1/(\langle k \rangle_f+1)$, where
31: $\langle k \rangle_f=\langle k^2 \rangle/\langle k \rangle$
32: ($=\langle k \rangle$) in the quenched (annealed) updating case,
33: where $\langle k^n \rangle$ is the $n$-th moment of the degree
34: distribution. Thus, the threshold is zero (finite) for the degree
35: exponent $\gamma <3$ ($\gamma > 3$) for the quenched case
36: in the thermodynamic limit.
37: The theoretical value $x_c$ fits well to the numerical simulation
38: data in the annealed case only.
39: Avalanche size, defined as the duration of successive mutations below
40: the threshold, exhibits a critical behavior as its distribution
41: follows a power law, $P_a(s)\sim s^{-3/2}$.
42: \end{abstract}
43:
44: \pacs{89.75.Hc, 89.75.Da, 89.75.Fb}
45: % 89.75.Hc networks and genealogical trees
46: % 89.75.Da systems obeying scaling laws
47: % 89.75.Fb structures and organization in complex systems
48: \maketitle
49:
50: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
51: Punctuated equilibrium is an evolution taking place through
52: intermittent bursts of activity separating relatively long periods
53: of quiescence, which can be often found in ecological
54: systems~\cite{gould,raup}. Bak and Sneppen (BS)~\cite{Bak93}
55: introduced a simple model to mimic such an evolution. The
56: basis of the BS model is to focus on a minimal set of
57: variables that capture the basic features of punctuated
58: equilibrium while ignoring all other details. In the original
59: model, $N$ species are arranged on a one-dimensional chain with
60: periodic boundary conditions. A fitness value $x_i$ is assigned to
61: each site $i$ (species) on the chain, which is a random variable
62: selected in the interval [0,1]. Evolution in the ecological
63: systems is modeled as follows: At each time step, the ecological
64: system is updated by locating the site with the lowest fitness and
65: mutating it by assigning new random numbers to that site and the
66: $K-1$ nearest neighboring sites. Subsequent updating of the lowest
67: fitness value generates spatial and temporal correlations and
68: displays punctuated equilibria. A distinct feature arising through
69: this dynamics can be found in the distribution of fitness values.
70: After a transient period, the distribution of the fitness values
71: has a discontinuity at a threshold $x_c\approx 0.67$; its elements
72: are zero up to $x_c$ and almost the same constant beyond $x_c$.
73: The threshold $x_c$ is self-organized.
74:
75: A mean field version of the BS model was
76: introduced~\cite{Flyvbjerg}, in which updated are the minimum
77: fitness value as well as the fitness values of other $K-1$ sites
78: selected at random in the system. Such a modified model enables
79: one to solve the problem analytically. The threshold was obtained
80: to be $x_c=1/K$ in the limit $N \to \infty$. Also the notion of
81: avalanche was introduced to quantify the correlation between
82: bursts of evolutionary activity. Avalanche size is the time
83: interval between two successive occasions where no fitness value
84: is less than a given value. It was proposed based on the branching
85: process analysis~\cite{harris} and later derived by using the
86: random walk approach~\cite{Deboer94,Deboer95} that the avalanche
87: size distribution follows a power law as $P_a (s) \sim s^{-3/2}$
88: when the given value is chosen as the threshold $x_c$.
89:
90: Ecological systems in real world are complex. Interactions between
91: individual species are not as simple as one-dimensional, but form
92: a complex network. Thus, it would be interesting to extend
93: previous studies of the BS model performed in the Euclidean space to
94: complex networks such as scale free (SF) networks, while it is
95: still controversial whether the ecological systems such as food webs
96: are SF-networked systems~\cite{food_web}. SF networks mean that the
97: number of connections to each species, called degree $k$ in graph
98: theory, follows a power law, $P_d(k)\sim
99: k^{-\gamma}$~\cite{review1,review2,review3,review4}. While such an
100: extension is natural, only few studies in that direction have
101: been performed so far. Christensen $et$ $al.$~\cite{Christensen}
102: have studied the BS model on random networks~\cite{er}. Kulkarni $et$
103: $al.$~\cite{kulkarni} studied it on the small-world network
104: introduced by Watts and Strogatz~\cite{ws}. Moreno
105: and Vazquez~\cite{moreno} studied the BS model on SF networks with
106: $\gamma=3$, obtaining that the threshold $x_c$ is given as
107: $x_c=\langle k \rangle/\langle k^2 \rangle$ by using the heuristic
108: argument similar to the one used in the contact process, where
109: $\langle \cdots \rangle$ denotes the average over the degree
110: distribution. They found that $x_c$ depends on the system size $N$ as
111: $x_c \sim 1/\ln N$, so that it vanishes in the limit $N\to
112: \infty$. The $N$-dependent behavior was obtained numerically at
113: $\gamma=3$, so that the result may be rooted from logarithmic
114: correction. Recently, Lee and Kim~\cite{ykim} also studied the
115: same problem on SF networks but with general $\gamma > 2$. They
116: obtained that the threshold is given as $x_c=(\langle k
117: \rangle+1)/\langle (k+1)^2 \rangle$ by using heuristic arguments.
118: Thus the threshold vanishes for $\gamma < 3$ and finite for
119: $\gamma > 3$. The interesting feature they obtained is the
120: crossover behavior in the avalanche size distribution between two
121: different power-law behaviors.
122:
123: Here we study the BS model on random SF networks analytically by
124: using both the rate equation and the random walk
125: approaches~\cite{Rednerbook}. By random SF networks, we mean the
126: SF network with no degree-degree correlation. The rate equation is
127: set up for the case that updating of the fitness values is carried
128: out not only at the vertex with the smallest fitness value but
129: also at its nearest neighbors, which is called quenched
130: case. We also compare the quenched case with the annealed case,
131: where updating is carried out at the vertex with the minimum
132: fitness values as well as the vertices randomly chosen
133: over the entire system and its number is equal to the degree of the
134: vertex with the minimum fitness value. It is noteworthy that
135: the number of vertices updated is not constant in complex networks,
136: but depends on the degree of the vertex with the minimum fitness value.
137: Thus, the analytic approach of the BS model is not as simple as
138: the case in the Euclidean space.
139: Here by applying the rate equation approach as well as the random
140: walk approach, we obtain the fitness threshold analytically to be
141: $x_c=1/(\langle k \rangle_f+1)$, where
142: $\langle k \rangle_f=\langle k^2 \rangle/\langle k \rangle$ in
143: the quenched case and $\langle k \rangle_f=\langle k \rangle$ in
144: the annealed case.
145: The avalanche size distribution is obtained to be
146: $P_a(s)\sim s^{-\tau}$ with $\tau=3/2$ at $x_c$ for $\gamma > 3$.
147:
148: \section{Rate equation approach}
149:
150: In SF networks, it would be essential to take it into account
151: the fact that vertices with different degrees experience different
152: updating frequencies. Let us denote by $f_k$ the probability that
153: the vertex
154: with the smallest fitness value has degree $k$. $\rho_k(x)$ is the
155: distribution function of fitness values at the vertices with
156: degree $k$.
157: Here we set up the master equation for the fitness distribution
158: for the quenched updating, following \cite{Flyvbjerg}. First we define a
159: quantity $Q_k(x)$, the accumulative distribution of the fitness
160: values at vertices with degree $k$:
161: \begin{equation}
162: Q_k(x)=\int^1_{x} dx^{\prime} \rho_k(x^{\prime}).
163: \end{equation}
164: Thus the fitness distribution $\rho_k(x)=-\frac{\partial}{\partial
165: x}Q_k(x)$. Then, we have
166: \begin{equation}
167: f_k=-\int^1_0 dx^{\prime} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\prime}}
168: \left\{ Q_k(x^{\prime})\right\}^{N p_k} \prod_{k{\prime}\neq k}
169: \left\{ Q_{k^{\prime}}(x^{\prime})\right\}^{N p_{k^{\prime}}},
170: \end{equation}
171: where $p_k$ denotes the degree distribution $P_d(k)$ for
172: simplicity. Note that $\sum_k f_k = 1$ is satisfied. The evolution
173: equation for the fitness distribution at vertices with degree $k$
174: is written as
175: \begin{widetext}
176: \begin{align}
177: \rho_k(x,t+1)= & \,\,\rho_k(x,t) -\frac{f_k}{Np_k} \left[
178: \frac{-\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left\{Q_k(x)\right\}^{N p_k}
179: \prod_{k^{\prime}\neq k}\left\{Q_{k^{\prime}}(x)\right\}^{N
180: p_{k^{\prime}}} }
181: {f_k}\right]\nonumber\\
182: &- \sum_{k^{\prime\prime}}k^{\prime\prime}f_{k^{\prime\prime}}
183: \frac{k p_k}{\left<k\right>} \left[\frac{\rho_k(x,t)-\frac{f_k}{N
184: p_k}\left[-\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left\{ Q_k(x)\right\}^{N
185: p_k} \prod_{k^{\prime}\neq k}\left\{Q_{k^{\prime}}(x)\right\}^{N
186: p_{k^{\prime}}}\cdot\frac{1}{f_k}\right]}{n p_k - f_k}
187: \right]\nonumber \\
188: &+ \frac{f_k}{Np_k}+\sum_{k^{\prime\prime}} \frac{k
189: p_k}{\left<k\right>}\frac{f_{k^{\prime\prime}}k^{\prime\prime}}{Np_k},
190: \label{master}
191: \end{align}
192: where the second term of the right-hand side (RHS) of
193: Eq.(\ref{master}) represents the update of the minimum fitness
194: when it locates at the vertex with degree $k$. The third term does
195: the update of the fitness value of a vertex with degree $k$
196: induced by a nearest neighboring vertex with degree
197: $k^{\prime\prime}$ which has the minimum fitness value in the
198: system. The factor $kp_k /\langle k \rangle$ comes from the
199: conditional probability $P(k|k^{\prime\prime})$ that the vertex
200: with degree $k$ is connected to the one with $k^{\prime\prime}$,
201: which is relevant to the quenched case. In the annealed
202: case, the factor is replaced with $p_k$ simply.
203: The last two terms do the addition of new fitness
204: values~\cite{Flyvbjerg}.
205:
206: The stationary solution in the limit $t\to\infty$ can be solved by
207: using $\rho_k(x)=-\frac{\partial}{\partial x}Q_k(x)$ and
208: taking the integral over $[x,1]$ of the whole formula as the
209: integral equation,
210: \begin{align}
211: - \int^1_x dx^{\prime} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\prime}}
212: \left\{Q_k(x^{\prime})\right\}^{N p_k} \prod_{k^{\prime}\neq k} &
213: \left\{ Q_{k^{\prime}}(x^{\prime})\right\}^{N p_{k^{\prime}}}
214: \left[ -\frac{1}{N p_k} + \frac{k\left<k\right>_f}
215: {\left<k\right>\left(N p_k - f_k\right)N}\right]\nonumber \\
216: &-\frac{\left<k\right>_f k p_k}{\left<k\right>\left(N p_k - f_k
217: \right)}Q_k(x) + \frac{f_k+\frac{k p_k
218: \left<k\right>_f}{\left<k\right>}}{N p_k} (1-x) = 0,
219: \label{eq:Q_k-basic}
220: \end{align}
221: \end{widetext}
222: where
223: \begin{equation} \left<k\right> = \sum^{\infty}_{k=1} k
224: p_k\quad \hbox{and} \quad \left<k\right>_f = \sum^{\infty}_{k=1} k
225: f_k.
226: \end{equation}
227:
228: As done in \cite{Flyvbjerg}, the threshold $x_c$ is determined by
229: the comparison of the first term with the second term of Eq.
230: (\ref{eq:Q_k-basic}) in their absolute magnitudes. To proceed, let
231: us first assume that the second term is dominant compared with the
232: first term. Then, we obtain that within the leading order,
233: \begin{equation}
234: Q_k(x) \approx \left(\frac{\left<k\right>f_k}{\left<k\right>_f k
235: p_k} + 1 \right)(1-x), \label{eq:Q_k}
236: \end{equation}
237: which leads to
238: \begin{equation}
239: \rho_k(x) \cong \frac{\left<k\right> f_k}{\left<k\right>_f k
240: p_k}+1. \label{eq:rho_k}
241: \end{equation}
242: This result holds when $Q_k(x)$ is less than 1 by more than
243: $\mathcal{O}(1/N)$. In other words,
244: \begin{equation}
245: x \gg x_{c,k}+\mathcal{O}(1/N) =
246: \frac{\left<k\right>f_k}{\left<k\right>f_k+\left<k\right>_f k p_k}
247: +\mathcal{O}(1/N), \label{eq:x_c}
248: \end{equation}
249: where $x_{c,k}$ is the threshold for a given $k$.
250: \EQ(\ref{eq:rho_k}) indicates that $\rho_k(x)$ does not vanish as
251: $N\to\infty$. We show that $x_{c,k}$ does not depend on $k$ in
252: Appendix. Thus we denote $x_{c,k}=x_c$ simply.
253:
254: For $x<x_c$, the second term of \EQ(\ref{eq:Q_k-basic}) can be
255: ignored and we have
256: \begin{align}
257: \int^1_{x} dx^{\prime} \frac{N p_{k} \rho_{k}(x^{\prime})}
258: {Q_{k}(x^{\prime})} \prod_{k^{\prime}} & \left\{
259: Q_{k^{\prime}}(x^{\prime})\right\}^{N p_{k^{\prime}}} \left[ 1 -
260: \frac{k\left<k\right>_f} {\left<k\right>N}\right] \nonumber \\ & \cong \left(f_k +
261: \frac{k p_k\left<k\right>_f} {\left<k\right>} \right)(1-x).
262: \label{eq:x-small}
263: \end{align}
264:
265: Next we use the fact that the integral $\int^1_{x_c}\cdots$ is
266: very small and the interval of the integration is replaced by
267: $\int_{x}^{x_c}$.
268: By setting $x=0$, we have
269: \begin{equation}
270: n p_k\rho_k \propto f_k. \label{relation1}
271: \end{equation}
272: On the other hand, by differentiating \EQ(\ref{eq:x-small}) at
273: $x=0$, we obtain
274: \begin{equation}
275: n p_k \rho_k = f_k + \frac{k p_k
276: \left<k\right>_f}{\left<k\right>}.
277: \label{relation2}
278: \end{equation}
279: Combining Eqs.(\ref{relation1}) and (\ref{relation2}), we obtain
280: that
281: \begin{equation}
282: f_k = \frac{k p_k}{\left<k\right>}, \label{f_k}
283: \end{equation}
284: which is supported by numerical simulations shown in Fig.~1. Note
285: that the result of Eq.(\ref{f_k}) is for the quenched case.
286: In the annealed case, similar calculations lead to $f_k=p_k$.
287: Thus we obtain
288: $\left<k\right>_{f}=\left<k\right>_{f,q}=\left<k^2\right>/\langle k \rangle$
289: in the quenched case and $\left< k \right>_f=\left<k\right>_{f,a}=\left < k \right>$
290: in the annealed case. $\langle k \rangle_{f,q}$ diverges for $\gamma<3$
291: as $\sim N^{(3-\gamma)/(\gamma-1)}$ in the limit $N\to \infty$.
292:
293: \begin{figure}
294: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8.5cm \epsfbox{fk.eps}} \caption{
295: The data of $f_k$
296: $(\circ)$ and $kp_k/\langle k\rangle$ $(\times)$ for the
297: Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi network (a) and for the scale-free network with
298: $\gamma=3.6$ (b) in the quenched cases.
299: To generate the scale-free network, we use the
300: static model \cite{static}. Both networks have the average degree $\langle
301: k\rangle=4$ and the system size $N=10^6$.}
302: \end{figure}
303: We also have
304: \begin{equation}
305: \rho_k=\frac{k\left(\left<k\right>_f+1\right)}{n\left<k\right>}.
306: \end{equation}
307: Thus, $\rho_k \sim \mathcal{O}(N^{-(\gamma-2)/(\gamma-1)})$, and
308: converges to 0 as $N\to\infty$. The convergence rate is slower
309: than the rate of $1/N$ that appears in Euclidean space. Finally, from
310: \EQ(\ref{eq:x_c}), the threshold can be expressed simply as
311: \begin{equation}
312: x_c = \frac{1}{\left<k\right>_f+1},
313: \label{x_c}
314: \end{equation}
315: which does not depend on $k$ for both updating rules.
316: This result is different
317: from the previous results~\cite{moreno,ykim}. The threshold formula is
318: reproduced by the random walk approach in the next section.
319:
320: \section{Random walk approach}
321:
322: The random walk approach was first introduced in
323: \cite{Deboer94,Deboer95}, and it is useful for calculating the
324: avalanche size distribution. The threshold can be also obtained.
325: Let $q_{\lambda}(t)$ be the probability of having an avalanche
326: with size $t$, which is defined as the duration of time
327: throughout which the minimum fitness value is smaller than a
328: given threshold value $\lambda$.
329: $\lambda$ can be chosen arbitrary. Later we
330: find that $q_{\lambda}(t)$ follows a power law when $\lambda$ is
331: equal to the threshold $x_c$. The corresponding generating
332: function is defined as $ \chi(z)=\sum_{t>0} q_{\lambda}(t) z^t$.
333: Then $\chi(z)$ satisfies the self-consistent
334: equation~\cite{Deboer95,harris,Goh03prl},
335: \begin{equation}
336: \chi(z)=z g(\chi(z)). \label{eq:chi-self}
337: \end{equation}
338: In the previous study~\cite{Deboer95}, the generating function
339: $g(z)$ was given as $\sum_t {K\choose t}\lambda^t
340: (1-\lambda)^{K-t}z^t=\left(1-\lambda + \lambda z\right)^K$ when
341: $K$ fitness values are updated randomly. However, in the case of
342: SF networks, the number of vertices updated at each time step is
343: not constant, but it depends on the degree of the vertex with the
344: minimum fitness value. In this case, the generating function
345: $g(z)$ is given as
346: \begin{equation}
347: g(z)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}f_{k-1}\left(1-\lambda + \lambda
348: z\right)^k, \label{g_z}
349: \end{equation}
350: where $f_k$ was defined as the probability that the minimum
351: fitness locates at the vertex with degree $k$.
352:
353: What we do next is to solve $q_{\lambda}(t)$ by using
354: Eqs.(\ref{eq:chi-self},\ref{g_z}). To proceed, we use the
355: Lagrange's inversion formula~\cite{Grimmettbook,masuda},
356: \begin{equation}
357: h\left(\omega\right)=h(0)+\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\frac{z^n}{n!} \left[
358: \frac{d^{n-1}}{du^{n-1}} \left[h^{\prime}(u)g(u)^n\right]
359: \right]_{u=0}, \label{eq:Lagrange}
360: \end{equation}
361: where $z=\omega/g(\omega)$, provided that $\omega/g(\omega)$ is
362: analytic near $\omega=0$ and $h(\omega)$ is an infinitely
363: differentiable function. Here we choose $h(\omega)=\omega$ and
364: $\omega(z)=\chi(z)$. Then,
365: \begin{widetext}
366: %
367: \begin{eqnarray}
368: \chi(z) &=& \sum^{\infty}_{t=1} \frac{z^t}{t!}
369: \frac{\partial^{t-1}}{\partial u^{t-1}}
370: \left[\left(g(u) \right)^t \right]_{u=0}\nonumber\\
371: %
372: &=& \sum^{\infty}_{t=1} \frac{z^t}{t!}
373: \frac{\partial^{t-1}}{\partial u^{t-1}} \left[ \prod_{i=1}^t
374: \sum_{k_i=1}^{\infty} f_{k_i-1} \left(1-\lambda + \lambda
375: u\right)^{k_i}
376: \right]_{u=0}\nonumber\\
377: %
378: &=& \sum^{\infty}_{t=1} \frac{z^t}{t!}
379: \frac{\partial^{t-1}}{\partial u^{t-1}} \left[\sum^{\infty}_{k_1=1}
380: \ldots \sum^{\infty}_{k_t=1} \left(\prod_{i=1}^t f_{k_i-1}\right)
381: \left(1-\lambda + \lambda u\right)^{\sum^t_{i=1}k_i}
382: \right]_{u=0}\nonumber\\
383: %
384: &=& \sum^{\infty}_{t=1} \frac{z^t}{t!} \sum^{\infty}_{k_1=1}
385: \ldots \sum^{\infty}_{k_t=1} \left(\prod_{i=1}^t f_{k_i-1}\right)
386: \frac{(\sum^t_{i=1}k_i)!}{(\sum^t_{i=1}k_i-t+1)!}
387: \lambda^{t-1}\left(1-\lambda \right)^{\sum^t_{i=1}k_i-t+1}.
388: %
389: \end{eqnarray}
390: Since $\chi(z)=\sum_t q_{\lambda}(t)z^t$, $q_{\lambda}(t)$ can be
391: obtained by using the Stirling's formula as
392: %
393: \begin{eqnarray}
394: q_{\lambda}(t) &=& \frac{1}{t!} \sum^{\infty}_{k_1=1} \ldots
395: \sum^{\infty}_{k_t=1} \left(\prod_{i=1}^t f_{k_i-1}\right)
396: \frac{(\sum^t_{i=1}k_i)!}{(\sum^t_{i=1}k_i-t+1)!}
397: \lambda^{t-1}\left(1-\lambda \right)^{\sum^t_{i=1}k_i-t+1}\nonumber\\
398: %
399: &=& \sum^{\infty}_{k_1=1} \ldots \sum^{\infty}_{k_t=1}
400: \left(\prod_{i=1}^t f_{k_i-1}\right)
401: \frac{(\sum^t_{i=1}k_i)^{\sum^t_{i=1}k_i}}
402: {(\sum^t_{i=1}k_i-t)^{\sum^t_{i=1}k_i-t} \; t^t}\cdot
403: \frac{1}{\sum^t_{i=1}k_i-t+1}\cdot\nonumber\\
404: %
405: &&\frac{\sqrt{2\pi \sum^t_{i=1}k_i}} {\sqrt{2\pi
406: \left(\sum^t_{i=1}k_i-t\right)} \sqrt{2\pi t}}
407: \lambda^{t-1}\left(1-\lambda \right)^{\sum^t_{i=1}k_i-t+1}.
408: %
409: \label{eq:q(t)-1}
410: \end{eqnarray}
411: Note that $k_i$ is the degree of the vertex
412: with the minimum fitness value at updating time $i$ plus 1, which
413: occurs with the probability $f_{k_i-1}$. Thus in the limit $t\to
414: \infty$
415: \begin{equation}
416: \sum^t_{i=1}k_i \cong t \cdot \langle k + 1 \rangle_f =
417: \left(\langle k \rangle_f+1\right) t. \label{eq:q(t)-2}
418: \end{equation}
419: Substituting \EQ(\ref{eq:q(t)-2}) into \EQ(\ref{eq:q(t)-1}) yields
420: \begin{eqnarray}
421: q_{\lambda}(t) &\cong& \frac{1-\lambda}{\lambda}
422: \sqrt{\frac{\left<k\right>_f+1}{2\pi \left<k\right>_f^3}}
423: \left[\frac{\lambda (1-\lambda)^{\left<k\right>_f}
424: (\left<k\right>_f+1)^{\left<k\right>_f+1}}
425: {(\left<k\right>_f)^{\left<k\right>_f}} \right]^t
426: t^{-3/2}+\mathcal{O}(t^{-5/2}). \label{eq:q(t)-3}
427: \end{eqnarray}
428:
429: \end{widetext}
430: The quantity in the square bracket is 1 when
431: \begin{equation}
432: \lambda=\frac{1}{\left<k\right>_f+1},
433: \label{eq:lambda_c-avalanche}
434: \end{equation}
435: which is equal to the threshold $x_c$ previously obtained via the
436: rate equation approach. Then, $q_{x_c}(t)\sim t^{-3/2}$.
437: Therefore, the avalanche size distribution behaves as $P_a (s)
438: \sim s^{-3/2}$.
439:
440: \section{Numerical results}
441:
442: \begin{figure}
443: \centerline{\epsfxsize=8.5cm \epsfbox{er.eps}} \caption{
444: (a) and (b). The avalanche size distribution for
445: the regular network with the degree distribution
446: of the $\delta$-function.
447: In the quenched case (a), the avalanche
448: size distribution follows a power law when $\lambda$ is chosen as
449: 0.253 ($\circ$), larger than the theoretical value $1/(\langle k
450: \rangle+1)=0.2$ ($\square$). In the annealed case (b), the
451: theoretical value $x_c=0.2$ ($\circ$) works well to generate the
452: power-law behavior of $P_a(s)$.
453: (c) and (d). Same plot for the
454: Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi network \cite{er}. In the quenched case (c),
455: the power-law behavior of $P_a(s)$ occurs at $x_c=0.207$,
456: larger than the theoretical value, $x_c=1/6$. In the annealed
457: case (d), the theoretical value $x_c$=0.2 generates the power-law
458: behavior.
459: (e) and (f). Same plot for the scale-free network with $\gamma=3.6$.
460: In the quenched case (e), the power-law behavior of
461: $P_a(s)$ occurs at $x_c=0.1$, which is larger than the
462: theoretical value $x_c=0.08$. In the annealed case, the
463: theoretical value $x_c=0.2$ yields the power-law
464: behavior of $P_a(s)$.
465: The mean degree is fixed to be $\langle k \rangle=4$ and
466: the system size is $N=10^6$ in all cases.
467: The straight lines have slope -3/2 in all cases.} \label{test_random}
468: \end{figure}
469:
470: We check the analytical solution of $q_{\lambda}(t)$ numerically
471: for several networks. The theoretical formula of $x_c$ is tested
472: through the criticality of the avalanche size distribution.
473: First, the random network with the degree distribution
474: $P_d(k)=\delta_{k,k_0}$, called the regular network, is constructed
475: and the dynamics of the BS model is performed on that network.
476: $k_0=4$ is taken for numerical simulations.
477: In this case, $x_c$ reduces to $x_c=1/(k_0+1)$ simply in both
478: the quenched and annealed cases.
479: In the quenched case (Fig.~\ref{test_random}(a)),
480: the avalanche size distribution does not follow a power law
481: when $\lambda=x_c=0.2$. Instead, the power-law behavior appears
482: at a larger value, $\lambda \approx 0.253$.
483: In the annealed case (Fig.~\ref{test_random}(b)),
484: however, it follows a power law at $\lambda=x_c$,
485: consistent with the theoretical value.
486:
487: Second, for Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi (ER) random graph, where the degree
488: distribution is a Poisson distribution, the theoretical
489: formula reduces to $x_c \approx 1/(\langle k \rangle+2)$
490: in the quenched case, because $\langle k^2 \rangle =
491: \langle k \rangle^2+\langle k \rangle$ in the limit $N\to \infty$.
492: Numerical simulations are performed
493: in both the quenched and the annealed cases.
494: In the quenched case (Fig.~\ref{test_random}(c)),
495: the avalanche size distribution does not follow a power law when
496: $\lambda$ is taken as the theoretical value, but it does
497: when $\lambda \approx 0.207$.
498: In the annealed case (Fig.~\ref{test_random}(d)),
499: the avalanche size distribution follows a power law
500: at $\lambda=1/(\langle k \rangle+1)$, consistent with
501: the theoretical value.
502:
503: Next, for SF networks with $\gamma=3.6$, which is constructed
504: through the static model~\cite{static}, the theoretical value
505: $x_c=1/(\langle k \rangle_f +1)\approx 0.08$ in the quenched
506: case. Note that $\langle k \rangle_f \approx 11.5$ is different
507: from $\langle k^2 \rangle /\langle k \rangle \approx 7.06$
508: numerically due to the strong fluctuations arising in the large
509: $k$ region (Fig.~1). Again the avalanche size distribution does
510: not follow a power law at the theoretical value, but does at
511: $\lambda \approx 0.1$. In the annealed case, the avalanche
512: size distribution follows a power law at
513: $x_c=1/(\langle k \rangle_f+1)$.
514:
515: The numerical results for the above three networks indicate
516: that the mean-field theoretical prediction is not good for the
517: quenched case, however, is good for the annealed case
518: instead. This result is attributed to the effect of the temporal
519: and spatial correlation between the vertices with
520: the minimum fitness value at successive time steps, which often
521: occur at the nearest neighbors or at the same vertex.
522: Such effect was not counted properly in the quenched case,
523: and can be neglected in the annealed case.
524:
525: \section{Conclusions}
526: We have studied the Bak-Sneppen model on complex networks by using
527: the master equation as well as the random walk approaches. The
528: threshold $x_c$ is obtained to be $x_c=1/(\langle
529: k\rangle_f+1)$, where $\langle \cdots \rangle_f$
530: is the average over the minimum fitness vertices. The avalanche size
531: distribution follows a power law with the exponent $\tau=3/2$ at
532: the critical point. The theoretical prediction of $x_c$ was tested
533: numerically for the regular network, the ER random network,
534: and the SF network. For all the networks, the theoretical
535: predictions of $x_c$ are in disagreement (agreement) with the
536: numerical results for the quenched (annealed) case.
537: The discrepancy in the quenched case is attributed to the effect
538: of the temporal and spatial correlation between the vertices with
539: the minimum fitness values at successive time steps. Nevertheless,
540: the formula $x_c=\langle k \rangle/(\langle k^2 \rangle+\langle k \rangle)$
541: is newly derived here for the quenched case. Thus when
542: $2 < \gamma < 3$, $x_c\to 0$ in the thermodynamic limit in
543: the quenched case.
544:
545: \appendix
546: \section{}
547:
548: Here we show that $x_{c,k}$ does not depend on $k$. To proceed, we
549: suppose $x_{k_1,c} < x_{k_2,c}$ for a certain pair of $k_1$ and
550: $k_2$. Then, for a given $x_0$ in the range $x_{k_1,c}< x_0
551: <x_{k_2,c}$, we have with Eq.~(\ref{eq:Q_k-basic}),
552: \begin{align}
553: \int^1_{x_0} dx^{\prime} \frac{N p_{k_1} \rho_{k_1}(x^{\prime})}
554: {Q_{k_1}(x^{\prime})} \prod_{k^{\prime}} & \left\{
555: Q_{k^{\prime}}(x^{\prime})\right\}^{N p_{k^{\prime}}} \left[ 1 -
556: \frac{k_1\left<k\right>_f} {\left<k\right>N}\right] \nonumber \\ & \ll
557: \frac{\left<k\right>_f k_1 p_{k_1}}{\left<k\right>}Q_{k_1}(x_0),
558: \label{eq:compare-k_1}
559: \end{align}
560: and
561: \begin{align}
562: \int^1_{x_0} dx^{\prime} \frac{N p_{k_2} \rho_{k_2}(x^{\prime})}
563: {Q_{k_2}(x^{\prime})} \prod_{k^{\prime}} & \left\{
564: Q_{k^{\prime}}(x^{\prime})\right\}^{N p_{k^{\prime}}} \left[ 1 -
565: \frac{k_2\left<k\right>_f} {\left<k\right>N}\right] \nonumber \\
566: & \cong
567: \frac{\left<k\right>_f k_2 p_{k_2}}{\left<k\right>}Q_{k_2}(x_0).
568: \label{eq:compare-k_2}
569: \end{align}
570:
571: Since $Q_{k_1}(x)$ and $Q_{k_2}(x)$ are of the same order based on
572: \EQ(\ref{eq:Q_k}), the RHS of \EQ(\ref{eq:compare-k_1}) and that
573: of \EQ(\ref{eq:compare-k_2}) are of the same order. Then we must
574: have $\rho_{k_1}(x^{\prime}) \ll \rho_{k_2}(x^{\prime})$ for
575: $x_0\le x^{\prime}\le 1$, which contradicts \EQ(\ref{eq:rho_k})
576: for $x>x_{k_2,c} (>x_0, x_{k_1,c})$. Thus we set $x_c = x_{k,c}$
577: for all $k$.\\
578:
579: \begin{acknowledgments}
580: This work is supported in part by special postdoctoral researchers
581: program of RIKEN and in part by the KRF Grant funded by the Korean
582: government MOEHRD (R14-2002-059-010000-0).
583: \end{acknowledgments}
584:
585:
586: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
587: \bibitem{gould} S. J. Gould, Paleobiology {\bf 3,} 135 (1977).
588: \bibitem{raup} M. D. Raup, Science {\bf 251,} 1530 (1986).
589: \bibitem{Bak93} P. Bak and K. Sneppen,
590: %Punctuated equilibrium and criticality in a simple model of evolution.
591: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 4083 (1993).
592: %--4086 (24)
593: \bibitem{Flyvbjerg}
594: H. Flyvbjerg, K. Sneppen and P. Bak,
595: %Mean field theory for a simple model of evolution.
596: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 4087 (1993).
597: %--4090 (24)
598: \bibitem{harris}
599: T. E. Harris, {\it The Theory of Branching Processes} (Springer,
600: Berlin, 1963).
601: \bibitem{Deboer94}
602: J. de Boer, B. Derrida, H. Flyvbjerg, A. D. Jackson and T. Wettig.
603: %Simple model of self-organized biological evolution.
604: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 906 (1994).
605: % --909 (6)
606: \bibitem{Deboer95}
607: J. de Boer, A. D. Jackson and T. Wettig,
608: %Criticality in simple models of evolution.
609: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 51}, 1059 (1995).
610: %--1074
611: \bibitem{food_web} J. M. Montoya and R. V. Sol\'e, J. Theor. Biol. {\bf 214}, 405 (2002);
612: J. Camacho, R. Guimera, and L. A. N. Amaral, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
613: 88}, 228102 (2002); J. A. Dunne, R. J. Willams, and N. D.
614: Martinez, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. {\bf 99}, 12917 (2002).
615: \bibitem{review1}R. Albert, A.-L. Barab\'asi, {\em Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 74}, 47 (2002).
616: \bibitem{review2} S. N. Dorogovtsev, J. F. F. Mendes, {\em Evolution of Networks:
617: From Biological Networks to the Internet and the WWW} (Oxford
618: University Press, Oxford, 2003).
619: \bibitem{review3} M. E. J. Newman, {\em SIAM Rev.} {\bf 45}, 167 (2003).
620: \bibitem{review4} R. Pastor-Satorras, A. Vespignani, {\em Evolution and Structure
621: of the Internet: a Statistical Physics Approach} (Cambridge
622: University Press, Cambridge, 2004).
623: \bibitem{Christensen}
624: K. Christensen, R. Donangelo, B. Koiller and K. Sneppen,
625: %Evolution of random networks.
626: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 2380 (1998).
627: %--2383 (11)
628: \bibitem{er} P. Erd\H{o}s and A. R\'enyi,
629: {\em Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci.} {\bf 5}, 17 (1960).
630: \bibitem{kulkarni} R. V. Kulkarni, E. Almaas, and D. Stroud,
631: e-print cond-mat/9905066.
632: \bibitem{ws} D. J. Watts, S. H. Strogatz, Nature (London) {\bf 393}, 440 (1998).
633: \bibitem{moreno}
634: Y. Moreno and A. Vazquez,
635: %The Bak-Sneppen model on scale-free networks.
636: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 57}, 765 (2002).
637: \bibitem{ykim} S. Lee and Y. Kim,
638: %Coevolutionary dynamics on scale-free networks.
639: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 71}, 057102 (2005).
640: \bibitem{Rednerbook}
641: S. Redner, {\it A Guide to First-passage Processes}, (Cambridge
642: University Press, Cambridge, 2001).
643: \bibitem{static} K.-I. Goh, B. Kahng, D. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 278701 (2001).
644: \bibitem{Goh03prl}
645: K.-I. Goh, D.-S. Lee, B. Kahng and D. Kim,
646: % Sandpile on scale-free networks.
647: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 148701 (2003).
648: \bibitem{Grimmettbook}
649: G. R. Grimmett and D. R. Stirzaker, {\it Probability and Random
650: Processes}, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992);
651: \bibitem{masuda}
652: N. Masuda and N. Konno,
653: %Return times of random walk on generalized random graphs.
654: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 69}, 066113 (2004).
655:
656: \end{thebibliography}
657:
658: \end{document}
659: