1: %\documentclass[a4paper]{article}

2: \documentclass[prl,onecolumn,floats,showpacs,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

3: \usepackage{epsfig}

4: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm}

5: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

6: \usepackage{psfrag}% use latex text in ps figures

7: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

8: %\usepackage{showkeys}

9: %\documentclass[prl,twocolumn,floats,showpacs,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

10: %\usepackage{psfig}

11: %\usepackage{amssymb,amsthm}

12: %\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm}

13: %\usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

14: %\usepackage{psfrag}% use latex text in ps figures

15: %\usepackage{bm}% bold math

16: %\usepackage{showkeys}

17: \newcommand{\lam}{\lambda}

18: \newcommand{\sig}{\sigma}

19: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha}

20: \newcommand{\LN}{L'}

21: 

22: \begin{document}

23: \title{Optimal network topologies: \\

24: Expanders, Cages, Ramanujan graphs, Entangled networks and all that.}

25: 

26: \author{Luca Donetti}

27: \affiliation{

28: Departamento de Electr\'onica and \\

29: Instituto de F{\'\i}sica

30: Te{\'o}rica y Computacional Carlos I, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de

31: Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain}

32: 

33: 

34: \author{Franco Neri}

35: 

36: \affiliation{Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di  Parma,

37: Parco Area delle Scienze 7/A, 43100 Parma, Italy}

38: 

39: \author{Miguel A. Mu{\~n}oz}

40: 

41: \affiliation{Departamento de Electromagnetismo y F{\'\i}sica de la Materia and \\

42:  Instituto de F{\'\i}sica Te{\'o}rica y Computacional Carlos I,

43:  Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain}

44: 

45: 

46: \date{\today} 

47: \begin{abstract} 

48: We report on some recent developments in the search for optimal

49: network topologies. First we review some basic concepts on spectral

50: graph theory, including adjacency and Laplacian matrices, and paying

51: special attention to the topological implications of having large

52: spectral gaps. We also introduce related concepts as ``expanders'',

53: Ramanujan, and Cage graphs. Afterwards, we discuss two different

54: dynamical features of networks: synchronizability and flow of random

55: walkers and so that they are optimized if the corresponding Laplacian

56: matrix have a large spectral gap. From this, we show, by developing a

57: numerical optimization algorithm that maximum

58: synchronizability and fast random walk spreading are obtained for a

59: particular type of extremely homogeneous regular networks, with long

60: loops and poor modular structure, that we call {\it entangled

61: networks}. These turn out to be related to Ramanujan and Cage

62: graphs. We argue also that these graphs are very good finite-size

63: approximations to Bethe lattices, and provide almost or almost optimal

64: solutions to many other problems as, for instance, searchability in

65: the presence of congestion or performance of neural networks. Finally,

66: we study how these results are modified when studying dynamical

67: processes controlled by a {\it normalized} (weighted and directed)

68: dynamics; much more heterogeneous graphs are optimal in this case.

69: %While this second case might be more

70: %relevant for flow properties in real-world networks the previous,

71: %entangled graphs have a huge number applications in computer science

72: %and technological networks. 

73: Finally, a critical discussion of the limitations and possible

74: extensions of this work is presented.

75: \end{abstract} 

76: 

77: \pacs{89.75.Hc,05.45.Xt,87.18.Sn} 

78: 

79: \maketitle 

80: 

81: 

82: 

83: \section{I. Introduction}

84: 

85: Imagine you are to design a network, be it a local computer network,

86: an infrastructure or communication network, an artificial neural

87: network, or whatever analogous example you can think of. Suppose also

88: that you have some restrictions to do so. First of all, the number of

89: nodes and the total amount of links are both fixed and, second, nodes

90: should be connected using the available links in such a way that the

91: resulting network topology is {\it optimal} in some sense. Of course,

92: the meaning of the word ``optimal'' depends on the task to be

93: performed by the network, or in other words, depends on the nature of

94: the dynamical process to be built on top of it.

95: 

96: Along this paper we study optimization of dynamical processes in

97: networks, as exemplified by the following three cases.

98: 

99: Suppose we are constructing an artificial neural network, so at each

100: node we locate a neuron (i.e. an oscillator) having some unspecified

101: dynamical properties. In order to enhance the neural net performance

102: we want the oscillators to be easily synchronizable

103: \cite{synchro}, i.e. to be able to reach as easily as possible a state

104: in which them all, or at least a large fraction of them, fire

105: (oscillate) at unison \cite{Torres,BJK,GG}, and that state to be as

106: robust as possible.

107: 

108: As a second example, imagine having a communication or technological

109: network and wanting, for the sake of efficiency, any node to be

110: ``nearby'' any other one. The simplest strategy to do so, is by

111: constructing a star-like topology with a central node (or ``hub'' in

112: the network jargon) directly connected to all the rest. In this way,

113: any node is reachable from any other within two steps at most.

114: However, in cases of intense traffic flow, this might not be very

115: efficient, especially if the central hub gets overburdened or

116: congestioned. Also, the star-like topology is very fragile to sabotage

117: to the central node. So one could wonder what is the optimal topology

118: avoiding the use of a privileged central hub

119: \cite{Catalans,Congestion,Maritan}.

120: 

121: For a third example, let us consider information packets traveling in

122: a network in such a way that they disperse jumping randomly between

123: contiguous nodes and let us require an optimum flow of

124: information. For that, we define an ensemble of random walkers

125: diffusing on the net, and impose the averaged first-passage time to be

126: minimized. Which is the optimal structure? Analogously, other

127: random-walk properties as the mixing rate \cite{Lovasz}, the mean

128: transit time or the mean return time \cite{dani} could be minimized.

129: 

130: In all these situations the problem to be solved is very similar:

131: finding an optimal topology under some constraints. These and similar

132: problems have been addressed in the literature, especially in the

133: context of Computer Science and, more recently, in the emerging field

134: of Complex Networks

135: \cite{Strogatz,Laszlo,Newman,Porto,AleRomu,Boccaletti}.

136: 

137: In this paper, we illustrate that the answer to these problems may

138: have a large degree of universality in the sense that, even if the

139: optimal topologies in each case are not ``exactly'' identical, they

140: may share some common features that we review here.  To do so, we

141: translate these problems into the one of optimizing some invariant

142: property of a matrix encoding the network topology. In particular, we

143: can use adjacency, Laplacian, and normalized-Laplacian matrices

144: depending on the particular problem under scrutiny. Spectral analysis

145: techniques are employed to explore in a systematic way network

146: topologies and to look for optimal solutions in each specific problem.

147: In this context, we introduce and characterize what we call {\it

148: entangled networks}: a family of nets with very homogeneous properties

149: and a extremely intertwined or entangled structure which are optimal

150: or almost optimal from different points of view.

151: 

152: Along this work, we focus mainly on un-weighted, un-directed,

153: networks, not embedded in a geography or physical coordinates, and

154: characterized by identical nodes. Changing any of these restrictions

155: may alter the nature of the emerging optimal topologies as will be

156: briefly discussed at the end of the paper.

157: 

158: The paper is structured as follows. In {\bf section II} we introduce

159: topological matrices and other basic elements of spectral graph

160: theory, as for instance the ``spectral gap''.  In {\bf section III} we

161: discuss the topological implications of having a large spectral gap

162: and illustrate the connections of this with topological optimization

163: problems: graphs with large spectral gaps are optimal (or almost

164: optimal) for some dynamical processes defined on networks. In {\bf

165: section IV} we present an explicit construction of optimal solutions,

166: called by graph theorists ``Ramanujan'' graphs; such explicit

167: constructions cannot be achieved for any number of nodes and

168: links. Owing to this, in {\bf section V} we discuss how to construct

169: optimal graphs in general (for any given number of nodes and edges) by

170: employing a recently introduced computational optimization method,

171: enabling us to construct the so called ``entangled networks''. We

172: compare entangled networks with Ramanujan graphs in the cases when

173: these last can be explicitly constructed, as well as with ``cage

174: graphs'', another useful concept in graph theory.  In {\bf section VI}

175: we enumerate some network design problems where our results are

176: relevant.  In {\bf section VII} we briefly elaborate on the connection

177: of Ramanujan and entangled networks in the limit of large sizes with

178: the Bethe lattice. In {\bf section VIII} we discuss how the previous

179: results are affected by analyzing dynamical processes controlled by

180: the normalized Laplacian rather than by the Laplacian. Finally, in

181: {\bf section IX} a critical discussion of our main results,

182: conclusions, and future perspectives is presented.

183: 

184: 

185: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

186: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

187: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

188: 

189: 

190: \section{II. Elements of spectral graph theory: spectral gaps}

191: 

192: For the sake of self-consistency and to fix notation we start by

193: revising some basic concepts in graph theory. 

194: 

195: Given a network (or graph), it is possible to define the corresponding

196: {\it adjacency matrix}, $A$, whose elements $a_{ij}$ are equal to $1$

197: if a link between nodes $i$ and $j$ exists and $0$ otherwise.  A

198: related matrix is the {\it Laplacian}, $L$, which takes values $-1$

199: for pairs of connected vertices and $k_i$ (the degree of the

200: corresponding node $i$) in diagonal sites. Obviously, $L = K - A$,

201: where $K$ is the diagonal connectivity (or degree) matrix.  If the

202: graph is undirected both $A$ and $L$ are symmetric matrices. It is

203: easy to see that $\lambda_1=0$ is a trivial eigenvalue of $L$ with

204: eigenvector $(1,1,\ldots)$ and that the eigenvalues $\lambda_i$

205: satisfy

206: \begin{equation*}

207:   0 = \lam_1 \le \lam_2 \le \ldots \le \lam_N \le 2k_{\text{max}} ,

208: \end{equation*}

209: where $k_{\text{max}}$ is the largest degree in the graph. The proofs

210: of these and other elementary spectral graph properties can be found,

211: for instance, in \cite{Chung,Bollobas}.  Finally, a {\it normalized

212: Laplacian matrix}, $\LN=K^{-1}L$, can be defined; each row is equal to

213: the analogous row in $L$ divided by the degree of the corresponding

214: node. This is useful to describe dynamical processes in which the

215: total effect of neighbors is equally normalized for all sites, while

216: in the absence of such a normalization factor sites with higher

217: connectivity are more strongly coupled to the others than loosely

218: connected ones.  In this case we have $0\le\lambda'_i\le2$ for

219: $i=1\ldots N$, where the $\lambda'_i$ denote the eigenvalues of $\LN$.

220: Clearly, for {\it regular} graphs, that is, graphs where all nodes

221: have the same degree $k$, the two matrices $L$ and $\LN$ differ by a

222: multiple of the identity matrix and the eigenvalues are related by

223: $\lambda_i=k \lambda'_i$.

224: 

225: Following the literature, here we consider mainly (but not only) the

226: Laplacian spectrum, but depending on the dynamical process under

227: consideration this choice will be changed.

228: 

229: In order to give a first taste on the topological significance of

230: spectral properties, let us consider a network perfectly separated

231: into a number of independent subsets or {\it communities} having only

232: intra-subset links but not inter-subset connections. Obviously, its

233: Laplacian matrix (either the non normalized or the normalized one) is

234: block-diagonal. Each sub-graph has its own associated sub-matrix, and

235: therefore $0$ is an eigenvalue of any of them. In this way, the

236: degeneration of the lowest (trivial) eigenvalue of $L$ (or of $\LN$)

237: coincides with the number of disconnected subgraphs within a given

238: network. 

239: For each of the separated components, the corresponding eigenvector

240: has constant components within each subgraph.

241: 

242: On the other hand, if the subgraphs are not perfectly separated, but a

243: small number of inter-subset links exists, then the degeneracy will be

244: broken, and eigenvalues and eigenvectors will be slightly

245: perturbed. In particular relatively small eigenvalues will appear, and

246: their corresponding eigenvectors will take ``almost constant'' values

247: within each subgraph. For instance, if the number of subsets is $2$,

248: spectral methods have been profusely used for graph bipartitioning or

249: graph bisecting \cite{GN} as follows. One looks for the smallest

250: non-trivial eigenvalue; its corresponding eigenvector should have

251: almost constant components within each of the two subgroups, providing

252: us with a bipartitioning criterion. Therefore a graph with a ``small''

253: first non-trivial Laplacian eigenvalue, $\lambda_2$, customarily

254: called {\it spectral gap} (or also {\it algebraic connectivity}) has a

255: relatively clean bisection. In other words, the smaller the spectral

256: gap the smaller the relative number of edges required to be cut-away

257: to generate a bipartition. Conversely a large ``spectral gap''

258: characterizes non-structured networks, with poor modular structure, in

259: which a clearcut separation into subgraphs is not inherent.  This is a

260: crucial topological implication of spectral gaps.

261: 

262: A closely related concept is the {\it expansion property}. To

263: introduce it, let us consider a generic graph, $X$, and define the

264: {\it Cheeger or isoperimetric constant} as follows. First, one

265: considers all the possible subdivisions of the graph in two disjoint

266: subsets of vertices: $A$ and its corresponding complement $B$. The

267: Cheeger constant, $h(X)$, is defined as the minimum value over all

268: possible partitions of the number of edges connecting $A$ with $B$

269: divided by the number of sites in the smallest of the two subsets. The

270: Cheeger constant is larger than $0$ if and only if the graph is

271: connected, and is ``large'' if any possible subdivision has many links

272: between the two corresponding subsets. Hence, for graphs with poor

273: community structure, the Cheeger constant is large.

274: 

275: 

276: In the graph-theory literature the concept of {\it expander} is

277: introduced within this context \cite{Sarnak,Valette}: a family of

278: expanders is a family of {\it regular graphs} with degree $k$ and $N$

279: nodes, such that for $N \rightarrow \infty$ the Cheeger constant $h$

280: is always larger than a given positive number $\epsilon$. Note that

281: the word ``expansion'', refers to the fact that the topology of the

282: network-connections is such that any set of vertices connects in a

283: robust way (``expands through'') all nodes, even if the graph is

284: sparse. Obviously, for this to happen, $k$ should be larger or equal

285: than $3$, as for $k=2$ all graphs are linear chains and can be,

286: therefore, cut in two subgraphs by removing just one edge (arbitrarily

287: small Cheeger constant for large system sizes).

288: 

289: The Cheeger constant and the expansion property can be formally

290: related to the spectral gap by the following inequalities \cite{AB}:

291: \begin{equation}

292: {\lam_2 \over 2} \leq h(X) \leq \sqrt{2k\lam_2}.

293: \label{inequality}

294: \end{equation}

295: Therefore, {\it a family of regular graphs is an expanding family if

296:   and only if it has a lower bound for the spectral gap, and the

297:   larger the bound the better the expansion}.  Among the applications

298: of expander graphs are the design of efficient communication networks,

299: construction of error-correcting codes with very efficient encoding

300: and decoding algorithms, de-randomization of random algorithms, and

301: analysis of algorithms in computational group theory \cite{Sarnak}.

302: % Note that the optimal gap could not correspond to the optimal Cheeger constant.

303: % It's just a bound.

304: 

305: 

306: As a consequence of this, expansion properties are enhanced upon

307: increasing the spectral gap, but spectral gaps cannot be as large as

308: wanted, especially for large graph sizes. In the case of $k$-regular

309: graphs (the ones for which expanders have been defined) there is an

310: asymptotic upper bound for it derived by Alon and Boppana \cite{AB},

311: given by the spectral gap of the infinite regular tree of degree $k$

312: (called Bethe tree or Bethe lattice):

313: \begin{equation}

314: \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \lam_2 \leq k - 2 \sqrt{k-1}.

315: \label{inequality2}

316: \end{equation} 

317: 

318: Whenever a graph has $ \lam_2 \geq k - 2 \sqrt{k-1}$ (i.e. when the

319: spectral gap is larger than its asymptotic upper bound), it is called

320: a {\it Ramanujan graph}. Therefore, Ramanujan graphs are very good

321: expanders.  In one of the following sections we will tackle the

322: problem of explicitly constructing Ramanujan graphs by following the

323: recently developed mathematical literature on this subject.

324: 

325: 

326: So far we have related the spectral graph to the ``compactness'' of a

327: given graph; a large gap characterizes networks with poor modular

328: structure, in which it is difficult to isolate sub-sets of sites

329: poorly connected with the rest of the graph or, in other words, large

330: gaps characterize expanders. In the following section we shift our

331: attention from topology to dynamics and discuss some other interesting

332: problems which turn out to be directly related to large spectral gaps.

333: 

334: 

335: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

336: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

337: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

338: 

339: 

340: \section{III. Large spectral gaps and dynamical processes}

341: 

342: In this section we review two different dynamical processes defined on

343: the top of networks and discuss how some of their properties depend on

344: the underlying graph topology \cite{Entangled}.

345: 

346: 

347: \subsection{Synchronization of dynamical processes}

348: 

349: An aspect of complex networks that has generated a burst of activity

350: in the last few years, because of both its conceptual relevance and

351: its practical implications, is the study of {\it synchronizability} of

352: dynamical processes occurring at the nodes of a given network. How

353: does synchronizability depend upon network topology? Which type of

354: topology optimizes the stability of a globally synchronized

355: state\cite{synchro}? 

356: 

357: A first partial answer to this question was given in a seminal work by

358: Barahona and Pecora \cite{Pecora} who established the following

359: criterion to determine the stability of fully synchronized states on

360: networks. Consider a general dynamical process

361: \begin{equation}

362: \dot{x}_i = F(x_i) + \sig \sum_{j\in n.n. i} [ H(x_j) -H(x_i)]= 

363: F(x_i) - \sig \sum_j L_{ij} H(x_j),

364: \label{pecora}

365: \end{equation}

366: where $x_i$ with $i \in {1,2,... ,N}$ are dynamical variables, $F$ and

367: $H$ are an evolution and a coupling function respectively, and

368: $\sigma$ is a constant. A standard linear stability analysis can be

369: performed by i) expanding around a fully synchronized state

370: $x_1=x_2=\ldots=x_N=x^s$ with $x^s$ solution of $\dot{x^s} = F(x^s)$,

371: ii) diagonalizing $L$ to find its $N$ eigenvalues, and iii) writing

372: equations for the normal modes $y_i$ of perturbations

373: \begin{equation}

374:  \dot{y}_i =

375: \left[ F'(x^s) - \sig

376: \lam_i H'(x^s) \right] y_i,

377: \label{linear}

378: \end{equation}

379: all of them with the same form but different effective couplings

380: $\al=\sig \lam_i$. Barahona and Pecora noticed that the maximum

381: Lyapunov exponent for Eq. (\ref{linear}) is, in general, negative only

382: within a bounded interval $[\alpha_A,\alpha_B]$, and that it is a

383: decreasing (increasing) function below (above) (see fig. 1 in

384: \cite{Pecora}, and see also the related work by Wang and Chen

385: \cite{Wang} in which the case $[\alpha_A,\infty]$ is studied). Requiring all

386: effective couplings to lie within such an interval, $ \al_A < \sig

387: \lam_2 \le \ldots \le \sig \lam_N <

388: \al_B$, one concludes that a synchronized state is linearly stable if

389: and only if $ \frac{\lam_N}{\lam_2} < \frac{\alpha_B}{\alpha_A}$ for

390: the corresponding network. It is remarkable that the left hand side

391: depends only on the network topology while the right hand side depends

392: exclusively on the dynamics (through $F$ and $G$, and $x^s$).

393: 

394: As a conclusion, the interval in which the synchronized state is

395: stable is larger for smaller eigenratios $\lam_N/\lam_2$, and

396: therefore one concludes that {\it a network has a more robust

397: synchronized state if the ratio $Q = \lam_N/\lam_2$ is as small as

398: possible} \cite{Wang}. Also, as the range of variability of $\lam_N$

399: is limited (it is related to the maximum connectivity \cite{Mohar})

400: minimizing $Q$ gives very similar results to maximizing the

401: denominator $\lam_2$ in most cases. Indeed, as argued in \cite{Wang}

402: in cases where the maximum Lyapunov exponent is negative in an

403: un-bounded from above interval, the best synchronizability is obtained

404: by maximizing the spectral gap. 

405: 

406: It is straightforward to verify that for normalized dynamics, i.e.,

407: problems where a quotient $k_i$ appears in the coupling function in

408: Eq.(\ref{pecora}), the Laplacian eigenvalues have to be replaced by

409: the normalized-Laplacian ones, so the gap refers to $\lambda'_2$ and

410: $Q$ becomes $Q_{norm}= \lam'_N/\lam'_2$.

411: 

412: Summing up, {\it large spectral gaps favor stability of synchronized

413: states (synchronizability)}.

414: 

415: \subsection{Random walk properties}

416: 

417: One of the first and most studied models on graphs are random walks:

418: these are important both as a simple models of dispersion phenomena

419: and as a tool for exploring graph properties.

420: 

421: Indeed random walk properties are strictly related to the underlying

422: network structure and, in particular, to the eigenvalue spectrum of

423: the previously introduced matrices. At each step the transition

424: probability from vertex $i$ to vertex $j$ is trivially given by

425: $P_{ij} = {A_{ij} \over k_i}$. This defines a transition matrix $P$

426: for random walk dynamics, that can be written as $P= K^{-1} A =

427: K^{-1} (K - L) = I -\LN$ (where $I$ the identity matrix); therefore

428: the eigenvectors of $P$ and $\LN$ coincide and the eigenvalues are

429: linearly related.

430: 

431: In particular, the stationary probability distribution of the random

432: walk on a graph is given by the eigenvector corresponding to the

433: largest eigenvalue (1) of $P$, corresponding to $\lambda'=0$.  Then it

434: is easy to see that the convergence rate of a given initial

435: probability distribution towards its stationary distribution (also

436: called ``mixing rate'') is controlled by the second largest eigenvalue

437: of $P$, and therefore by the spectral gap of the normalized Laplacian

438: matrix: the larger $\lambda'_2$ the faster the decay

439: \cite{Nielsen,Lovasz}.

440: 

441: 

442: Another relevant property is the first passage time, $\tau_{i,j}$

443: between two sites $i$ and $j$, defined as the average time it takes

444: for a random walker to arrive for the first time to $j$ starting from

445: $i$. It can be expressed in terms of the eigenvectors ($u_k$) and

446: eigenvalues of the normalized Laplacian matrix as

447: \begin{equation*}

448:   \tau_{i,j} = 2 M \sum_{l=2...N} { \left(\frac{u_{l,i}}{\sqrt{k_i}}

449:       -\frac{u_{l,j}}{\sqrt{k_j}}\right)^2 \frac1{\lambda'_l} },

450: \end{equation*}

451: where $M$ is the number of link of the network (see \cite{Lovasz}).

452: For $k-$regular graphs the expression of its graph average, $\tau$,

453: can be simplified in the following way:

454: \begin{equation}

455: \tau = 2 k \frac{N}{N-1} \sum_{l=2...N} \frac1\lambda_l

456: \label{fp}

457: \end{equation}

458: A large $\lambda_2$ (which imply that also the following eigenvalues

459: cannot be small) gives an important contribution for keeping $\tau$ small.

460: Therefore large spectral gaps are associated with short first-passage times.

461: 

462: Finally, random walks move around quickly on graphs with large

463: spectral gap in the sense that they are very unlikely to stay long

464: within a given subset of vertices, $A$, unless its complementary

465: subgraph is very small \cite{Nielsen,Lovasz}.  This idea has been

466: exploited by Pons and Latapy \cite{PL} to detect communities

467: structures in networks by associating them to regions where random

468: walks remain trapped for some time. In conclusion: random walks escape

469: quickly from any subset $A$ if the spectral gap is large.

470: 

471: Summing up: {\it random walks move and disseminate fluently in large

472: spectral gap graphs}.  Related results, more details, and proofs of

473: these theorems can be found, for example in \cite{Nielsen,Lovasz}.

474: 

475: 

476: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

477: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

478: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

479: 

480: \section{IV. Explicit construction of Ramanujan Graphs}

481: 

482: The summary of the preceeding section is that if we are aimed at

483: designing network topologies with good synchronizability or

484: random-walk flow properties, we need criteria to construct graphs with

485: large spectral gaps.  On the other hand, as explained before,

486: Ramanujan graphs are optimal expanders, in the sense that a given

487: family of them, with growing $N$, will converge asymptotically from

488: above to the maximum possible value of the spectral gap.  Even if this does

489: not imply that for finite arbitrary values of $N$ they are optimal,

490: i.e. that they have the {\it largest} possible spectral gap, they

491: provide a very useful approach for the optimization of the spectral

492: gap problem.  Therefore, a good way to design optimal networks so is

493: to explicitly construct Ramanujan graphs by following the mathematical

494: literature on this respect  \cite{Valette,LPS,Margulis,Chiu}.

495: 

496: In this section we present a recipe for constructing explicitly

497: families of Ramanujan graphs while, in the following one, we will

498: construct large-spectral gap networks by employing a computational

499: optimization procedure. Readers not interested in the mathematical

500: constructions can safely skip this section.

501: 

502: 

503: \subsection{The recipe}

504: 

505: In recent years some explicit methods for the construction of

506: Ramanujan graphs have appear in the mathematical literature

507: \cite{LPS,Margulis}. We describe here only one of them.

508: While the proof that these graphs, constructed by Lubotzky, Phillips

509: and Sarnak \cite{LPS} (and independently by Margulis \cite{Margulis})

510: are Ramanujan graphs is a highly non-trivial one, their construction,

511: following the recipe we describe in what follows, is relatively simple

512: and can be implemented without too much effort.

513: 

514: 

515: Let us consider a given group $G$ and let $S \in G$ be a subset of

516: group elements not including the identity. The {\it Cayley graph}

517: associated with $G$ and $S$ is defined as the directed graph having

518: one vertex for each group element and directed edges connecting them

519: whenever one goes from one group element (vertex) to the other by

520: applying a group transformation in $S$. The absence of the identity in

521: $S$ guarantees that self-loops are absent. The Cayley graph depends on

522: the choice of the generating set $S$ and it is connected if and only

523: if $S$ generates $G$. Indeed, this will be the only case we consider

524: here.  Note that if for each element $s \in S$ its inverse $s^{-1}$

525: also belongs to $S$, then the associated Cayley graph becomes

526: undirected, which is the case in all what follows.

527: 

528: In the construction we discuss here, the group $G$ is given by

529: either by $PGL(2,Z/qZ)$ or by $PSL(2,Z/qZ)$. Consider the group of $2

530: \times 2$ matrices with elements in $Z/qZ$ (i.e. integer numbers

531: modulo $q$, where $q$ is an odd prime number); the elements of

532: $PGL(2,Z/qZ)$ ($PSL(2,Z/qZ)$) are the equivalence classes of matrices

533: with non-vanishing determinant (determinant equal to one) with respect

534: to multiplications by multiples of the identity matrix (i.e. to

535: matrices differing in multiples of the identity are considered to be

536: equal).

537: 

538: To specify the subset $S$ of Cayley graph generators, the integral

539: quaternions $H(Z) = \{ \alpha = a_0 + a_1 i + a_2 j + a_3 k: a_i \in Z

540: \} $ must be introduced. Quaternions can be casted in a matrix-like

541: form as \cite{Valette}:

542: \begin{equation}

543:  \left( \begin{array}{cc}

544:  a_0 + a_1 x +a_3 y & -a_1 y + a_2 + a_3 x \\

545: -a_1 y -a_2 + a_3 x & a_0 - a_1 x -a_3 y \end{array} \right)

546: \label{matrix}

547: \end{equation}

548: where $x,y$ are odd prime integers, satisfying $(x^2 + y^2 +1)\mod q =

549: 0$. Writing quaternions in this way, it turns out that their algebra

550: coincides with the standard algebra of matrices and the quaternion

551: norm $|\al|^2 = a_0^2+a_1^2+a_2^2+a_3^2$ is equal to the corresponding

552: matrix determinant. Now another odd prime number $p$ has to be

553: chosen. It can be shown that there are $8 (p+1)$ elements in $H(Z)$

554: satisfying $|\al|^2=p$. If $p \mod 4 = 1$ then by taking $a_0$ odd and

555: positive the number of solutions is reduced to $p+1$, while if $p \mod

556: 4 = 3$ then the number of solutions is reduced to $p+1$ by taking

557: $a_0$ even and requiring the first non-zero component to be positive.

558: 

559: If $p$ is a perfect square modulo $q$ such solutions can be mapped to

560: a set $S$ of $p+1$ matrices belonging $PSL(2,Z/qZ)$ (to guarantee that

561: all such matrices are distinct, one can take $q>2\sqrt{p}$). A

562: Ramanujan graph is then built as the Cayley graph with $G=PSL(2,Z/qZ)$

563: using the set $S$ of generators we just constructed; the number of

564: nodes is given by $N=q(q^2-1)/2$ (the number of elements of

565: $PSL(2,Z/qZ)$) and the degree of each node is $k=p+1$ (the elements of

566: $S$). If, otherwise, $p$ is not a perfect square modulo $q$ we map the

567: solutions to a set $S$ of $PGL(2,Z/qZ)$ matrices and a Ramanujan graph

568: is build as the Cayley graph with $G=PGL(2,Z/qZ)$ and the set $S$ just

569: constructed.  In this case $N=q(q^2-1)$ and $k=p+1$.

570: 

571: Putting all this together, Ramanujan graphs can be built by the

572: following procedure \cite{Code,Valette}:

573: 

574: \begin{itemize}

575: \item choose values of the odd prime numbers $q$ and $p$, with $q>2\sqrt{p}$;

576: 

577: \item associate the matrices of $PGL(2,Z/qZ)$ or $PSL(2,Z/qZ)$

578:   (depending on the relative values of $p$ and $q$) with graph nodes;

579: 

580: \item find the solutions of $a_0^2+a_1^2+a_2^2+a_3^2=p$, a solution of

581:   $(x^2 + y^2 +1)\mod q = 0$ and construct the matrices according to

582:   (\ref{matrix});

583: 

584: \item find the neighbors of each node by multiplying the corresponding

585:   matrix by the just constructed $p+1$ matrices, and represent them by

586:   edges.

587: 

588: \end{itemize}

589: 

590: In this way we construct regular graphs with a large spectral gap,

591: with some restrictions on the number of nodes $N$ and the degree $k$:

592: the degree can only be an odd prime number plus one, while the number

593: of nodes grows as the third power of $q$.

594: 

595:  

596: 

597: \subsection{Topological properties of the resulting graphs}

598: 

599: First of all, every Cayley graph is by construction a regular graph,

600: and so are the Ramanujan graphs built following the above procedure.

601: Moreover, Lubotzky, Phillips and Sarnak \cite{LPS} proved that

602: these graphs have a large girth (the {\it girth}, $g$, of a graph is

603: the length of the shortest loop or cycle, if any), providing a lower

604: bound for the $g$ which grows logarithmically with $q$ (its exact form

605: is different in the $PSL$ and $PGL$ cases).  To gain some more

606: intuition about the properties of this family of graph, we plot in the

607: left of figure (\ref{Rama}) the smallest one, corresponding to $k=4$

608: ($p=3$) and $120$ nodes ($q=5$).

609: \begin{figure}

610: \centerline{\psfig{file=r3-5.eps,width=6.0cm}

611: %\hspace{0.5cm}

612: %\vspace{0.0cm}

613: \psfig{file=r2-3.eps,width=7.0cm}}

614: % \includegraphics[width=.55 \linewidth]{r3-5.eps} 

615: %\hspace{2cm}

616: %\includegraphics[width=.55 \linewidth]{r2-3.eps} 

617: %\vspace{-0.3cm}

618: \caption{

619: Ramanujan graphs with (left) degree $k=4$ ($p=3$) and $120$ nodes

620: ($q=5$), and (right) $k=3$ ($p=2$) and $24$ nodes ($q=3$).}

621: \label{Rama}

622: \end{figure}

623: 

624: Some remarks on its topological properties are in order.  The average

625: distance $3.714$ is relatively small (i.e. one reaches any of the

626: $120$ nodes starting from any arbitrary origin in less than four

627: steps, on average). The betweenness centrality \cite{betweenness} $

628: 161.5$ is also relatively small, and takes the same value for all

629: nodes. The clustering coefficient vanishes, reflecting the absence or

630: short loops (triangles), and the minimum loop size is large, equal to

631: $6$, and identical for all the nodes.  In a nutshell: {\it the network

632: homogeneity is remarkable; all nodes look alike, forming rather

633: intricate, decentralized structure, with delta-peak distributed

634: topological properties.}

635: 

636: 

637: \subsection{Extension to $k=3$}

638: 

639: P. Chiu, extended the previous method to consider also graphs with

640: degree $3$ (i.e. $p=2$; note that the previous construction was

641: restricted to odd prime values of $p$). To do this, one just needs to

642: consider the following $3$ generators \cite{Chiu}:

643: \begin{equation}

644: \left( \begin{array}{cc}

645: 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{array} \right), \left( \begin{array}{cc}

646: 2+\sqrt{-2} & \sqrt{-26} \\ \sqrt{-26} & 2-\sqrt{-2} \end{array}

647: \right), \left( \begin{array}{cc} 2-\sqrt{-2} & -\sqrt{-26} \\ -

648: \sqrt{-26} & 2+\sqrt{-2} \end{array} \right),

649: \label{matrix7}

650: \end{equation}

651: acting on the elements of $PGL(2,Z/qZ)$ or $PGL(2,Z/qZ)$ as before.

652: 

653: In the right part of figure (\ref{Rama}) we show the smallest

654: Ramanujan graph with degree $k=3$ ($p=2$) and $24$ nodes ($q=3$).

655: This is slightly less homogeneous than the one with $k=4$, but it is

656: as homogeneous as possible given the previous values of $N$ and

657: $k$. The average distance is also small in this case, $3.13$, the

658: betweenness is $24.50$ for all nodes, the clustering vanishes, and

659: the size of the minimum loop is $4$.  While for edges, the edge

660: betweenness \cite{betweenness} is $27.31$ for $12 $ edges while it is

661: $22.34$, for the remaining $24$ edges; indicating that the net is

662: not fully homogeneous in this case, but not far from homogeneous

663: either.

664: 

665: Summing up, the main topological features of these Ramanujan graphs is

666: that they are very homogeneous: properties as the average distance,

667: betweenness, minimum loop size, etc are very narrowly distributed

668: (they are delta peeks in many cases). Also, compared to generic random

669: regular graphs, their averaged distance is smaller and the

670: average minimum loop size is larger.  A main limitation of Ramanujan

671: graphs constructed in this way is that, for a fixed connectivity, the

672: possible network sizes are restricted to specific, fast growing

673: values.

674: 

675: 

676: \section{V. Construction of networks by computational optimization}

677: 

678: An alternative route to build up optimal networks with an arbitrary

679: number of nodes and an as-large-as-possible spectral gap or (almost

680: equivalently) an as-small-as-possible synchronizability ratio

681: $Q=\lambda_N/\lambda_2$ is by employing a computational optimization

682: process. Note, that enumerating all possible graphs with fixed $N$ and

683: $\langle k \rangle$, and looking explicitly for the minimum value of

684: $Q$ or largest gap, is a non-polynomial problem and, hence,

685: approximate optimization approaches are mandatory \cite{Entangled}.

686: In this section, we focus on optimizing the Laplacian spectral gap

687: while in section VIII we will tackle the normalized Laplacian case and

688: discuss the differences between the two of them.

689: 

690: \subsection{The algorithm}

691: 

692: The idea is to implement a modified {\it simulated annealing}

693: algorithm \cite{SA} which, starting from a random network with the

694: desired number of nodes $N$ and average connectivity-degree $ \langle

695: k \rangle$, and by performing successive rewirings, leads

696: progressively to networks with larger and larger spectral gaps or

697: smaller and smaller eigenratios $Q$. As the spectral gap will be very

698: large in the emerging networks, they will be typically Ramanujan

699: graphs (whenever they are regular).

700: 

701: The computational algorithm is as follows \cite{Entangled}. At each

702: step a number of rewiring trials is randomly extracted from an

703: exponential distribution. Each of them consists in removing a randomly

704: selected link, and introducing a new one joining two random nodes

705: (self-loops are not allowed). Attempted rewirings are (i) rejected if

706: the updated network is disconnected, and otherwise (ii) accepted if

707: $\delta Q= Q_{final}-Q_{initial} <0$, or (iii) accepted with

708: probability

709: \cite{Penna} $p = \min\left( 1, [1-(1-q) \delta Q/T]^{1/(1-q)}\right)$

710: (where $T$ is a temperature-like parameter) if $\delta Q \geq 0$. Note

711: that, in the limit $q \to 1$ we recover the usual Metropolis

712: algorithm. Instead we choose $q=-3$ which we have verified to give the

713: fastest convergence, although the output does not essentially depend

714: on this choice \cite{Penna}. The first $N$ rewirings are performed at

715: $T=\infty$. They are used to calculate a new $T$ such that the largest

716: $\delta Q$ among the first $N$ ones would be accepted with some large

717: probability: $T=(1-q)\cdot(\delta Q)_{max}$. Then $T$ is kept fixed

718: for $100N$ rewiring trials or $10N$ accepted ones, whichever occurs

719: first. Afterwards, $T$ is decreased by $10\%$ and the process iterated

720: until there is no change during $5$ successive temperature steps,

721: assuming that a (relative) minimum of $Q$ has been found. It is

722: noteworthy that most of these details can be changed without affecting

723: significatively the final results, while two algorithm drawbacks are

724: that the calculation of eigenvalues is slow and that the dynamic can

725: get trapped into ``metastable states'' (corresponding to local but not

726: global extreme values) as we illustrate in \cite{Entangled}.

727: 

728: Running the algorithm for different initial networks, we find that

729: whenever $N$ is small enough (say $N \lesssim 30$), the

730: output-topology is unique in most of the runs, while some dispersion

731: in the outputs is generated for larger $N$ ($N=2000$ is the larger

732: size we have optimized). This is an evidence that the $Q$ absolute

733: minimum is not always found for large graphs, and that the evolving

734: network can remain trapped in metastable states. In any event, the

735: final values of $Q$ are very similar from run to run, starting with

736: different initial conditions, as shown in fig.~\ref{Evolution}, which

737: makes us confident that a reasonably good and robust approximation to

738: the optimal topology is typically obtained, though, strictly speaking,

739: we cannot guarantee that the optimal solution has been actually found,

740: especially for large values of $N$.

741: \begin{figure}

742: \centerline{

743: \psfig{file=fig1.eps,width=8.5cm}}

744: \caption{Eigenvalue ratio, $Q$ as a function of the number of algorithmic

745: iterations, starting from different initial conditions (random

746: network, small-world, linear chain, and scale free network) with

747: $N=50$, and $\langle k \rangle=4$. The algorithm leads to topologies

748: as the one depicted in figure 4.}

749: \label{Evolution}

750: \end{figure}

751: 

752: 

753: \subsection{Topological properties of the emerging network}

754: In figures (\ref{Cages}) and (\ref{Entangled}) we illustrate the

755: appearance of the networks emerging out of the optimization procedure,

756: that we call {\it entangled networks}, for different values of $N$ and

757: $\langle k \rangle$.

758: \begin{figure}

759: \centerline{

760: \psfig{file=petersen.ps,width=3.5cm}

761: \hspace{2cm}

762: \psfig{file=mcgee.ps,width=3.5cm}}

763: \caption{Optimal, entangled, networks obtained as output of the optimization

764: procedure for $k =3$ with $N=10$ and $N=24$. The left one is a

765: Petersen cage graph (k=3, girth=5). The one to the right is a McGee

766: cage graph (k=3, girth=7).}

767: \label{Cages}

768: \end{figure}

769: Remarkably, for some small values of $N$ and $k$ (see figure

770: (\ref{Cages})), it is possible to identify the resulting optimized

771: networks with well-known ones in graph theory: {\it cage graphs}

772: \cite{Cages,Bollobas}. 

773: 

774: A $(k,g)$-cage graph is a $k$-regular graph with girth $g$ having the

775: minimum possible number of nodes.  Cage graphs have a vast number of

776: applications in computer science and theoretical graph analysis

777: \cite{Cages,Bollobas}.  For $k=3$ and $N=10, 14$, and $24$,

778: respectively, the optimal nets found by the algorithm are cage-graphs

779: with girth $5$, $6$, and $7$ respectively (called $Petersen$,

780: $Heawood$ and $McGee$ graphs in the mathematical literature; see

781: fig.(\ref{Cages}) and also the nice picture gallery and mathematical

782: details in \cite{Cages}). We also recover other cage graphs for small

783: values of $N$ for $k=4$ and $k=5$.

784: \begin{figure}

785: \centerline{

786: \psfig{file=ramanujan.eps,width=5.0cm}}

787: \caption{Optimal, entangled, network obtained as output of the optimization

788: procedure for $k=4$ with $N=50$.}

789: \label{Entangled}

790: \end{figure}

791: For some other small values of $N$, cage graphs do not exist. For

792: example, for $k=3$ and girths, $3, 4, 5, 6$, and $7$ the Cage graphs have

793: the sizes: $N=4, 6, 10, 14$, and $24$ respectively

794: \cite{Cages}. Therefore, for sizes as $N=12$ or $N=16$ there is no

795: cage with $k=3$. In these cases, our optimization procedure leads to

796: graphs similar to cages (see figure

797: \ref{NoCages}) in which the shortest loops are as large as possible,

798: and all of them have very similar lengths. In this sense, our family

799: of optimal graphs provides us with topologies ``interpolating''

800: between well known cage graphs.

801: 

802: \begin{figure}

803: \centerline{

804: \psfig{file=g12-3.ps,width=3.5cm}

805: \hspace{2cm}

806: \psfig{file=g16-3.ps,width=3.5cm}}

807: \caption{Optimal, entangled, networks obtained as output of the optimization

808: procedure for $k =3$ with $N=12$ and $N=16$. They do not correspond to

809: cage-graphs.}

810: \label{NoCages}

811: \end{figure}

812: 

813: 

814: In the emerging entangled networks short loops are severely suppressed

815: as said before. This can be quantified by either the {\it girth} or

816: more accurately by the average length, $\langle \ell \rangle$, of the

817: shortest loop from each node. In particular, the clustering

818: coefficient (measuring the number of triangular loops in the net)

819: vanishes, as loops have typically more than three edges.

820: 

821: 

822: To have a more precise characterization of the emerging topologies,

823: especially for larger graphs (see figure (\ref{Entangled})), we

824: monitored different topological properties during the optimization

825: process, as shown in figure (\ref{evolution}).

826: \begin{figure}

827: \centerline{

828: \psfig{file=fig2.eps,width=10.0cm}}

829: \caption{Relation between the ratio $Q$ and (i) node-degree standard

830: deviation, (ii) betweenness standard deviation, (iii) average

831: node-distance, and (iv) average betweenness. The subscript ``norm''

832: stands for normalization with respect to the respective mean-values,

833: centering all the measured quantities around $1$. They all decrease on

834: average as the optimization procedure goes.}

835: \label{evolution}

836: \end{figure}

837: The node-degree standard deviation typically decreases as $Q$

838: decreases meaning that the optimal topology approaches a regular one.

839: The betweenness standard deviation also decreases with $Q$ implying

840: that optimal networks tend to be as homogeneous as possible, and that

841: all nodes play essentially the same role in flow properties.  Also,

842: the average node distance and average betweenness are progressively

843: diminished on average: nodes are progressively closer to each other

844: and the network becomes less centralized as the optimization procedure

845: runs. It has also been numerically verified that the average first

846: passage times of random walk is reduced during the network

847: optimization.

848: 

849: The fact that the betweenness distribution is very narrow, indicates

850: that (following an original idea by Girvan and Newman \cite{GN}) it is

851: very difficult to divide the network into communities. Indeed, in the

852: algorithm proposed in \cite{GN} to identify communities, links with

853: high betweenness centrality are progressively cut out; if all links

854: have the same centrality the method becomes useless and communities

855: are hardly distinguishable.

856: 

857: 

858: We have named the emerging structures {\it entangled networks}, to

859: account for their very intricate and interwoven topology, with

860: extremely high homogeneity in different topological properties, poor

861: modularity or community structure, and large loops.  In particular, as

862: the spectral gap is very large and they tend to be regular, entangled

863: nets are usually Ramanujan graphs.

864: 

865: We have also exploited our understanding of the entangled-topology to

866: generate optimal networks more efficiently. In particular, given the

867: convergence in all the explored cases to almost regular networks, we

868: have constructed an improved version of the algorithm in which we

869: start with random regular nets and rewire edges in such a way that the

870: original degree distribution is preserved (indeed, most of the

871: entangled networks depicted in this section are obtained using this

872: improved algorithm). For this, links are selected by pairs, an origin

873: node is selected for each one and the two end nodes are exchanged as

874: shown in figure \ref{rewiring}. We have observed numerically that the

875: convergence towards optimal solutions is faster when constraining the

876: optimization to the regular networks and that for large values of $N$

877: the final outputs have smaller values of $Q$ than the original ones

878: % generated

879: %by the non $k$-degree preserving version of the algorithm,

880: (owing to the fact that it is less likely to fall into metastable

881: states).  The discussed topological traits remain unaffected.

882: \begin{figure}

883: \centerline{ 

884: \psfig{file=rewiring.xfig.eps,width=7.5cm}}

885: \caption{Rewiring attempt in the connectivity conserving

886: version of the algorithm.}

887: \label{rewiring}

888: \end{figure}

889: 

890: 

891: 

892: \subsection{Comparing Cayley-graph Ramanujans with Entangled networks}

893: 

894: \subsubsection{Small sizes: Cage graphs}

895: 

896: If we are to design optimal networks with a small number of vertices

897: (say $N < 100$) then entangled networks (and hence, cage-graphs,

898: whenever they exist) are a better choice than Ramanujan nets based on

899: Cayley-graphs, as those constructed in the previous section. First,

900: these second do exist only for a few small values of $N$. Second,

901: because even when such Ramanujan graphs exist entangled network

902: outperform them, as they have a smaller value of $Q$ (larger spectral

903: gap) which has been optimized on-purpose.

904: 

905: 

906: \subsubsection{Large sizes}

907: For large values of $N$ (say $N >100$) entangled networks are

908: difficult to construct as the optimization algorithm becomes not

909: affordably time-consuming. Instead, Cayley-graph Ramanujan networks,

910: whenever they can be constructed, are a better choice. They are easy

911: and fast to construct by following the recipe described in a previous

912: section and they provide large spectral gaps, closer and closer to the

913: optimal value (asymptotic upper bound) as $N$ increases.

914: 

915: 

916: \section{VI. Related problems and similar topologies}

917: 

918: In this section we illustrate how entangled networks and Ramanujan

919: graphs play a crucial role in different contexts, and emerge as

920: optimal (or close to optimal) solutions for a number of network

921: optimization problems.

922: 

923: 

924: \subsection{Local search with congestion}

925: 

926: This is one of the examples illustrated in the introduction, and has

927: been recently tackled by Guimer\'a et al. \cite{Catalans}. By defining

928: an appropriate {\it search cost} function these authors explore which

929: is the ideal topology to optimize searchability and facilitate

930: communication processes.  They arrive at the conclusion that, while in

931: the absence of traffic congestion a star-like (centralized) topology

932: is the optimal one (as briefly discussed in the introduction) when the

933: density of information-packets traveling through the net is above a

934: given threshold (i.e. when there is {\it flow congestion}) the optimal

935: topology is a highly homogeneous one. In this last, all nodes have

936: essentially the same degree, the same betweenness, and short loops are

937: absent (see figure 1 in \cite{Catalans}). These networks resemble

938: enormously the entangled and Ramanujan nets described above.

939: 

940: For a similar comparison between centralized and de-centralized

941: transport in networks, see \cite{Congestion}. Also here,

942: decentralized, highly homogeneous, structures emerge as optimal ones

943: under certain circumstances.

944: 

945: 

946: \subsection{Network structures from selection principles}

947: 

948: In a recent letter, Colizza et al. \cite{Maritan} have addressed the

949: search of optimal topologies by using different {\it selection

950: principles}. In particular they minimize a global cost function

951: defined as

952: \begin{equation}

953:  H_{\alpha} = \sum_{i < j} d_{ij} (\alpha)

954: \end{equation}

955: with

956: \begin{equation}

957:  d_{ij} (\alpha) = \min_P \sum_{p\in P: i \rightarrow j} k_p^{\alpha}. 

958: \end{equation}

959: This is, the cost function is the sum over pairs of sites of their

960: relative $\alpha$-dependent distance. The distance between two nodes

961: is the minimum of the sum of $k_p^\alpha$ ($k_p$ is the degree of node

962: $p$) over all possible paths connecting the two nodes. In this way,

963: for $\alpha=0$ the standard distance is recovered. On the other hand,

964: for large values of $\alpha$, highly connected vertices (hubs) are

965: strongly penalized. In this way, and rephrasing the authors of

966: \cite{Maritan}, the generalized definition of the distance ``captures

967: the conflict between two different trends: the avoidance of long paths

968: and the desire to skip heavy traffic''. For small values of $\alpha$

969: (standard distance) the best topology include central hubs

970: (centralized communication), while for $\alpha >1$ the dominant

971: tendency is towards degree minimization, leading to open tree-like

972: structures. For intermediate cases, i. e. $\alpha=0.5$ topologies

973: extremely similar to entangled networks, with long loops and very high

974: homogeneity, have been reported to emerge (see figure 3c in

975: \cite{Maritan}).

976: 

977: 

978: \subsection{Performance of neural networks}

979: 

980: Recently Kim concluded that neural networks with a clustering

981: coefficient as small as possible exhibit much better performance than

982: others \cite{BJK}. Entangled nets have a very low clustering

983: coefficient as only large loops exist and, therefore, they are natural

984: candidates to constitute an excellent topology to achieve good

985: performance and high capacity in artificial neural networks.

986: 

987: 

988: \subsection{Robustness and resilience}

989: 

990: The problem of constructing networks whose robustness against random

991: and/or intentional removal is as high as possible has attracted a lot

992: of attention. In particular, in a recent paper \cite{2peak}, it has

993: been shown that for generalized random graphs in the limit

994: $N\to\infty$ the most robust topology (in the sense that the

995: corresponding percolation threshold is as large as possible) has a

996: degree distribution with no more than $3$ distinct node

997: connectivities; i.e. with a homogeneous degree-distribution as

998: homogeneous as possible.

999: 

1000: 

1001: To study the possible connection with our extremely homogeneous

1002: entangled networks, let us recall that the topology we have considered

1003: to initialize the improved version of the optimization algorithm

1004: (i.e. random $k$-regular graphs) is already the optimal solution for

1005: robustness-optimization against (combined) errors and attacks in

1006: random networks \cite{2peak}. A natural question to ask is whether

1007: further $Q$-optimization has some effect on the network

1008: robustness. This and related questions have been analyzed in

1009: \cite{Entangled}, where it was shown that indeed, $Q$ minimization

1010: implies a robustness improvement. This occurs owing to the generation

1011: of non-trivial correlations in entangled structures, which place them

1012: away from the range of applicability of the result in \cite{2peak}

1013: (they are not random networks).  Hence, entangled networks are also

1014: extremely efficient from the robustness point of view. This conclusion

1015: also holds for {\it reliability} against link removal \cite{Myrvold}.

1016:  

1017: 

1018: \section{VII. The connection with the Bethe lattice}

1019: 

1020: In this section we will show how entangled networks are related to the

1021: infinite regular tree called {\it Bethe lattice} (or Bethe tree) in

1022: the physics literature. 

1023: 

1024: Intuitively, whenever around a given node of a regular graph only

1025: large loops are present, the neighborhood of such node looks as the

1026: one in a Bethe tree, up to a distance equal to the half of the

1027: shortest loop length (see for instance the center of the graph

1028: depicted to the right of figure \ref{NoCages}).  Therefore, if the

1029: girth diverges in a family of graphs, the neighborhood of each node

1030: tends to look locally like a Bethe, up to a growing distance.

1031: 

1032: %% Just to provide with some further intuition, observe how the

1033: %% central part of the rightmost graph in figure \ref{NoCages}

1034: %% resembles a Cayley tree, and the full graph is a closure of it.

1035: 

1036: We notice that the asymptotic spectral gap of regular graphs is

1037: bounded by the one of the Bethe tree, $\lambda_2 \leq k- 2

1038: \sqrt{k-1})$ (see equation (\ref{inequality2})) \cite{bethegap}. 

1039: We can express this bound in terms of the spectral properties of the

1040: adjacency matrix (since the graphs are regular, the results can be

1041: easily translated to $L$ and $\LN$).

1042: 

1043: The moments $m_n$ of the adjacency matrix eigenvalues $\mu_i$ can be

1044: trivially expressed through the trace of the $n$-th power of $A$ \cite{LPS}:

1045: \begin{equation}

1046:   \label{eq:moms} m_n = \frac1N \sum_i \mu_i^n = \frac1N \sum_i

1047:   (A^n)_{ii}.

1048: \end{equation}

1049: It is easy to see that the diagonal elements of $A^n$ represent the

1050: number of paths of length $n$ starting and ending at the corresponding

1051: node. Clearly, if $n$ is smaller than the girth of the graph the paths

1052: do not contain loops and their number is equal to the number of such

1053: paths for a node of the Bethe lattice and therefore equal for all the

1054: nodes. The eigenvalue moments for the infinite Bethe lattice can be

1055: obtained in a similar way, with the only difference that the

1056: eigenvalue distribution is now a continuous spectral density

1057: \cite{density}. The sum in equation~(\ref{eq:moms}) is now an integral

1058: and the adjacency matrix is a linear operator; however it is still

1059: possible to express the $n$-th moments as the number of length-$n$

1060: paths from a node to itself. As a result the moments $m_n$ of the

1061: adjacency matrix eigenvalues of a regular graph with girth $g$ are

1062: equal to the moment of the spectral density 

1063: \begin{equation}

1064:   \label{eq:specden} \rho(\mu) = \frac{k \sqrt{4(k-1)-\mu^2}}{2 \pi

1065:   (k^2 -\mu^2)}\ , \quad \text{for } |\mu| \le 2\sqrt{k-1}

1066: \end{equation}

1067: of the Bethe tree \cite{bethedensity}, for every $n<g$. 

1068: 

1069: The previous argument can be generalized and it can be rigorously

1070: proven \cite{mckay} that for an infinite sequence $G_n$ of $k$-regular

1071: graphs, if the number of loops of length $l$ grows slower than the

1072: number of nodes for every $l$ then, the spectral density tends to the

1073: one in equation~(\ref{eq:specden}). Hence, we expect a fast

1074: convergence for graphs with large girth as the ones discussed before.

1075: 

1076: To illustrate this, in figure \ref{spden} we plot the Bethe lattice

1077: integrated spectral density as a function of the eigenvalues for $k=4$

1078: and compare it with the one calculated for a Ramanujan graph with

1079: $6840$ nodes ($q=19$) and also $k=4$ ($p=3$). The agreement is very

1080: remarkable given the finite size of the Ramanujan graph.

1081: 

1082: \begin{figure}

1083: \centerline{ 

1084: \psfig{file=spden.eps,width=7.5cm}}

1085: \caption{Integrated spectral density as a function of the adjacency matrix eigenvalues 

1086: for the Bethe lattice (infinite size) and for a Ramanujan graph with

1087: $N=6840$, both with $k=4$.}

1088: \label{spden}

1089: \end{figure}

1090: 

1091: Therefore, both from the (local) topological and the spectral point of

1092: view, a family of entangled networks (or Ramanujan graphs) with

1093: growing size and girth can be used as the best possible way to

1094: approach infinite Bethe lattices with a sequence of finite lattices.

1095: This would have applications in a vast number of problems in physics,

1096: for which exact solutions in the Bethe lattice exist, but comparisons

1097: with numerics in sufficiently large lattices are difficult to obtain.

1098: In particular, approximations of Bethe lattice obtained by truncating

1099: the number of generations (Cayley trees) include a large (extensive)

1100: amount of boundary effects (losing the original homogeneity) and

1101: are therefore not a convenient finite approximation. Good

1102: approximations should avoid strong boundary effects and preserve the

1103: Bethe lattice homogeneity, and entangled networks can play such a

1104: role.

1105: 

1106: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1107: 

1108: \section{VIII. A way out of homogeneity: weighted dynamics}

1109: 

1110: 

1111: While most of the literature on synchronization refers to Laplacian

1112: couplings as specified by equation (\ref{pecora}), different coupling

1113: functions can be relevant in some contexts. For example, another

1114: natural choice would be

1115: \begin{equation}

1116: \dot{x}_i = 

1117: F(x_i) + {\sig\over k_i}   \sum_{j\in n.n. i} [ H(x_j) -H(x_i)] =

1118: F(x_i) - {\sig\over k_i}   \sum_j  L_{ij} H(x_j),

1119: \label{norma}

1120: \end{equation}

1121: relevant in cases where the joint effect of the $k_i$ neighbors of

1122: node $i$ is normalized by the connectivity $k_i$. With this type of

1123: dynamics, the effect of neighbors has the same weight for all nodes,

1124: while in the absence of the normalization factor, $k_i$, sites with

1125: higher connectivity are more strongly coupled to their neighbors than

1126: loosely connected ones. This describes properly real-world situations,

1127: as for instance neural networks, where the influence of the

1128: neighboring environment on the node dynamics does not grow with the

1129: number of connections. Observe that, even if the underlying topology

1130: is unweighted and undirected, the normalization factor is such that

1131: {\it the dynamics is directed and weighted}, owing to the presence of

1132: $k_i$ in eq.(\ref{norma}).

1133: 

1134: In a recent paper Motter and coauthors have undertaken a study of

1135: synchronizability by using a generalization of the previous normalized

1136: dynamics eq.(\ref{norma}), by employing a normalization factor

1137: $k_i^\beta$, with $\beta \geq 0$ \cite{Zhou}. These authors conclude

1138: that the most robust network synchronizability is obtained for

1139: $\beta=1$, which leads back to Eq.(\ref{norma}).

1140: 

1141: {\it What is the influence of the normalization factor on the results

1142: reported on this paper?}

1143: 

1144: First of all, the optimal synchronizability problem, as discussed in

1145: section III, can be straightforwardly translated for the new dynamics

1146: just by replacing Eq.(\ref{pecora}) by Eq.(\ref{norma}). The optimal

1147: topology for synchronizability in ``normalized'' dynamical processes

1148: is that minimizing the eigenratio $Q_{norm}=\lambda'_N/\lambda'_2$,

1149: ($\lambda'_i$ denote the normalized Laplacian eigenvalues).  Hence, by

1150: employing the normalized dynamics, we have a new class of optimization

1151: problems, analogous but different to the ones studied before along

1152: this paper.

1153: 

1154: We have implemented different versions of our modified simulated

1155: annealing algorithm (in its more general, not degree-conserving,

1156: version) to optimize either $Q_{norm}$ or the normalized spectral gap

1157: $\lambda'_2$. 

1158: % Before proceeding let us emphasize that as the determinant of

1159: % $K^{-1} L - \nu I$ coincides with that of $K^{-1/2} L K^{1/2} - \nu

1160: % I$ the eigenvalues of the normalized Laplacian do not depend on

1161: % whether the Laplacian normalizing factor is $k_i$ or $\sqrt{k_i

1162: % k_j}$. This last one generates a symmetric matrix and simplifies the

1163: % computations. 

1164: After going through the optimization algorithm with

1165: normalized-Laplacian eigenvalues, as described in section V, one

1166: observes that the emerging optimally synchronizable nets have a {\it

1167: non-homogeneous structure}. For some relatively small values of $N$

1168: and $\langle k \rangle=3$ the optimal topologies are shown in figure

1169: \ref{newgraphs}, while in figure \ref{newgraphs2} we depict an optimal

1170: net with $100$ nodes.

1171: \begin{figure}

1172: \centerline{

1173: \psfig{file=opt10.ps,width=4.0cm}

1174: \psfig{file=opt12.ps,width=4.0cm}

1175: \psfig{file=opt20.ps,width=4.0cm}}

1176: \caption{Optimal nets for normalized-Laplacian dynamics, 

1177: with $\langle k \rangle=3$ and $N=10, 12$, and $20$ respectively.}

1178: \label{newgraphs}

1179: \end{figure}

1180: 

1181: \begin{figure}

1182: \centerline{

1183: \psfig{file=rh100-2.1-0.eps,width=6.0cm}}

1184: \caption{Optimal net for normalized-Laplacian dynamics, 

1185: with $\langle k \rangle=3$ and $N=100$.}

1186: \label{newgraphs2}

1187: \end{figure}

1188: 

1189: Observe the remarkable difference with previously studied networks:

1190: here homogeneity is drastically reduced. To illustrate this, in figure

1191: \ref{degree} we plot the degree distribution obtained when optimizing

1192: for $\langle k \rangle=4$ with $N=200$ and $N=1000$ respectively. The

1193: resemblance between these two distributions seems to indicate that a

1194: limit degree-distribution exists. Roughly speaking it decays faster

1195: than exponentially, but still with a much higher degree of

1196: heterogeneity than before where we had delta-peaked distributions.

1197: 

1198: The new emerging topologies exhibit a competition between the

1199: existence of central nodes and peripheral ones similarly to the

1200: networks studied in \cite{Congestion}. By maximizing the spectral gap

1201: $\lambda'_2$, rather than $\lambda'_N/\lambda'_2$ we obtain very

1202: similar results (not shown here). These new optimal topologies are

1203: very similar to those obtained by Colizza et al. \cite{Maritan} in

1204: cases where the minimization of node-degree dominates (see figure 3d

1205: in

1206: \cite{Maritan}).

1207: 

1208: 

1209: Let us remark that for the normalized-Laplacian, some eigenvalues

1210: bounds, analogous to those for $L$ exist; in particular \cite{Chung}

1211: \begin{equation}

1212: 0 < \lambda'_2 \leq {N \over N-1} \leq \lambda'_N \leq 2.

1213: \label{nl}

1214: \end{equation}

1215: However, concepts analogous to ``expanders'' or ``Ramanujan'' have not

1216: been defined for general, non-regular, graphs.

1217: \begin{figure}[h]

1218: \centerline{

1219: \psfig{file=degree2.ps,width=9.5cm,angle=-90}}

1220: \caption{Semi-logarithmic plot of the degree distribution of optimal weighted

1221: networks with $\langle k \rangle =4$ and (i) $N=200$ averaged over

1222: $17$ runs (black curve with down-triangles) and (ii) $N=1000$ for a

1223: single run (red curve with up-triangles).}

1224: \label{degree}

1225: \end{figure} 

1226: 

1227: Finally, it is interesting to observe that our results are in apparent

1228: contradiction with the conclusion by Motter et al. \cite{Zhou} that

1229: for their case $\beta=1$, corresponding to our normalized Laplacian,

1230: and large {\it sufficiently random networks} the eigenratio $Q$ does

1231: not depend on details of the network topology, but only on its mean

1232: degree \cite{Zhou}. If this was indeed the case for any network

1233: topology, our optimization procedure would be pointless. Instead,

1234: applying the minimization algorithm, starting from any arbitrary

1235: finite random network, we observe a progressive $Q$ optimization, and

1236: highly non-trivial non-random optimal structures are actually

1237: generated. This apparent contradiction is likely to be due to the

1238: building up of non-trivial correlations during the optimization

1239: process, which converts our network into highly non-random structures

1240: far away from the {\it sufficiently random} requirement in

1241: \cite{Zhou}.

1242: 

1243: \section{IX. Discussion and Conclusions}

1244: 

1245: In this paper we have reviewed recent developments in the design of

1246: optimal network topologies.

1247: 

1248: First of all we have related the problem of finding optimal topologies

1249: for many dynamical and physical problems, such as optimal

1250: synchronizability and random walk flow on networks, to the search of

1251: networks with large spectral gaps.  This connection allows us to

1252: relate optimal networks to expanders and Ramanujan graphs, well-known

1253: concepts in graph-theory which, by construction, have large spectral

1254: gaps. In one of the sections we have given, following the existing

1255: mathematical literature, a recipe to explicitly construct Ramanujan

1256: graphs.

1257: 

1258: On the other hand, we have employed a simulated annealing algorithm

1259: which selects progressively networks with better synchronizability,

1260: i.e. networks with larger spectral gaps. When applied to problems with

1261: un-normalized Laplacian dynamics this algorithm leads to what we call

1262: ``entangled'' topologies.  These are optimal expanders, and can be

1263: loosely described as being extremely homogeneous, having long loops,

1264: poor modularity, and short node-to-node distances. They are optimal or

1265: almost optimal for many different communication and flow processes

1266: defined on regular networks. In particular these topologies are

1267: relevant for the design of efficient communication networks,

1268: construction of error-correcting codes with very efficient encoding

1269: and decoding algorithms, de-randomization of random algorithms,

1270: traffic problems with congestion, and analysis of algorithms in

1271: computational group theory.  Remarkably, they also provide a good

1272: finite-size approximation to Bethe lattices.

1273: 

1274: Even though these topologies play an important role in human-designed

1275: networks, especially in Computer Science and Algorithmics, they do not

1276: seem to appear frequently in Nature. Indeed, most of the topologies

1277: described in recent years for biological, ecological, social, or

1278: technological networks exhibit a very heterogeneous scale-free degree

1279: distribution \cite{Strogatz,Laszlo,Newman,Porto,AleRomu,Boccaletti},

1280: at odd with the extremely homogeneous entangled topologies.  To

1281: justify this, first of all we should emphasize that optimal entangled

1282: networks are obtained performing a {\it global} optimization

1283: procedure, which might be not very realistic. For example, by adding a

1284: new node to a given optimal network, in some cases the full entangled

1285: topology has to be altered to convey with the requirement of

1286: maximizing the spectral gap. This is certainly impractical for growing

1287: networks.

1288: 

1289: On the other hand, we should also note that there are ingredients that

1290: could be (and actually are) relevant for the determination of optimal

1291: networks in real-world problems and that have not being considered

1292: here. A non exhaustive list of examples is:

1293: 

1294: \begin{itemize}

1295: \item nodes might be non equivalent,

1296: 

1297: \item links could support different variable weights,

1298: 

1299: \item directed networks might be mandatory in some cases,

1300: 

1301: \item in some real-world networks nodes are embedded into a geography 

1302: and, therefore, the distances between them should be taken into

1303: account as a sort of quenched disorder (see for instance,

1304: \cite{Gastner,Barthelemy} for application to communication infrastructures).

1305: 

1306: \end{itemize}

1307: 

1308: However, our entangled networks are still relevant for any type of

1309: un-directed un-weighted networks in which none of these effects plays

1310: an important role, and where communication properties are to be

1311: maximized. Numerous examples have being cited above and along the

1312: paper.

1313: 

1314: In the last section of the paper, we have ``enlarged our horizon'' by

1315: studying a different type of dynamical processes, that could be argued

1316: to be more realistic in some circumstances: instead of analyzing

1317: Laplacian coupling between the network nodes we shifted to the study

1318: of normalized-Laplacian coupling, which lead to weighted and directed

1319: dynamics. This is characterized by the presence of a ``normalized

1320: dynamics'' in which the relative influence of the neighbors on a given

1321: site does not depend on the site connectivity. In particular, this

1322: type of dynamics might be more adequate to describe random walks and

1323: general diffusion processes on general (not necessarily regular)

1324: networks. In this case, an optimization procedure analogous to the one

1325: described before, leads to much more heterogeneous optimal topologies,

1326: including hubs, and a much broader degree distribution. This makes the

1327: emerging optimal networks closer to real-world topologies than

1328: entangled networks, while still keeping the global-optimization

1329: perspective. Along this same line of reasoning, other alternative

1330: types of dynamics could be introduced, as for instance the

1331: ``load-weighted'' ones first proposed in

1332: \cite{Chavez,Zhou} as a generalization of the normalized-Laplacian

1333: dynamics. A very interesting, open question, is to define optimization

1334: processes along the lines of this paper, leading to scale free

1335: topologies. 

1336: 

1337: We hope this work will encourage further research on this fascinating

1338: question of optimal network topologies, their evolution, their

1339: application to human designed networks and their connection with

1340: real-world complex networks.

1341: 

1342: 

1343: \vspace{1cm}

1344:  

1345: \begin{acknowledgments} We acknowledge useful discussions with

1346:  D. Cassi with whom we are presently exploring the connection with the

1347:  Bethe lattice. We are especially thankful to P. I. Hurtado, our

1348:  coauthor in the paper where entangled networks were first introduced,

1349:  for a very enjoyable collaboration and a critical reading of the

1350:  manuscript. F. N. acknowledges the kind hospitality in Granada where

1351:  this work was initiated. Finally, we acknowledge financial support

1352:  from the Spanish MEyC-FEDER, project FIS2005-00791, and from Junta de

1353:  Andaluc{\'\i}a as group FQM-165.

1354: \end{acknowledgments}

1355: 

1356: 

1357: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1358: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1359: 

1360: 

1361: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1362: 

1363: 

1364: \bibitem{synchro}

1365:      T. Nishikawa, A. E. Motter, Y.-C. Lai, and F. C. Hoppensteadt,

1366: %     Heterogeneity in oscillator networks: are smaller worlds easier to

1367: %     synchronize? 

1368:      Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 014101 (2003).

1369:      H. Hong, B. J. Kim, M. Y. Choi, and H. Park

1370: %     Factors that predict better synchronizability on complex networks

1371:       Phys. Rev. E. {\bf 69}, 067105 (2004). H. Hong, M. Y. Choi, and

1372:       B. J. Kim, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 65}, 026139 (2002); Phys. Rev. E

1373:       {\bf 65}, 047104 (2002).

1374: 

1375: 

1376: \bibitem{Torres} J. J. Torres, M. A. Mu\~noz, J. Marro, and P. L. Garrido,

1377: %{\it Influence of Topology on a Neural Network performance}.

1378: Neurocomputing, {\bf 58-60}, 229 (2004); and references therein.

1379: % D. Stauffer, et al.

1380: % A. Aharony, L. da Fontoura Costa, and J. Adler,

1381: %Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 32}, 395 (2003).

1382: 

1383: 

1384: \bibitem{BJK} B. J. Kim, 

1385: % Performance of networks of artificial neurons: the role of clustering

1386: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 69}, 045101(R) (2004).  See also, P. McGraw and

1387: M. Menzinger, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 72}, 015101(R) (2005).

1388: 

1389: 

1390: \bibitem{GG} G. Grinstein and R. Linsker, 

1391:  Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, {\bf 102}, 9948 (2005).

1392: 

1393: 

1394: 

1395: \bibitem{Catalans}

1396:      R. Guimera, A. Arenas, A. Diaz-Guilera, F. Vega-Redondo,

1397:      A. Cabrales,

1398: %     Optimal network topologies for local search with congestion

1399:       Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 248701 (2002).

1400: %See also, I. Vragovi\'c, E. Louis, and A. Diaz-Guilera,

1401: %Cond-mat/0410174.

1402: 

1403: 

1404: 

1405: \bibitem{Congestion} D. J. Ashton, T. C. Jarrett, and N. F. Johnson,

1406: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 058701 (2005).

1407: 

1408: \bibitem{Maritan} 

1409: V. Colizza, J. R. Banavar, A. Maritan, and A. Rinaldo,

1410: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 198701 (2004).

1411: 

1412: 

1413: 

1414: \bibitem{Lovasz} L. Lov\'asz, 

1415: %\emph{Random Walks on Graphs: a Survey},

1416: in \emph{Combinatorics, Paul Erd\"os is Eighty} (V2), Keszthely,

1417: Hungary, pp. 1-46, (1993).

1418: 

1419: 

1420: 

1421: \bibitem{dani} E. M. Bollt and D. ben-Avraham,

1422: New Journal of Phys. {\bf 7}, 26 (2005). 

1423: %cond-mat/0409465.

1424: 

1425: \bibitem{Strogatz} S. H. Strogatz, Nature {\bf 410}, 268 (2001).

1426: 

1427: \bibitem{Laszlo} A. L. Barab\'asi,  

1428: %{\it Statistical mechanics of complex networks}, 

1429: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 74}, 47 (2002).

1430: 

1431:  \bibitem{Newman} M. E. J. Newman,

1432: %{\it The structure and function on complex networks},

1433: SIAM Review {\bf 45}, 167 (2003).

1434: 

1435: \bibitem{Porto} S. N. Dorogovtsev and J. F. F. Mendes, {\it Evolution of

1436:     Networks: From Biological Nets to the Internet and WWW}, Oxford

1437:   University Press, Oxford (2003).

1438:   

1439: \bibitem{AleRomu} R. Pastor Satorras and A. Vespignani, {\it Evolution and

1440:     Structure of the Internet: A Statistical Physics approach}, Cambridge

1441:   University Press (2004).

1442: 

1443: \bibitem{Boccaletti} S. Boccaletti, V. Latora, Y. Moreno, 

1444: M. Chavez, and D.-U. Hwang, Phys. Rep. {\bf 424}, 175 (2006).

1445: 

1446: 

1447: \bibitem{Chung}

1448:  F. Chung, {\it Spectral Graph Theory},

1449: Number 92 in CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics. Am. Math.

1450: Soc., 1997. See also, F. Chung, L. Lu, and V. Vu,

1451: Internet Mathematics, {\bf I}, 257 (2004).

1452: 

1453: \bibitem{Bollobas} 

1454: B.  Bollob\'as, {\it Extremal Graph Theory} Academic Press, New

1455: York. 1978. W. Tutte, {\it Graph Theory As I Have Known It}, Oxford

1456: U. Press, New York, (1998).  

1457: 

1458: \bibitem{GN} M. Girvan, M. E. J. Newman, 

1459: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA {\bf 99}, 7821-7826 (2002).

1460: M. E. J. Newman, M. Girvan, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 69}, 026113 (2004).

1461: See also, L. Donetti and M. A. Mu\~noz, 

1462: %{\it Detecting Network Communities: a

1463: %new systematic and powerful algorithm}, 

1464: J. Stat. Mech.: Theor. Exp. (2004) P10012;

1465: %L. Donetti and M. A. Mu\~noz, {\it

1466: %Improved spectral algorithm for the detection of network Communities},

1467: in ``{\it Modeling Cooperative behavior in the social sciences}'', AIP

1468: Conf. Proc. 779, 104 (2005); arXchic:Physics/0504059.

1469: 

1470: 

1471: \bibitem{Sarnak} P. Sarnak,

1472: % What is an expander?

1473: Notices Amer. Math. Soc. {\bf 51}, 762 (2004). 

1474: 

1475: \bibitem{Valette} G. Davidoff, P. Sarnak, and A. Valette, {\it Elementary Number Theory, 

1476: Group Theory and Ramanujan Graphs}, London Math. Soc. Students Texts,

1477: 55, Cambridge (2003).

1478: 

1479: \bibitem{AB} The original statement of the lower bound

1480:  is due to N. Alon and R. Boppana, and appears in A. Nilli,

1481: % On the second eigenvalue of a graph 

1482: Discrete Math., {\bf 91}, 207 (1991).

1483: 

1484: 

1485: \bibitem{Entangled} L. Donetti, P. I. Hurtado and  M. A. Mu\~noz,

1486: Phys. Rev. Lett.  {\bf 95}, 188701 (2005).

1487: 

1488: 

1489: \bibitem{Pecora}  

1490: M. Barahona and L. M. Pecora,

1491: %Synchronization in small-world systems

1492: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 054101 (2002).  See also, L. M. Pecora and T. L.

1493: Carroll, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 64}, 821 (1990); ibid, {\bf 80}, 2109

1494: (1998).

1495: %   PRA 46 2374 1991

1496: L. M. Pecora, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 58} 347 (1998).

1497: L. M. Pecora and T. L. Carroll, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 2109

1498: (1998).

1499: 

1500: 

1501: 

1502: 

1503: \bibitem{Wang}  X. F. Wang and G. Chen,

1504: Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos Appl. Sci. Eng. {\bf 12}, 187

1505: (2002). X. F. Wang and G. Chen, IEEE Trans. Circuits and Systems I

1506: {\bf 49}, 54 (2002).  

1507: %In this paper the case where the stability

1508: %interval is unbounded from above is studied. The larger stability

1509: %range (maximum synchronizability) is obtained my maximizing the

1510: %spectral gap.

1511: 

1512:  

1513: \bibitem{Mohar} B. Mohar, 

1514: in {\it Graph Theory, Combinatorics, and Applications, Vol 2,}

1515: Ed. Y. Alavi, G. Chartrand, O. R. Oellermann, and A. J Schwenk,

1516: Wiley, New York, 1991. pp. 871.

1517:  

1518: 

1519: 

1520: \bibitem{Nielsen}  

1521:  $http://www.math.ias.edu/~boaz/ExpanderCourse/$.

1522: See also, $http://www.qinfo.org/people/nielsen/blog/?p=222$

1523: 

1524: 

1525: \bibitem{PL} P. Pons and M. Latapy, Preprint. arXiv:physics/0512106. 

1526: 

1527: 

1528: \bibitem{LPS} A. Lubotzky, R. Phillips, and P. Sarnak, 

1529: Combinatorica, {\bf 8}, 261 (1988).

1530: 

1531: 

1532: \bibitem{Margulis} G. A. Margulis, Prob. of Info. Trans. 

1533: {\bf 9}, 325 (1975). See also, O. Reingold, S. Vadhan, and

1534: A. Wigderson, Ann. of Math. {\bf 155}, 157 (2002).

1535: 

1536: 

1537: 

1538: 

1539: 

1540: \bibitem{Chiu} P. Chui, Combinatorica, {\bf 12}, 275 (1992).

1541: 

1542: 

1543: \bibitem{Code} Our computer code to generate Ramanujan graphs is available 

1544: upon request to any of the authors.

1545: 

1546: 

1547: %\bibitem{Legendre} 

1548: %Suppose $m $ is an odd prime and $n$ is any integer. The Legendre

1549: %symbol $(n|m)$ is defined to be $+1$ if $n$ is a quadratic residue

1550: %(mod $m$), $-1$ if a is a quadratic non-residue (mod $m$) and, $0$ if

1551: %$m$ divides $n$.  $ [[k < m]].$

1552: 

1553: 

1554: \bibitem{betweenness} 

1555: The betweenness centrality is defined as the average number of

1556: shortest paths, connecting every possible couple of nodes, passing

1557: through each site. An edge-betweenness can be analogously defined for

1558: the number of shortest paths passing through each link.

1559: 

1560: \bibitem{SA} S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi, 

1561: Science {\bf 220} 671 (1983).  N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth,

1562: M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 21}

1563: 1087 (1953).

1564: 

1565: 

1566: \bibitem{Penna} T. J. P. Penna, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 51}, R1 (1995).

1567: 

1568: 

1569: \bibitem{Cages}

1570: Eric W. Weisstein. "Cage Graph." From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web

1571: Resource. $http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CageGraph.html$; and

1572: references therein. See also, R. C. Read and R. J. Wilson,{\it An

1573: Atlas of Graphs}, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, pp. 263

1574: and 271-274, 1998.

1575: 

1576: 

1577: \bibitem{2peak} A.X.C.N. Valente, A. Sarkar, and H.A. Stone,

1578: % 2-Peak and 3-Peak Optimal Complex Networks

1579: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 118702 (2004).

1580: 

1581: \bibitem{Myrvold}

1582:      W. Myrvold,

1583: %     Reliable network syntesys: some recent results

1584:      {\it Proceedings of the $8th$ Int. Conf. on Graph Theory,

1585:        Combinatorics, Algorithms, and Applications}, Vol. II, pag. 650

1586:      (1998).

1587: 

1588: \bibitem{bethegap} 

1589: See D. Cassi, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 45}, 454 (1992); and references

1590: therein.

1591: 

1592: \bibitem{density} Note that as the tree is infinite, its spectrum is continuous, and

1593: therefore, it is more meaningful to refer to ``spectral densities''.

1594: 

1595: \bibitem{bethedensity} H. Kesten, \textit{Trans. AMS} \textbf{92}, 336

1596:   (1959).

1597: 

1598: 

1599: 

1600: \bibitem{mckay} B. D. McKay, \textit{Linear Algebra and its

1601:     applications} \textbf{40}, 203 (1981)

1602: 

1603: \bibitem{Future} D. Cassi, F. Neri, L. Donetti, and M.A. Mu\~noz;

1604: preprint 2006.

1605: 

1606: \bibitem{Zhou}  A. E. Motter, C. Zhou, and J. Kurths,

1607: Phys. Rev E {\bf 71}, 016116 (2005); AIP Conference Proceedings

1608: {\bf 776}, 201 (2005); EuroPhys. Lett. {\bf 69}, 334 (2005).

1609: 

1610: \bibitem{Gastner} M. T. Gastner and M. E. J. Newman,

1611: arXiv:cond-mat/0603278.

1612: 

1613: \bibitem{Barthelemy}  M. Barthelemy and A. Flammini,

1614: arXiv:physics/0601203.

1615:   

1616: \bibitem{Chavez} M. Chavez, D.-U. Hwang, A. Amann, 

1617: H. G. E. Hentschel, and S. Boccaletti, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94},

1618: 218701 (2005).  

1619: 

1620: \end{thebibliography} 

1621: 

1622: 

1623: \end{document}

1624: 

1625: 

1626: 

1627: 

1628: 

1629: 

1630: 

1631: 

1632: 

1633: 

1634: 

1635: 

1636: 

1637: 

1638: