1: \documentclass{elsart}
2: \usepackage{natbib}
3: \usepackage{graphicx,amssymb}
4: \setlength{\topmargin}{1cm}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7: \begin{frontmatter}
8:
9: \title{Scale-free networks with a large- to hypersmall-world transition}
10:
11: \author[unm]{Petter Holme}
12:
13: \address[unm]{Department of Computer Science, University of New Mexico,
14: Albuquerque, NM 87131, U.S.A.}
15:
16: \begin{abstract}
17: Recently there has been a tremendous interest in models of networks
18: with a power-law distribution of degree---so called ``scale-free
19: networks.'' It has been observed that such networks, normally, have
20: extremely short path-lengths, scaling logarithmically or slower with
21: system size. As an exotic and counterintuitive example we propose a
22: simple stochastic model capable of generating scale-free networks
23: with linearly scaling distances. Furthermore, by tuning a parameter
24: the model undergoes a phase transition to a regime with extremely
25: short average distances, apparently slower than $\log\log N$ (which
26: we call a hypersmall-world regime). We characterize the degree-degree
27: correlation and clustering properties of this class of networks.
28: \end{abstract}
29:
30: \begin{keyword}
31: Complex Networks; Network Analysis; Network Dynamics; Scale-Free Networks
32: \PACS{89.75.Fb, 89.75.Hc}
33: \end{keyword}
34: \end{frontmatter}
35:
36: \section{Introduction}
37:
38: A major source of the recent surge of interest in complex networks has
39: been the discovery that a large class of real-world networks have
40: distributions of degree (the number of neighbors of a vertex)
41: scaling like a power-law~\cite{ba:rev,doromen:book,mejn:rev}, so called
42: \textit{scale-free networks}. Ever since Ref.~\cite{ba:model} there
43: has been a tremendous number of works modeling networks with
44: power-law degree distributions. One characteristic feature of most such
45: model networks are that the distances (numbers of edges in shortest
46: paths between vertices) are very short (so called \textit{small-world
47: networks}~\cite{mejn:rev}), scaling like a logarithm, or like an even
48: slower increasing function~\cite{chung_lu:pnas,cohen:ultra},
49: of the system size. It is however not true that all models with a
50: power-law degree distribution have slowly increasing distances. In
51: this paper we propose a simple, random network model
52: having a power-law degree distribution with an arbitrary exponent, and
53: a transition between regimes of linearly scaling distances and
54: distances scaling slower than a double logarithm. Our model is not as
55: much a model of a real-world system as an example of vast variety of
56: structure within the class of networks defined by a degree
57: distribution.
58:
59:
60: \section{The model}
61:
62: The models of scale-free networks can be divided into
63: classes. Probably most proposed models are Markov chain
64: growth~\cite{ba:model,hk:model,klemm,jap:sf,kahng:sf,fkp:model,klein:web}
65: or equilibrium~\cite{bjk:scalefree,jensen:sf,val:soft,nong:sf} models
66: where the power-law degree distribution is an emergent property of the
67: system. In another class of models the degrees are treated as intrinsic
68: properties of the vertices and thus preassigned before the edges are
69: added.\footnote{There are also crossover models between these two
70: classes---models where the degree distribution depend both on the a
71: stochastic evolution process and intrinsic properties of the
72: network~\cite{kahng:qc,chung_lu:pnas,biabar:bec}.} Such models include the
73: rather frequently used ``configuration
74: model''~\cite{bek:conf,molloy:cri}, a model for networks with
75: clear-cut core-periphery structure~\cite{my:cps} and Internet at the
76: largest scale~\cite{inet}. The model we propose belongs to the latter
77: class.
78:
79:
80: Let $V$ be the set of $N$ vertices and $E$ be the set of $M$
81: edges. Our algorithm is defined as follows (details will be discussed
82: below):
83: \begin{enumerate}
84: \item \label{step:rnd} Draw $n$ random integers (that will represent
85: desired degrees) in the interval $[2,n^{1/(1-\gamma)}]$. Let the
86: probability of picking $K$ be proportional to $K^{-\gamma}$.
87: \item \label{step:sort} Sort the integers to an increasing sequence
88: $K_1\leq\cdots\leq K_n$.
89: \item \label{step:attach} Go though the sequence in increasing index-order and
90: for each vertex $i$:
91: \begin{enumerate}
92: \item \label{step:attach_up} With probability $1-p$,
93: go through the vertices $[i+1,n]$ in increasing order and add
94: an edge $(i,j)$ ($j\in[i+1,n]$) if the degrees of $i$ and $j$,
95: $k_i$ and $k_j$, are lower than $K_i$ and $K_j$ respectively.
96: \item \label{step:attach_down} Otherwise (if
97: step~\ref{step:attach_up} is not realized, i.e.\ with probability
98: $p$) go through the vertices $[i+1,n]$ in decreasing order and add
99: an edge $(i,j)$ if $k_i<K_i$ and $k_j<K_j$.
100: \end{enumerate}
101: \item \label{step:add1} For every vertex with a degree $k_i$ less than
102: its desired degree $K_i$, add $K_i-k_i$ one-degree vertices.
103: \end{enumerate}
104: The total number of vertices $N$ will be $n$ plus the number of
105: one-degree vertices added in step~\ref{step:add1}. By construction, the
106: networks will have a power-law degree distribution for degrees of two
107: or larger. The reason degree-one vertices are added in
108: step~\ref{step:add1} and not generated in step~\ref{step:rnd} is to give
109: all high-degree vertices their desired degree. Without
110: step~\ref{step:add1} there would be many vertices with $K_i>k_i$ which
111: would affect the high-degree vertices more than low-degree
112: vertices. Since most power-law network models emphasize accurate
113: modeling of the right end of the degree distribution, we add
114: degree-one vertices last. Step.~\ref{step:sort} is the computational
115: bottleneck in the algorithm making the execution time of network
116: construction $O(\max(n\log n,N))$ with a fast sorting algorithm.
117:
118:
119: \section{Numerical results}
120:
121: In this section we will study the network structure numerically. We
122: will use $10^4$ network realizations for the averages.
123: For readability we use only one exponent of the
124: degree distribution, $\gamma=2.2$. The reason we choose this exponent
125: is that it is we want a small exponent to make the network as broad
126: (and unlike other sharper distributions) as possible; and, roughly
127: speaking, $2.2$ is the smallest exponent commonly seen in real world
128: networks (for e.g.\ the Internet~\cite{doromen:book,ba:rev}). We have
129: checked all results for other exponents in the interval
130: $2.2<\gamma\leq 3$ too, and the conclusions will qualitatively hold
131: for these values too. In general the networks can be composed of
132: disconnected components (connected subgraphs). As common in such cases
133: we will measure the quantities for the largest component. The scaling
134: of the largest component size will also be discussed.
135:
136: \begin{figure}
137: \center{\resizebox*{0.75\linewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{ex.eps}}}
138: \caption{
139: Example networks with $n=100$ and $p=0$ (a) and $p=0.01$ (b).
140: }
141: \label{fig:ex}
142: \end{figure}
143:
144: \subsection{Example networks}
145:
146: To get a feeling for the structure of the networks produced by the
147: model two $n=100$ networks are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:ex}. The
148: network in Fig.~\ref{fig:ex}(a), with $p=0$, is fragmented. The
149: largest component has a chain-like shape. This can be understood from
150: the construction algorithm. The major part of the degree-two vertices
151: will form isolated triangles. Vertex $i$ attach to $i+1$ and $i+2$,
152: then $i+1$ attaches to $i+2$ and all their desired degrees are
153: reached. Starting from degree-three vertices a component will be
154: formed. The degree-one vertices are connected to vertices of highest
155: degree. If only a small fraction of the vertices are connected in
156: reverse order the resulting network can be very different, see
157: Fig.~\ref{fig:ex}(b). Now almost the whole largest component
158: is directly connected to a core of a dozen, or so, vertices. Like the
159: $p=0$ network there is a number of disconnected degree-two vertices.
160:
161: \begin{figure}
162: \center{\resizebox*{0.75\linewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{len_nu.eps}}}
163: \caption{
164: The length scaling. (a) shows the average distance as a function
165: of the size of the largest component for $p=0$. The line is a fit to a
166: linear form $8.2\pm 1.2+(0.0274\pm0.002)N$. (b) shows the
167: corresponding curve for $r=0.01$. The line is a fit to a
168: general $\log\log$-form: $a_1+a_2\ln(a_3+\ln(a_4+N))$ where
169: $a_1,\cdots, a_4$ are constants. Note the log-log scaled axes in (a)
170: and log-lin scales in (b). Errorbars are smaller than the symbol
171: size.}
172: \label{fig:len}
173: \end{figure}
174:
175: \subsection{Distance scaling}
176:
177: Next we turn to the central quantity for our studies---the distance
178: scaling. In Fig.~\ref{fig:len}(a) we plot the average distance as a
179: function of the size of the largest component for $p=0$. The scaling
180: is, to a very high accuracy, linear. Other $\gamma$-values show the
181: same qualitatively the scaling properties but the slope of the $d(N)$
182: curves is a function of $\gamma$ (lower $\gamma$ values have steeper
183: slopes). This is in stark contrast to other scale-free network
184: generators with length scaling like $\log N$, $\log N / \log\log N$ are
185: even $\log\log N$~\cite{cohen:ultra,chung_lu:pnas}. To
186: interpret this we make two trivial observations about length
187: scaling in network models with a fixed average degree: First, that the
188: average distance in the network cannot increase faster than the
189: maximal distance (the \textit{diameter}). Second, that the diameter
190: (and thus the average distance) cannot increase faster than
191: linearly. One can thus say that the distances in our network model
192: increase as fast as possible, given the average degree of the
193: network. If $p$ is just a tiny bit larger than zero, the scenario is
194: drastically different. The average distance scaling for $p=0.01$ is
195: plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:len}(b). $d$ increases slower than a
196: logarithmic function (a logarithmic growth would appear as a line in
197: Fig.~\ref{fig:len}(b), due to the logarithmic $N$-axis). Indeed it
198: seems to grow even slower than $\log\log N$. We see this by fitting
199: the $d(N)$ values to a general $\log\log$-form
200: ($a_1+a_2\ln(a_3+\ln(a_4+N))$ where $a_1,\cdots,a_4$ are
201: constants)---the best fit is a function that increases significantly
202: faster than the real curve. We also test bounded exponential and
203: algebraic growth forms, but neither of these fits are extremely well
204: to the observed curve. Indeed $d(N)$ appears to be bounded, or at least
205: significantly slower increasing than $\log\log N$, which
206: would mean our model have a transition from the theoretically maximal
207: (linear) to the theoretically minimal (bounded) size scaling. With
208: reference to the term ``ultrasmall world''~\cite{cohen:ultra} we call
209: sub-double-logarithmic scaling ``hypersmall world.'' This
210: conjecture would need further studies to be firmly
211: established. Deriving the functional form is non-trivial---the
212: probability that one reverse-adding
213: (step~\ref{step:attach_down} of the algorithm) should occur tends to
214: one (as $1-(1-p)^n$) for any non-zero $p$. The first time this occurs,
215: a star-graph of $O(n^{1/{1-\gamma}})$ vertices of high desired degree
216: will be created. But the fraction of vertices in this star-graph goes
217: to zero as $n^{-1/(1-1/\gamma)}$. After a few reverse-addings
218: vertices in the middle of the spectrum of desired degrees will be
219: saturated with edges and the range (in the ranking of vertices)
220: between the high-degree vertex and the vertex being connected will
221: grow rapidly. This increasing range is, phenomenologically, a possible cause
222: for the extremely short distance-scaling.
223:
224: \begin{figure}
225: \center{\resizebox*{0.75\linewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{gc_nu.eps}}}
226: \caption{(a) shows the relative sizes of the largest
227: component $s$ as a function of system size. (b) shows the density
228: of edges $M_\mathrm{gc}/N_\mathrm{gc}$ (half the average degree) in
229: the largest component. Both curves are fits to
230: algebraic decay forms.
231: }
232: \label{fig:ngc}
233: \end{figure}
234:
235: \subsection{Existence of a giant component}
236:
237: As seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:ex} the model network can be
238: disconnected. Although our model is intended as an example of the
239: extreme diversity of network structure within the class of scale-free
240: network, we would anyway like the largest component to grow at least
241: linearly with the system size. In other words, there should be a giant
242: component in the network. In
243: Fig.~\ref{fig:ngc}(a) we plot the fraction of vertices in the largest
244: component $s$. For both $p=0$ and $p=0.01$, $s$ seems to
245: converge to a constant fraction of $N$. Note also that $s$ is (except
246: one point in the $p=0.01$ curve) an increasing function of $N$, and
247: it is bounded by one. Other $p$ values show the same behavior. Thus we
248: conclude that the model has, very likely, a giant component for all $p$
249: values. The density of edges in the giant component (which is half the
250: average degree) plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:ngc}(b). As the size of the
251: giant component converges to $N_\mathrm{gc}=N^\infty_\mathrm{gc}$ the
252: density of edges will be bounded by $M/N^\infty_\mathrm{gc}$. The
253: convergence is rather slow, but consistent with an algebraic decay
254: form.
255:
256: \begin{figure}
257: \center{\resizebox*{0.75\linewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{vsp.eps}}}
258: \caption{ The average distance in the largest component (a) and the
259: average size of the giant component as functions of $p$.
260: }
261: \label{fig:vsp}
262: \end{figure}
263:
264: \subsection{Parameter dependence of distance and largest component size}
265:
266: So far, we have established that our model has two fundamentally
267: different network structures for $p=0$ and $p=0.01$. To complete this
268: picture we study the distance scaling as a function of $p$. As seen in
269: Fig.~\ref{fig:ngc}(a) the $\langle d\rangle(p)$-curves diverge very
270: slowly for other than very small $p$-values. Nothing suggests that
271: there would be more than two qualitatively different behaviors. Even
272: though $p$ represent a kind of temperature-like disorder, it is hard to say if
273: traditional methods of statistical physics (like renormalization
274: group~\cite{mejn:rg} or finite size scaling~\cite{bar:sw}) are valid
275: in a model with the peculiar correlations induced by our construction scheme.
276: To argue more speculatively, we observe that, initially,
277: the curves' slopes decrease increasingly fast with $p$, but at an
278: inflexion point the slope of a curve flattens out. This inflexion
279: point $\tilde{p}$ seems to
280: move toward $p=0$ (for $n=1000$ we have $0.004\lesssim\tilde{p}\lesssim
281: 0.008$, for $n=4000$ we observe $0.002\lesssim \tilde{p}\lesssim 0.004$,
282: and for $n=16000$ we $\tilde{p}$ seem to be less than $0.001$), which
283: is consistent
284: with a $p=0$ transition. There is always a chance
285: $(1-p)^n$ that no reverse-adding will occur during the construction. This
286: is, we believe, the cause of the flattening of the $\langle
287: d\rangle(p)$-curves as $p\searrow 0$. (For $n=1$ and $p=0.001$---the
288: smallest non-zero $p$-value in Fig.~\ref{fig:ngc}(a))---absence of
289: reverse-adding happen in
290: $\sim 37\%$ of the network realizations.)
291:
292: In Fig.~\ref{fig:ngc}(b) we plot the average size of the largest
293: component, $s$, as a function of $p$. A strongly varying $s$ would
294: make the distance scaling hard to interpret, but this is apparently
295: not the case. Instead $s$ seems to converge as $p$ increases. The
296: large-$p$ value is (for reasons do not speculate about in this paper)
297: conspicuously size-independent.
298:
299: \begin{figure}
300: \center{\resizebox*{0.75\linewidth}{!}{\includegraphics{assclu.eps}}}
301: \caption{ The assortative mixing (a) and clustering (b) coefficients
302: in the giant component. Standard errors are smaller than the
303: symbol size. Both curves are fits to algebraic decay forms.
304: }
305: \label{fig:assclu}
306: \end{figure}
307:
308: \subsection{Degree-degree correlations}
309:
310: The degree distribution is perhaps the most fundamental network
311: structure. A natural way to extend the characterization of the
312: structure of a class of networks, from the degree distribution,
313: is to ask how vertices of different degrees are
314: interconnected. Is there a tendency for high degree vertices to attach
315: to other high degree vertices, or do they preferably attach to
316: low-degree vertices? A simple way to quantify this structure is to
317: measure the linear correlation coefficient of degrees at either side
318: of an edge, the \textit{assortative mixing
319: coefficient}:~\cite{mejn:rev}
320: \begin{equation}\label{eq:assmix}
321: r=\frac{4\langle k_1\, k_2\rangle - \langle k_1 + k_2\rangle^2}
322: {2\langle k_1^2+k_2^2\rangle - \langle k_1+ k_2\rangle^2}
323: \end{equation}
324: where $k_i$ is the degree of the $i$'th argument of the edges as they
325: appear in an enumeration of the edges. This quantity takes values in
326: the interval $[-1,1]$, where low values mean that high-degree vertices
327: primarily attach to low-degree vertices, and high values represent a
328: tendency for vertices of high degree to attach to one another. In both
329: cases $r$ seems to converge algebraically to zero. This is seen by the
330: accurate fits to algebraic decay forms, $b_1N^{-b_2}$ ($b_1$ and $b_2$
331: are constants) in Fig.~\ref{fig:assclu} (b). This convergence to $r=0$
332: is more interesting when $p=0$ because, by construction, except
333: degree-one vertices, all vertices are attached to other vertices of
334: quite similar values of degree. This means there is a strong
335: assortative mixing in networks without degree one vertices. We
336: preliminary confirm that $r$ converges to a positive value if
337: step~\ref{step:add1} is omitted. This means the negative contribution
338: of attachment of degree-one vertices (at least almost) counterbalance
339: the positive contribution from the ordered attachment in
340: step~\ref{step:attach_up}. Note, though, that random networks
341: constrained only to a power-law degree distribution have a negative
342: assortative mixing coefficient~\cite{mejn:oricorr}. In other words,
343: in with such a null-model the degree-degree correlations are
344: effectively positive for our model in the $p=0$ case.
345:
346:
347: \subsection{Clustering coefficient}
348:
349: Another commonly studied network structure is clustering, or the density
350: of triangles, in the network. In Fig.~\ref{fig:assclu} (b) we
351: present values of the clustering coefficient $C$---the number of
352: unique triangles (fully connected subgraphs of three vertices)
353: normalized to $[0,1]$ by dividing by the number of connected triples
354: of vertices (i.e.\ also including e.g.\ $\{i,i',i''\}$ where
355: $(i,i'),(i',i'')\in E$ but $(i'',i)\notin E$) and a combinatorial
356: factor three (for details see Ref.~\cite{mejn:rev}).
357: For both $p=0$ and $p=0.01$ the values of $C$ of the giant component
358: seem to converge to zero from above. Once again this can be explained
359: by the addition of degree-one vertices. As noted above, the highest
360: connected vertices are primarily connected to degree-one
361: vertices. Just as for the assortative mixing coefficient the
362: degree-one vertices plays a major role in the decreasing nature of
363: $C$. Without step~\ref{step:attach_up}, the clustering coefficient is
364: an increasing function, approaching rather large values. Now since the
365: difference is only the lack of degree-one vertices, the triplets
366: $(I,J,K)$ where $k_I=k_K=1$ and $k_J$ is very high are the main
367: negative contribution to $C$ (i.e., connected triples that are not
368: triangles).
369:
370:
371: \section{Summary and conclusions}
372:
373: In this paper we have proposed a generative network model with a
374: power-law degree distribution. As a model parameter is
375: tuned the model undergoes a transition from a situation where the
376: average distance of the giant component scale linearly with the system
377: size $N$. Thus our model has a large-world regime (with
378: super-logarithmic distance scaling). In contrast, almost all previous
379: complex network models we are aware of belong to the opposite
380: category---small-world networks---with exponential, or
381: sub-exponential, distance scaling. The network models we are aware
382: of~\cite{wattsstrogatz,our:bipart,berker:bkt}, that do have a large-world regime,
383: are with one exception~\cite{klemm,bogu} trivial regular lattices or
384: circulants. We proceed to evaluate the structure of these model in
385: both the large- and small-world region of the parameter space. The
386: networks are disconnected even in the $N\rightarrow\infty$ limit, but
387: they do have a giant component.
388:
389: This model is primarily intended as an exotic example, illustrating
390: the great variety of networks having a power-law degree
391: distribution. Even though the ensemble of all networks with a
392: power-law degree distribution never show distances growing faster than
393: a logarithm, this does not apply to all network models with an
394: emergent power-law degree distribution. Our conclusion is thus (like
395: in e.g.\ Ref.~\cite{hot:inet}) that one cannot treat all network
396: models generating power-law degree distribution as one class. Our
397: model include randomness in different steps of the construction, but
398: the sorting of vertices and sequential addition induce strong
399: correlations that give rise to the exotic length scaling properties.
400: The construction mechanism is not limited to power-law degree
401: distributions. We believe the high-degree vertices of power-law
402: networks are needed to create the hypersmall-world scaling (extremely
403: short pathlengths need an almost fully connected core that is directly
404: connected to most of the rest of the network---with too limited degrees,
405: such a core would be far from fully connected).
406: One may wonder why real-world
407: networks with a power-law like degree distribution (at least all we
408: know of) are not large-world networks. This is of course a question
409: for every system individually, but part of the answer can be found in
410: the transition found in the model. Only a tiny perturbance is needed
411: to turn the large-world distance scaling into a small-world---the
412: large-world regime is exotic, but it is also instable to small
413: perturbances.
414:
415:
416: \ack{
417: The author acknowledges financial support from the Wenner-Gren
418: foundations, the National Science Foundation (grant CCR--0331580)
419: and the Santa Fe Institute; and thoughtful comments from Marian
420: Bogu\~{n}a and Etsuko Nonaka.
421: }
422:
423: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
424: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
425: \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi
426: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
427:
428: \bibitem{ba:rev}
429: R.~Albert, A.-L. Barab\'{a}si, Statistical mechanics of complex networks, Rev.
430: Mod. Phys 74 (2002) 47--98.
431:
432: \bibitem{doromen:book}
433: S.~N. Dorogovtsev, J.~F.~F. Mendes, Evolution of Networks: From Biological Nets
434: to the Internet and WWW, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003.
435:
436: \bibitem{mejn:rev}
437: M.~E.~J. Newman, The structure and function of complex networks, SIAM Review 45
438: (2003) 167--256.
439:
440: \bibitem{ba:model}
441: A.-L. Barab\'{a}si and R. Albert,
442: Emergence of scaling in random networks,
443: Science 286 (1999) 509--512.
444:
445: \bibitem{chung_lu:pnas}
446: F. Chung and L. Lu,
447: The average distances in random graphs with given expected degrees,
448: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99 (2002) 15879--15882.
449:
450: \bibitem{cohen:ultra}
451: R. Cohen and S. Havlin,
452: Scale-free networks are ultrasmall,
453: Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 058701.
454:
455: \bibitem{hk:model}
456: P. Holme and B. J. Kim,
457: Growing scale-free networks with tunable clustering, Phys. Rev. E 65 (2002) 026107.
458:
459: \bibitem{klemm}
460: K. Klemm and V. M. Egu\'{\i}luz,
461: Highly clustered scale-free networks,
462: Phys. Rev. E 65 (2002) 036123.
463:
464: \bibitem{jap:sf}
465: J. C. Nacher, N. Ueda, M. Kanehisa and T. Akutsu,
466: Flexible construction of hierarchical scale-free networks with
467: general exponent, Phys. Rev. E 71 (2005) 036132.
468:
469: \bibitem{kahng:sf}
470: S. Jung, S. Kim and B. Kahng,
471: Geometric fractal growth model for scale-free networks,
472: Phys. Rev. E 65 (2002) 056101.
473:
474: \bibitem{fkp:model}
475: A. Fabrikant, E. Koutsoupias and C. H. Papadimitriou,
476: Heuristically optimized trade-offs: A new paradigm for power laws in
477: the Internet,
478: in Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Automata,
479: Languages, and Programming, vol.\ 2380 of Lecture
480: notes in Computer science, Springer, Heidelberg, 2002, pp.\ 110--122.
481:
482: \bibitem{klein:web}
483: J. M. Kleinberg, S. R. Kumar, P. Reghvan, S. Rajagopalan and A. Tomkins,
484: The Web as a graph: Measurements, models and methods, in
485: Proceedings of the International Conference on Combinatorics and
486: Computing, vol.\ 1627 of Lecture Notes in Computer
487: Science, Springer, 2000, Berlin, 1--18.
488:
489: \bibitem{bjk:scalefree}
490: B. J. Kim, A. Trusina, P. Minnhagen and K. Sneppen,
491: Self organized scale-free networks from merging and regeneration,
492: Eur. Phys. J. B 43 (2005) 369--372.
493:
494: \bibitem{jensen:sf}
495: S. Laird and H. J. Jensen,
496: A steady state network model with a $1/k$ scale-free degree
497: distribution,
498: e-print cond-mat/0603199.
499:
500: \bibitem{val:soft}
501: S. Valverde, R. Ferrer i Cancho and R. V. Sol\'{e},
502: Scale-free networks from optimal design,
503: Europhys. Lett. 60 (2002) 512--517.
504:
505: \bibitem{nong:sf}
506: K. Park, Y.-C. Park, and N. Ye, Self-organized scale-free networks,
507: Phys. Rev. E 72 (2005) 026131.
508:
509: \bibitem{kahng:qc}
510: D.-H. Kim, B. Kahng and D. Kim,
511: Multi component static model: Modeling social networks,
512: Eur. Phys. J. B 38 (2004) 193--199.
513:
514: \bibitem{biabar:bec}
515: G. Bianconi and A.-L. Barab\'{a}si,
516: Bose-Einstein condensation in complex networks,
517: Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 5632--5635.
518:
519: \bibitem{bek:conf}
520: A. Bekessy, P. Bekessy and J. Komolos,
521: Asymptotic enumeration of regular matrices,
522: Stud. Sci. Math. Hung. 7 (1972) 343--353.
523:
524: \bibitem{molloy:cri}
525: M. Molloy and B. Reed,
526: A critical point for random graphs with a given degree sequence,
527: Random Struct. Algo. 6 (1995) 161--180.
528:
529: \bibitem{my:cps}
530: P. Holme,
531: Core-periphery organization of complex networks,
532: Phys. Rev. E 72 (2005) 046111.
533:
534: \bibitem{inet}
535: J. Winick and S. Jamin,
536: Inet-3.0: Internet topology generator,
537: Electrical Engineering and
538: Computer Science Department, University of Michigan, Technical
539: Report UM--CSE--TR--456--02 (2000).
540:
541: \bibitem{mejn:rg}
542: M. E. J. Newman and D. J. Watts,
543: Renormalization group analysis of the small-world network model,
544: Phys. Lett. A 263 (1999) 341--346.
545:
546: \bibitem{bar:sw}
547: A. Barrat and M. Weigt, On the properties of small-world network models
548: Eur. Phys. J. B 13 (2000) 547--560.
549:
550: \bibitem{mejn:oricorr}
551: J. Park and M. E. J. Newman,
552: Origin of degree correlations in the Internet and other networks,
553: Phys. Rev. E 68 (2003) 026112.
554:
555: \bibitem{wattsstrogatz}
556: D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz,
557: Collective dynamics of `small-world' networks,
558: Nature 393 (1998) 440--442.
559:
560: \bibitem{our:bipart}
561: P. Holme, F. Liljeros, C. R. Edling and B. J. Kim,
562: Network bipartivity,
563: Phys. Rev. E 68 (2003) 056107.
564:
565: \bibitem{berker:bkt}
566: M. Hinczewski and A. N. Berker,
567: Inverted Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless singularity and
568: high-temperature algebraic order in an Ising model on a scale-free
569: hierarchical-lattice small-world network,
570: Phys. Rev. E 73 (2006) 066126.
571:
572: \bibitem{bogu}
573: A. V\'{a}zquez, M. Bogu\~{n}a, Y. Moreno, R. Pastor-Santorras and
574: A. Vespignani,
575: Topology and correlations in structured scale-free networks,
576: Phys. Rev. E 67 (2003) 046111.
577:
578: \bibitem{hot:inet}
579: J. C. Doyle, D. L. Alderson, L. Li, S. Low, M. Roughan, S. Shalunov, R. Tanaka
580: and W. Willinger,
581: The ``robust yet fragile'' nature of the Internet,
582: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102 (2005) 14497--14502.
583:
584: \end{thebibliography}
585:
586: \end{document}
587: