1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2:
3:
4: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
5: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
6: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10:
11:
12: \title{Universal Scaling Behavior of Clustering Coefficient\\ Induced by Deactivation Mechanism}
13: \author{Liang Tian}
14: \author{Chen-Ping Zhu}
15: \email{chenpingzhu@yahoo.com.cn}
16: \author{Da-Ning Shi}
17: \email{shi@nuaa.edu.cn}
18: \author{Zhi-Ming Gu}
19: \affiliation{College of Science, Nanjing University of Aeronautics
20: and Astronautics, Nanjing, 210016, PR China}
21: \author{Tao Zhou}
22: \affiliation{Nonlinear Science Center and Department of Modern
23: Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei,
24: Anhui, 230026, PR China}
25:
26: \date{\today}
27:
28: \begin{abstract}
29: We propose a model of network growth that generalizes the
30: deactivation model previously suggested for complex networks.
31: Several topological features of this generalized model, such as the
32: degree distribution and clustering coefficient, have been
33: investigated analytically and by simulations. A scaling behavior of
34: clustering coefficient $C \sim 1/M$ is theoretically obtained, where
35: $M$ refers to the number of active nodes in the network. We discuss
36: the relationship between the recently observed numerical behavior of
37: clustering coefficient in the coauthor and paper citation networks
38: and our theoretical result. It shows that both of them are induced
39: by deactivation mechanism. By introducing a perturbation, the
40: generated network undergoes a transition from large- to small-world,
41: meanwhile the scaling behavior of $C$ is conserved. It indicates
42: that $C \sim 1/M$ is a universal scaling behavior induced by
43: deactivation mechanism.
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: \pacs{89.75.Hc, 87.23.Ge, 89.65.-s, 89.75.Fb}
47:
48: \maketitle
49:
50:
51: \section{INTRODUCTION}
52: Many social, biological, and communication systems can be properly
53: described as complex networks with nodes representing individuals or
54: organizations and links mimicking the interactions among them[1-3].
55: Examples are numerous: these include the Internet[4,5], the World
56: Wide Web[6,7], biological networks[8,9], food webs[10], social
57: networks[11], etc. Recent empirical studies indicate that the
58: networks in various fields exhibit some common topological
59: characteristics: a small average distance as random networks, large
60: clustering coefficient as regular networks (small-world
61: property)[12] and a power-law degree distribution (scale-free
62: property)[13]. The ubiquity of complex networks has inspired
63: tremendous investigations on them. Among these flourishing
64: researches, the effect of aging is of particular interest[14-18],
65: since it is a universal mechanism in reality. For instance, in the
66: movie actor collaboration network, the more famous an actor is, the
67: more chances he will have to act in new movies. But, no matter how
68: famous he may be, every star will become gradually inactive as time
69: goes on. This aging effect can greatly influence the evolution of
70: networks and results in peculiar network structural property[14,15].
71:
72: Recently, B\"orner \emph{et al}. introduced a general process model
73: that simultaneously grows coauthor and paper citation networks[19],
74: in which the core assumption is that the twin networks of scientific
75: researchers and academic articles mutually support one another. In
76: their model, each of the authors and papers is assigned a topic, and
77: authors read, cite, produce papers or coauthor with others only in
78: their own topic area. Interestingly, they found that the clustering
79: coefficient $C$ of the simulated paper citation network is linearly
80: correlated with the number of topics. We note that the main
81: underlying dynamic rule governing the evolution of the network is
82: aging. For example, due to the lifespan of human, once authors are
83: older than a specified age, they will be set deactivated, and do not
84: produce papers or coauthor with others any longer. Furthermore,
85: papers cease to receive links when their contents are outdated.
86: Therefore, these considerations motivate us to theoretically
87: investigate the effect of aging on the clustering coefficient of the
88: network. In the present paper, we concentrate on this ingredient of
89: self-organization of the coauthor and paper citation networks and
90: propose a simple generalized model, in which the main dynamic is
91: deactivation mechanism. We will demonstrate that the behavior of
92: clustering coefficient $C$ in the coauthor and paper citation
93: networks is universal in networks generated by deactivation
94: mechanism.
95:
96: This paper is organized as follows. In section II, the model is
97: introduced. In section III, we give both the numerical and analytic
98: results about the effect of deactivation mechanism on network
99: structure, including degree distribution (Sec. III A) and clustering
100: coefficient (Sec. III B). An interesting scaling behavior of $C$ is
101: obtained. In section IV, a structural perturbation is introduced. We
102: show that the perturbation leads to a structural transition from
103: large- to small-world (Sec. IV A), while the scaling behavior of $C$
104: is conserved (Sec. IV B). Finally in section V, we discuss the
105: relationship between our result and the behavior of clustering
106: coefficient in the coauthor and paper citation networks and give a
107: summary .
108:
109: \section{THE MODEL}
110: In the present model, each node can be in two different states:
111: active or inactive[18,20,21]. The evolution process starts with a
112: one-dimensional lattice consisting of $M$ active nodes with periodic
113: boundary condition and coordination number $2z$[22]. Then, in each
114: time step
115:
116: \
117:
118: (1) Add a new node into the network, and connect it to $m$ nodes
119: randomly chosen from the $M$ active ones.
120:
121: (2) Activate the new node.
122:
123: (3) Deactivate one of the active nodes. The probability that the
124: node $i$ is deactivated is given by
125: \begin{eqnarray}\pi(k_i)=\frac{\alpha}{k_i},\end{eqnarray}
126: where the normalization factor is defined as
127: $\alpha=(\sum_{j\in\mathcal{A}}1/k_j)^{-1}$. The summation runs over
128: the set $\mathcal{A}$ of the currently $M+1$ active nodes.
129:
130: \
131:
132: It is worthwhile to note that, when $M=m$ and $z=[\frac{M}{2}]$, the
133: present model reduces to the famous deactivation model introduced by
134: Klemm and Egu\'iluz (KE model)[18]. For convenience, we call this
135: generalized deactivation model GKE model.
136:
137: \section{STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES}
138: \subsection{Degree distribution}
139: By using the continuous approximation similar to that used in Ref.
140: [18], the degree distribution $P(k)$ can be obtained analytically
141: for GKE model. Let us first derive the degree distribution
142: $p^{(t)}(k)$ of the active nodes at time $t$. It evolves according
143: to the following master equation:
144: \begin{eqnarray}p^{(t+1)}(k+1)&=&p^{(t)}(k)\frac{m}{M}[1-\pi(k)] \nonumber \\ &+&p^{(t)}(k+1)[1-\frac{m}{M}][1-\pi(k+1)].\end{eqnarray}
145: On the right side of Eq. (2), the first term accounts for the
146: process in which an active node with degree $k$ at time $t$ is
147: connected to the new node and not deactivated in the next time step;
148: The second term indicates the process that an active node with
149: degree $k+1$ at time $t$ is not connected to the new node and still
150: active in the next time step.
151:
152: \begin{figure}
153: \scalebox{0.9}[0.9]{\includegraphics{fig1}} \caption{Illustration of
154: the normalization factor $\alpha$ as a function of time $t$ with the
155: parameters $m=10$ and $M=30$. The amplified version can be seen in
156: the inset. The data points correspond to system size
157: $N=2\times10^4$, and each is obtained as an average of $100$
158: independent runs.}
159: \end{figure}
160:
161: We investigate the behavior of $\alpha$ in time evolution. Fig. 1
162: shows the dependence of the normalization factor $\alpha$ on time
163: $t$. We find that $\alpha$ approaches a stable value with certain
164: fluctuations as soon as the evolution of the network starts. We
165: assume that the fluctuations of the normalization factor $\alpha$
166: are small enough, i. e., it can be treated as a constant. Then, the
167: stationary case $p^{(t+1)}(k)=p^{(t)}(k)$ of Eq. (2) yields
168: \begin{eqnarray}p(k+1)-p(k)=\frac{-\alpha-(\gamma-1)k}{k(k+\gamma-\alpha)}p(k),\end{eqnarray}
169: where $\gamma=\frac{\alpha M}{m}+1$. Treating $k$ as continuous we
170: write down the equation
171: \begin{eqnarray}\frac{dp}{dk}=\frac{-\alpha-(\gamma-1)k}{k(k+\gamma-\alpha)}p(k),\end{eqnarray}
172: which yields the solution
173: \begin{eqnarray}p(k)\sim k^{-\gamma+1}.\end{eqnarray}
174: When the system size $N$ is large compared with $M$, the degree
175: distribution of the whole network $P(k)$ can be approximated by
176: considering the inactive nodes only. Thus $P(k)$ can be calculated
177: as the rate of the change of the degree distribution $p(k)$ of the
178: active nodes. We find
179: \begin{eqnarray}P(k)=-\frac{dp}{dk}=ck^{-\gamma},\end{eqnarray} where
180: $c=(\gamma-1)m^{\gamma-1}$ is the normalization constant. Finally,
181: the exponent $\gamma=3$ is obtained from a self-consistent condition
182: \begin{eqnarray}2m=\int_m^\infty k P(k)dk.\end{eqnarray}
183:
184: The exponent $\gamma$ can be tunable if we introduce the initial
185: attractiveness just like that of the model in Ref. [18]. Since it is
186: not our focus, we will not show this effect here.
187:
188: In Fig. 2, we plot the cumulative degree distribution of GKE
189: networks by simulations. We obtain a power law scaling with
190: best-fitted exponent $\gamma-1=1.96\pm0.02$, which is in agreement
191: with the analytical result. In fact, the exponent $\gamma$ is
192: dependent on $m$[20], which can be ignored when $m$ is large.
193: However, the number of active nodes $M$ has no effect on degree
194: distribution exponent $\gamma$, which is analytically and
195: numerically obtained.
196:
197: \begin{figure}
198: \scalebox{0.8}[0.8]{\includegraphics{fig2}} \caption{(Color online)
199: Cumulative degree distribution of GKE networks with parameters (a)
200: $M=20$; $m=4$ (squares), $8$(upward triangles), $14$ (downward
201: triangles), $20$ (circles) and (b) $m=20$; $M=20$ (squares),
202: $40$(upward triangles), $80$ (downward triangles), $100$ (circles).
203: The data points correspond to system size $N=2\times10^4$, and each
204: is obtained as an average of $100$ independent runs. The two dash
205: lines have slope $-2.0$ for comparison.}
206: \end{figure}
207:
208: \subsection{Clustering coefficient}
209: The clustering coefficient $C(l)$ of node $l$ with degree $k_l$ can
210: be defined as follow:
211: \begin{eqnarray}C(l)=\frac{2E(l)}{k_l(k_l-1)},\end{eqnarray} where $E(l)$ is the number
212: of links between neighbors of node $l$.
213:
214: According to the definition of the GKE model, when a new node with
215: $m$ links is added into the network, the links are attached to the
216: nodes randomly selected from the active ones. Thus, the probability
217: that two arbitrary active nodes are connected is $\frac{m}{M}$. It
218: follows that a node $l$ with degree $k_l=m$ has
219: \begin{eqnarray}E(l)=\frac{m}{M}\frac{k_l(k_l-1)}{2}.\end{eqnarray}
220: If $l$ is deactivated in the time step of its generation its
221: neighborhood does not change any more and $C(l)$ keeps stable.
222: Otherwise, node $l$ is not deactivated. In the next time step, a new
223: node $j$ is added. As we note, the probability that node $j$ makes
224: connection to $l$ is equal to the probability that one of the
225: neighbors of node $l$ is deactivated in the last time step. We
226: assume that if $k_l$ is added by $1$, one of its active neighbors
227: has already been deactivated in the last time step. Thus, when the
228: newly added node is connected to node $l$, one of its neighbors $s$
229: is inactive and one possible link between the newly added node and
230: $s$ is missed. Then we have
231: \begin{eqnarray}E(l)=\frac{m}{M}[\frac{k_l(k_l-1)}{2}-1],\end{eqnarray}
232: where $k_l=m+1$. Also, if $k_l=m+2$, there will be $2$ inactive
233: nodes in the neighbors of node $l$ causing another $2$ possible
234: links to be missed. Thus we obtain
235: \begin{eqnarray}E(l)=\frac{m}{M}[\frac{k_l(k_l-1)}{2}-1-2],\end{eqnarray}
236: where $k_l=m+2$. This process repeats until node $l$ is deactivated,
237: whose neighborhood does not change any more. By induction, we have
238: \begin{eqnarray}E(l)=\frac{m}{M}[\frac{k_l(k_l-1)}{2}-\sum_{\nu=1}^{k_l-m}\nu].\end{eqnarray}
239: Thus the clustering coefficient $C(l)$ depends only on the degree
240: $k_l$. The exact relation is
241: \begin{eqnarray}C(l)=\frac{m}{M}[1-\frac{(k_l-m+1)(k_l-m)}{k_l(k_l-1)}].\end{eqnarray}
242: The clustering coefficient $C$ of the whole network is the average
243: of $C(l)$ over all nodes, i. e.,
244: \begin{eqnarray}C=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{l=1}^N \frac{m}{M}[1-\frac{(k_l-m+1)(k_l-m)}{k_l(k_l-1)}].\end{eqnarray}
245: Writing Eq. (14) in continuous form yields
246: \begin{eqnarray}C=\int_m^\infty \frac{m}{M}[1-\frac{(k-m+1)(k-m)}{k(k-1)}]P(k)dk,\end{eqnarray}
247: where $P(k)$ is the degree distribution which we have derived above.
248: Finally, the result is
249: \begin{eqnarray}C=\frac{1}{M}[\frac{5m}{6}-\frac{7}{30}+\mathcal{O}(m^{-1})].\end{eqnarray}
250: Obviously, when $M=m$, the clustering coefficient of the KE model is
251: recovered[23].
252:
253: From Eq.(16), we know that the clustering coefficient $C$ is
254: independent of the system size $N$. This asymptotic behavior of $C$
255: is reported in Fig. 3. In the limit of large $N$, the clustering
256: coefficient $C$ gets to an stationary value of $0.31$, which agrees
257: with the analytical result.
258:
259: It is important to point out that the clustering coefficient has an
260: novel scaling behavior $C\sim1/M$. Extensive numerical simulations
261: perfectly confirm this result (see Fig. 4). This behavior can be
262: related to the recent numerical study on the coauthor and paper
263: citation networks, which will be discussed in Sec. V.
264:
265: \begin{figure}
266: \scalebox{0.9}[0.9]{\includegraphics{fig3}} \caption{Illustration of
267: the average clustering coefficient $C$ as a function of system size
268: $N$ with the parameter $m=4$ and $M=10$. The clustering coefficient
269: $C$ approaches a stationary value about 0.31, which is precisely
270: predicted by Eq. (16). Each data point is obtained as an average of
271: $1000$ independent runs.}
272: \end{figure}
273:
274: \begin{figure}
275: \scalebox{0.9}[0.9]{\includegraphics{fig4}} \caption{(Color online)
276: The analytical result of the clustering coefficient of GKE network,
277: $C(M)$, as a function of $M$ (line), in comparison with the
278: simulation (circles) results. Other parameters for the simulation
279: are $m=10$ and $N=2\times10^4$. Each data point is obtained as an
280: average of $100$ independent runs.}
281: \end{figure}
282:
283: \section{STRUCTURAL PERTURBATION}
284: \subsection{Structural transition}
285: We introduce a structural perturbation to the GKE model by modifying
286: step (1) of the definition as follow: Add a new node with $m$ links
287: to the network. With probability $p$, attach {\em one} of the new
288: node's links to a randomly selected {\em inactive} node. The other
289: links are then attached to nodes chosen randomly from the $M$ {\em
290: active} ones. We will show that the perturbation will lead to a
291: phase transition[24] from large- to small-world in the network
292: without changing the scale-free property.
293:
294: In GKE model, each node can be represented by the time step of its
295: generation. It is clear that, when $p=0$ the GKE network is
296: structured[18], i. e., the time ordering exists and the mean field
297: manner is absent[20,25]. We denote $l(t)$ as the average distance
298: for pairs of nodes separated by time interval $t$. Fig. 5 shows the
299: simulation results of the variation of $l(t)$ with perturbation
300: parameter $p$. It can be found that, when $p=0$, $l(t)$ increases
301: linearly with $t$, i. e., the time ordering indeed exists. Since the
302: nodes in the network are uniformly distributed on time axis, we can
303: easily obtain that the average distance $L$ is linearly correlated
304: to the system size $N$, i. e., $L\propto N$, which indicates the
305: absence of small world effect. However, once $p$ is a small finite
306: value, $l(t)$ becomes independent of time interval $t$, i. e., the
307: time ordering vanishes. Meanwhile, all nodes with the same degree
308: can be considered to be statistically equivalent, and the mean-field
309: manner is recovered.
310:
311: \begin{figure}
312: \scalebox{0.9}[0.9]{\includegraphics{fig5}} \caption{(Color online)
313: Illustration of $l(t)$ as a function of time interval $t$, with
314: perturbation $p=0.00$ (solid line), $0.01$ (dashed line), $0.05$
315: (dotted line), and $0.10$ (dot-dashed line). Other parameters for
316: the simulations are $m=3$, $M=10$, and $N=8000$. Each data point is
317: obtained as an average of $50$ independent runs.}
318: \end{figure}
319:
320: Let $d(i,j)$ denotes the distance between node $i$ and node $j$, and
321: thus the average distance of the model with system size $N$ is
322: \begin{eqnarray}L(N)=\frac{2\sigma(N)}{N(N-1)}.\end{eqnarray}
323: where the total distance is
324: \begin{eqnarray}\sigma(N)=\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq N } d(i,j).\end{eqnarray}
325: Intuitively, when a new node is added, the distance between old
326: nodes will not increase. Hence we have
327: \begin{eqnarray}\sigma(N+1)\leq\sigma(N)+\sum_{i=1}^N d(i,N+1),\end{eqnarray}
328: thus
329: \begin{eqnarray}\sigma(N+1)\leq\sigma(N)+\sum_{i=1}^N d(i,x)+N,\end{eqnarray}
330: where $x$ is the active node connected to the newly added one. Since
331: $p$ is nonzero, by using mean-field approximation[26,27], we have
332: \begin{eqnarray}\sum_{i=1}^N d(i,x)\approx L(N)(N-1).\end{eqnarray}
333: Thus, the inequality (20) reduces to
334: \begin{eqnarray}\sigma(N+1)\leq\sigma(N)+\frac{2\sigma(N)}{N}+N.\end{eqnarray}
335: Rewriting (22) in continuous form will yield
336: \begin{eqnarray}\frac{d\sigma(N)}{dN}\leq\frac{2\sigma(N)}{N}+N,\end{eqnarray}
337: which leads to
338: \begin{eqnarray}\sigma(N)\leq N^2\ln N+B,\end{eqnarray}
339: where $B$ is a constant. As $\sigma(N)\sim N^2L(N)$ and $N$ is
340: sufficiently large, we obtain $L(N)\leq\ln N$, i. e., the increasing
341: tendency of $L(N)$ is not faster than $\ln N$, which predicts the
342: presence of small-world property.
343:
344: In fact, the GKE network is similar to a chain of dense clusters
345: locally connected, i. e., it is like a regular lattice in
346: topological view. For this peculiar topology, all of the links in
347: the network are local. When a perturbation is introduced, the
348: network undergoes a cross-over from structured network to
349: unstructured network. Actually, the perturbation just means that,
350: with a probability, every node rewires one of its local links to a
351: randomly selected node, which is precisely the definition of the
352: model proposed by Watts and Strogatz[12]. That is to say, the
353: cross-over is just the small-world phase transition[24].
354:
355: In Fig. 6, we show the dependence of average distance $L$ on system
356: size $N$ with $p=0.00$ and $p=0.01$ in GKE network. For $p=0.00$,
357: the average distance grows linearly $L\propto N$, the same behavior
358: observed in one-dimensional regular lattices. Once $p$ is a small
359: finite value, $L$ becomes logarithmic related to $N$, i. e.,
360: $L\propto \ln N$. The logarithmic increase of average distance with
361: system size predicts that the phase transition from large- to
362: small-world occurs, which is in agreement with the analytical
363: result.
364:
365: \begin{figure}
366: \scalebox{0.9}[0.9]{\includegraphics{fig6}} \caption{(Color online)
367: Illustration of the average distance $L$ as a function of $N$, with
368: $p=0.00$ (squares) and $p=0.01$ (circles). When a perturbation
369: $p=0.01$ is introduced, $L$ grows logarithmically with $N$. The
370: values can be fitted well by a straight line, which is typical of
371: the small world effect. Other parameters for these simulations are
372: $m=4$ and $M=10$. Each data point is obtained as an average of $100$
373: independent runs. }
374: \end{figure}
375:
376: \
377:
378: It should be noted that, although we introduce a structural
379: perturbation into the network, the scale-free property is not
380: affected and the power-law exponent $\gamma=3$ is maintained.
381: Numerical simulations shown in Fig. 7 confirm this feature.
382:
383: \begin{figure}
384: \scalebox{0.9}[0.9]{\includegraphics{fig7}} \caption{(Color online)
385: Illustration of the cumulative degree distribution of the GKE
386: network with perturbation $p=0.00$ (squares), $0.01$ (upward
387: triangles), and $0.10$ (circles). The fitted power-law exponent is
388: $\gamma-1=1.97\pm0.02$. Other parameters for these simulations are
389: $m=10$, $M=20$, and $N=2\times10^4$. Each data point is obtained as
390: an average of $100$ independent runs. The dashed line has slope
391: $-2.0$ for comparison.}
392: \end{figure}
393:
394: \subsection{Universal scaling behavior of clustering coefficient}
395: In the following subsection, we investigate the dependence of
396: clustering coefficient $C$ on perturbation parameter $p$. Analogous
397: to the derivation of clustering coefficient in GKE network without
398: perturbation, we give an approximately analytical result. According
399: to the modification of the model, when a new node $l$ with $m$ links
400: is added into the network, one of the links is attached to a
401: randomly selected inactive node $s$ with probability $p$. That is to
402: say, with probability $p$, one of the neighbors of $l$ is inactive.
403: Since the system size $N$ is large compared with $M$, we assume that
404: node $s$ is apart from the active nodes[28]. Thus, $m-1$ possible
405: links between neighbors of $l$ are missed. Furthermore, node $s$ is
406: always apart from the afterward added nodes that are connected to
407: node $l$, which causes another $k-m$ possible links missed. Thus we
408: have
409: \begin{eqnarray}C(l)&=&\frac{m-1\times p}{M}[1-\frac{(k_l-m+1)(k_l-m)}{k_l(k_l-1)}]\nonumber\\&-&p\frac{m-1\times p}{M}\frac{2(m-1)}{k_l(k_l-1)}\nonumber\\&-&p\frac{m-1\times p}{M}\frac{2(k_l-m)}{k_l(k_l-1)}.\end{eqnarray}
410: Similar to the derivation of Eq. (16), we have
411: \begin{eqnarray}C=\frac{m}{M}(\frac{5}{6}-\frac{7}{30m})-\frac{1}{M}(\frac{13}{6}-\frac{7}{30m})p+\mathcal{O}(p^2)\end{eqnarray}
412:
413: It is worthwhile to note that the scaling behavior $C\sim1/M$ is
414: conserved though there exist certain fluctuations in the network
415: which lead to a structure transition. That is to say, $C\sim1/M$ is
416: a universal scaling behavior of clustering coefficient induced by
417: deactivation mechanism. Fig. 8 shows the log-log plot of the
418: clustering coefficient $C$ versus $M$ with different perturbation
419: parameters obtained by simulations. We can see that the perturbation
420: has almost no effect on the scaling behavior of $C$, which agrees
421: well with the analytical result.
422:
423: From Eq. (26), we know that, when $p$ is sufficiently small, the
424: clustering coefficient $C$ has a linearly relation with $p$. Fig. 9
425: shows the simulation result of clustering coefficient $C$ as a
426: function of perturbation parameter $p$, with $m=4$ and $M=10$. The
427: slope found numerically is 0.223, slightly larger than the
428: analytical result $\frac{1}{M}(\frac{13}{6}-\frac{7}{30m})=0.21$.
429: The deviation is due to the approximation[28] used in the
430: theoretical derivation of $C$. It is clear that the node $s$ is not
431: always apart from all the active nodes, which actually causes less
432: than $m-1$ possible links missed between neighbors of $l$. Thus, we
433: can easily find the precise slope should be a little larger than
434: that obtained from Eq. (26).
435:
436:
437:
438: \begin{figure}
439: \scalebox{0.9}[0.9]{\includegraphics{fig8}} \caption{(Color online)
440: Illustration of the clustering coefficient $C$ as a function of
441: number of active nodes $M$, with perturbation parameter $p=0.00$
442: (squares), $p=0.01$ (upward triangles), $p=0.10$ (downward
443: triangles), $p=0.50$ (diamonds), and $p=1.00$ (circles). The average
444: fit slope for the simulations is $0.994$. Other parameters for these
445: simulations are $m=10$ and $N=2\times10^4$. Each data point is
446: obtained as an average of $100$ independent runs. The dashed line
447: has slope $-1.0$ for comparison.}
448: \end{figure}
449:
450: \begin{figure}
451: \scalebox{0.9}[0.9]{\includegraphics{fig9}} \caption{(Color online)
452: Illustration of the clustering coefficient $C$ as a function of
453: perturbation parameter $p$. The fit slope is $0.223$. Other
454: parameters for this simulation are $m=4$, $M=10$, and
455: $N=2\times10^4$. Each data point is obtained as an average of $100$
456: independent runs.}
457: \end{figure}
458:
459:
460:
461: \section{DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS}
462: We first discuss the relationship between the numerical behavior of
463: clustering coefficient in the coauthor and paper citation networks
464: and our theoretical result. According to the model of Ref. [19],
465: each of the authors and papers is assigned a topic, and authors can
466: only cite, produce papers or coauthor with others in their own topic
467: area. It means that, by topics the whole network is divided into
468: many subnetworks which evolve separately and simultaneously. Each of
469: the subnetworks can be reduced to a GKE network and the number of
470: these GKE subnetworks is just the number of the topics denoted as
471: $n$. In each subnetwork, the number of \emph{active} authors who are
472: doing research or the number of \emph{active} papers that are likely
473: to be cited just corresponds to the number of active nodes in GKE
474: network, which is denoted as $M$. Since the whole network is divided
475: into $n$ subnetworks, we intuitively know that the number of
476: \emph{active} authors or papers in each subnetwork is inversely
477: proportional to the number of topics, i. e., $M\sim 1/n$. For each
478: subnetwork can be treated as a GKE network, incorporating with our
479: theoretical result $C\sim 1/M$, we can easily obtained that $C\sim
480: n$. Since each subnetwork evolves parallelly, the clustering
481: coefficient of the whole network has the same behavior that it is
482: linearly correlated with the number of topics. Therefore, by using
483: our theoretical result we can indicate that the numerical behavior
484: of clustering coefficient in the coauthor and paper citation network
485: presented in Ref. [19] is due to the deactivation mechanism.
486: Furthermore, in the above discussion, we reduce the aging mechanism
487: to deactivation mechanism. In fact, in the model of Ref. [19], the
488: aging effect is introduced by an aging function. To this point, we
489: conjecture that there might be similar scaling behaviors of $C$ in
490: networks generated by other forms of aging mechanism.
491:
492: Finally, it is worthwhile to point out that, to our knowledge, no
493: empirical data are available to illustrate the theoretical scaling
494: behavior of clustering coefficient. Nevertheless, this interesting
495: property is due to the deactivation process which is a special case
496: of aging effect. In network evolution, aging is a universal
497: mechanism. Therefore, this simple theoretical result of $C$ will
498: have a rich practical significance and potential applications in
499: future network research. Meanwhile, such scaling behavior of $C$
500: should be given further considerations from empirical
501: investigations.
502:
503: \
504:
505: In summary, motivated by the aging effect governing the evolution of
506: the coauthor and paper citation networks, a generalized deactivation
507: model of network called GKE is presented in this paper. We study
508: analytically and by simulations several topological features of this
509: model, such as the degree distribution and clustering coefficient.
510: Most importantly, an interesting scaling behavior of the clustering
511: coefficient $C\sim 1/M$ is obtained, which shows that the numerical
512: result recently observed in the coauthor and paper citation networks
513: is due to deactivation mechanism. By introducing a perturbation, the
514: GKE network undergoes a small-world phase transition, while the
515: scaling behavior of $C$ is conserved. It indicates that $C\sim 1/M$
516: is a universal scaling behavior of clustering coefficient induced by
517: deactivation mechanism. In addition, we would like to emphasize that
518: our study unifies the concept of regular lattice, small-world graphs
519: and scale-free networks in a single model, and the GKE model
520: generalizes the new class of the networks with a crucial parameter
521: $M$.
522:
523: Since the GKE networks present peculiar structure property, it will
524: be interesting to investigate the effect of their complex topology
525: features on the network dynamics[25,29-31]. Especially, the
526: clustering coefficient of GKE network is precisely tunable by
527: parameter $M$ or $p$ without changing the degree distribution.
528: Therefore, the model can be used to quantitatively study the effect
529: of clustering on network synchronization[32-34] and network
530: epidemics[31,35]. Research along this line is in progress.
531:
532: \section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
533: Shi thanks the program for New Century Excellent Talents in
534: University of China for financial support (NECT-04-0510). This work
535: is also supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China
536: under Grant Nos. 70471084 and 10372045.
537:
538: \begin{thebibliography} {1}
539: \bibitem{1}
540: R. Albert and A.-L. Barab\'asi, Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{74}, 47
541: (2002).
542: \bibitem{2}
543: S. N. Dorogrovtsev and J. F. F. Mendels, Adv. Phys. \textbf{51},
544: 1079 (2002).
545: \bibitem{3}
546: M. E. J. Newman, SIAM Rev. \textbf{45}, 167 (2003).
547: \bibitem{4}
548: M. Faloutsos, P. Faloutsos and C. Faloutsos, Computer Communications
549: Review \textbf{29}, 251 (1999).
550: \bibitem{5}
551: R. Pastor-Satorras, A. Vazquez, and A. Vespignani, Phys. Rev. Lett.
552: \textbf{87}, 258701 (2001)
553: \bibitem{6}
554: B. A. Huberman, \emph{The Laws of the web} (MIT Press, Cambridge,
555: 2001).
556: \bibitem{7}
557: R. Albert, H. Jeong and A. -L. Barab\'asi, Nature \textbf{401}, 130
558: (1999).
559: \bibitem{8}
560: H. Jeong, S. P. Mason, A.-L. Barab\'asi, and Z. N. Oltvai, Nature
561: \textbf{411}, 41 (2001).
562: \bibitem{9}
563: E. Ravasz, A. L. Somera, D. A. Mongru, Z. N. Oltvai, and A.-L.
564: Barab\'asi, Science \textbf{297}, 1551 (2002).
565: \bibitem{10}
566: S. L. Pimm, \emph{Food Webs} (University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
567: 2002).
568: \bibitem{11}
569: S. Wasserman and K. Faust, \emph{Social Network Analysis} (Cambridge
570: University Press, Cambridge, 1994); J. Scott, \emph{Socical Network
571: Analysis: A Handbook} (Sage Publications, London, 2000).
572: \bibitem{12}
573: D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, Nature \textbf{393}, 440 (1998).
574: \bibitem{13}
575: A. -L. Barab\'asi and R. Albert, Science \textbf{286}, 509 (1999).
576: \bibitem{14}
577: L. A. N. Amaral, A. Scala, M. Barth\'el\'emy, and H. E. Stanley,
578: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. \textbf{97}, 11 149 (2000).
579: \bibitem{15}
580: S. N. Dorogovtsev and J. F. F. Mendes, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{62},
581: 1842 (2000).
582: \bibitem{16}
583: A. F. J. Van Raan, Scientometrics \textbf{47}, 347 (2000);
584: \bibitem{17}
585: H. Zhu, X. Wang, and J.-Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{68}, 056121
586: (2003); K. B. Hajra and P. Sen, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{70}, 056103
587: (2004); K. B. Hajra and P. Sen, Physica A \textbf{346}, 44 (2005);
588: P.-Q. Jiang, B.-H. Wang, T. Zhou, Y.-D. Jin, Z.-Q. Fu, P.-L. Zhou,
589: and X.-S. Luo, Chin. Phys. Lett. \textbf{22}, 1285 (2005).
590: \bibitem{18}
591: K. Klemm and V. M. Egu\'iluz, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{65}, 036123
592: (2002).
593: \bibitem{19}
594: K. B\"orner, J. T. Maru, and R. L. Goldstone, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
595: U.S.A. \textbf{101}, 5266 (2004).
596: \bibitem{20}
597: A. V\'azquez, M. Bogu\~n\'a, Y. Moreno, R. Pastor-Satorras, and A.
598: Vespignani, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{67}, 046111 (2003).
599: \bibitem{21}
600: C.-P. Zhu, S.-J. Xiong, Y.-J. Tian, N. Li, and K.-S. Jiang, Phys.
601: Rev. Lett. \textbf{92}, 218702 (2004).
602: \bibitem{22}
603: It means that each node is connected symmetrically to its $2z$
604: nearest neighbors. For detailed definition, see B. Bollob\'{a}s,
605: \emph{Random Graphs} (Academic Press, New York, 1985). We set $z=1$
606: in the simulations in this paper for the sake that the influence of
607: initial graph on the evolving of the network is minimal and can be
608: ignored.
609: \bibitem{23}
610: K. Klemm and V. M. Egu\'iluz, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{65}, 057102
611: (2002).
612: \bibitem{24}
613: M. E. J. Newman and D. J. Watts, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{60},
614: 7332(1999).
615: \bibitem{25}
616: V. M. Egu\'iluz, E. Hern\'{a}ndez-Garc\'{i}a, O. Piro, and K. Klemm,
617: Phys. Rev. E \textbf{68}, 055102(R) (2003).
618: \bibitem{26}
619: T. Zhou, G. Yan, and B.-H. Wang, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{71}, 046141
620: (2005).
621: \bibitem{27}
622: Z.-M. Gu, T. Zhou, B.-H. Wang, G. Yan, C.-P. Zhu, and Z.-Q. Fu,
623: arXiv: cond-mat/0505175.
624: \bibitem{28}
625: As we know, when $p=0$, the topology of the GKE network is similar
626: to a one-dimensional lattice. Thus, if $p$ is sufficient small, this
627: approximation is reasonable.
628: \bibitem{29}
629: K. Klemm, V. M. Egu\'iluz, R. Toral, and M. SanMiguel, Phys. Rev. E
630: \textbf{67}, 026120 (2003)
631: \bibitem{30}
632: K. Suchecki, V. M. Egu\'iluz, and M. S. Miguel, Phys. Rev. E
633: \textbf{72}, 036132 (2005)
634: \bibitem{31}
635: V. M. Egu\'iluz and K. Klemm, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{89}, 108701
636: (2002)
637: \bibitem{32}
638: P. N. McGraw, M. Menzinger, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{72}, 015101(R)
639: (2005).
640: \bibitem{33}
641: M. Zhao, T. Zhou, B. -H. Wang, G. Yan, and H. -J. Yang, preprint
642: arXiv: cond-mat/0510332.
643: \bibitem{34}
644: X. Wu, B. -H. Wang, T. Zhou, W. -X. Wang, M. Zhao, and H. -J. Yang,
645: Chin. Phys. Lett. 23, 1046 (2006).
646: \bibitem{35}
647: M. Bogu\~n\'a, R. Pastor-Satorras, and A. Vespignani, Phys. Rev.
648: Lett. \textbf{90}, 028701 (2003).
649:
650:
651:
652:
653:
654:
655:
656: \end{thebibliography}
657:
658:
659:
660: \end{document}
661: