1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
4: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
5: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
6:
7: \begin{document}
8: \title{Generalized BBV Models for Weighted Complex Networks}
9: \author{Bo Hu$^{1}$}
10: \email{hubo25@mail.ustc.edu.cn}
11: \author{Gang Yan$^{2}$}
12: \author{Wen-Xu Wang$^{1}$}
13: \author{Wen Chen$^{1}$}
14: \affiliation{%
15: $^{1}$Nonlinear Science Center and Department of Modern Physics,
16: University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230026, PR
17: China \\
18: $^{2}$Department of Electronic Science and Technology, University
19: of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230026, PR China
20: }%
21: \date{\today}
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24: We will introduce two evolving models that characterize weighted
25: complex networks. Though the microscopic dynamics are different,
26: these models are found to bear a similar mathematical framework,
27: and hence exhibit some common behaviors, for example, the
28: power-law distributions and evolution of degree, weight and
29: strength. We also study the nontrivial clustering coefficient $C$
30: and tunable degree assortativity coefficient $r$, depending on
31: specific parameters. Most results are supported by present
32: empirical evidences, and may provide us with a better description
33: of the hierarchies and organizational architecture of weighted
34: networks. Our models have been inspired by the weighted network
35: model proposed by Alain Barrat \emph{et al.} (BBV for short), and
36: can be considered as a meaningful development of their original
37: work.
38: \end{abstract}
39:
40:
41:
42: \maketitle
43: \section{Introduction}
44: The recent few years have witnessed a great development in physics
45: community to explore and characterize the underlying laws of
46: complex networks, including as diverse as the Internet
47: \cite{Internet}, the World-Wide Web \cite{WWW}, the scientific
48: collaboration networks (SCN) \cite{CN1,CN2}, and world-wide
49: airport networks (WAN)\cite{air1,air2}. Many empirical
50: measurements have uncovered some general scale-free properties of
51: those real systems, which motivated a wealth of theoretical
52: efforts devoted to the characterization and modelling of them.
53: Since Barab\'asi and Albert introduced their seminal BA model,
54: most efforts have been contributed to study the network
55: topological properties \cite{BA}. However, networks as well known
56: are far from boolean structures, and the purely topological
57: representation of them will miss important attributes often
58: encountered in real world. For instance, the amount of traffic
59: characterizing the connections of communication systems or large
60: transport infrastructure is fundamental for a full description of
61: them \cite{top10}. More recent years, the availability of more
62: complete empirical data and higher computation ability permit
63: scientists to consider the variation of the connection strengths
64: that indeed contain the physical features of many real graphs.
65: Weighted networks can be described by a weighted adjacency
66: $N\times N$ matrix, with element $w_{ij}$ denoting the weight on
67: the edge connecting vertices $i$ and $j$. As a note, this paper
68: will only consider undirected graphs where weights are symmetric.
69: As confirmed by measurements, complex networks often exhibit a
70: scale-free degree distribution $P(k)\thicksim k^{-\gamma}$ with
71: 2$\leq\gamma\leq$3 \cite{air1,air2}. Interestingly, the weight
72: distribution $P(w)$ is also found to be heavy tailed in some real
73: systems \cite{ref1}. As a generalization of connectivity $k_i$,
74: the vertex strength is defined as
75: $s_{i}=\sum_{j\in\Gamma(i)}w_{ij}$, where $\Gamma(i)$ denotes the
76: set of $i$'s neighbors. This quantity is a natural measure of the
77: importance or centrality of a vertex in the network. For instance,
78: the strength in WAN provides the actual traffic going through a
79: vertex and is obvious measure of the size and importance of each
80: airport. For the SCN, the strength is a measure of scientific
81: productivity since it is equal to the total number of publications
82: of any given scientist. Empirical evidence indicates that in most
83: cases the strength distribution has a fat tail \cite{air2},
84: similar to that of degree distribution. Highly correlated with the
85: degree, the strength usually displays scale-free property
86: $s\thicksim k^{\beta}$ with $\beta\geq1$ \cite{traffic-driven,
87: empirical}. Driven by new empirical findings, Alain Barrat
88: \emph{et al.} have presented a simple model (BBV for short) that
89: integrates the topology and weight dynamical evolution to study
90: the dynamical evolution of weighted networks \cite{BBV}. An
91: obvious virtue of their model is its general simplicity in both
92: mechanisms and mathematics. Thus it can be used as a starting
93: point for further generalizations. It successfully yields
94: scale-free properties of the degree, weight and strength, just
95: depending on one parameter $\delta_{BBV}$ that controls the local
96: dynamics between topology and weights. Inspired by BBV's work, a
97: class of evolving models will be presented in this paper to
98: describe and study specific weighted networks. This paper is
99: organized as follows: In Section II, we will introduce a
100: traffic-driven model to mimic the weighted technological networks.
101: Analytical calculations are in consistent with numerical results.
102: In Section III, a neighbor-connected model is proposed to study
103: social networks of collaboration, with the comparison of
104: simulations and theoretical prediction as well. At the end of each
105: section, we discuss the differences between the BBV model and
106: ours, from the microscopic mechanisms to observed macroscopic
107: properties. We conclude our paper by a brief review and outlook in
108: Section IV.
109:
110: \section{Model A}
111:
112: \subsection{The Traffic-Driven Model for Technological Networks}
113: The network provides the substrate on which numerous dynamical
114: processes occur. Technology networks provide large empirical
115: database that simultaneously captures the topology and the traffic
116: dynamics taking place on it. We argue that traffic and its
117: dynamics is a key role for the understanding of technological
118: networks. For Internet, the information flow between routers
119: (nodes) can be represented by the corresponding edge weight. The
120: total (incoming and outgoing) information that each router deals
121: with can be denoted by the node strength, which also represents
122: the importance or load of given router. Our traffic-driven model
123: starts from an initial configuration of $N_0$ vertices fully
124: connected by links with assigned weight $w_0=1$. The model is
125: defined on two coupled mechanisms: the topological growth and the
126: increasing traffic dynamics:
127:
128: \emph{(i) Topological Growth.} At each time step, a new vertex is
129: added with $m$ edges connected to $m$ previously existing vertices
130: (we hence require $N_0>m$), choosing preferentially nodes with
131: large strength; i.e. a node $i$ is chosen by the new according to
132: the strength preferential probability:
133: \begin{equation}
134: \Pi_{new\rightarrow i}=\frac{s_i}{\sum_ks_k}.
135: \end{equation}The weight of each new edge is also fixed to
136: $w_{0}=1$. This strength preferential mechanism have simple
137: physical and realistic interpretations in Ref. \cite{BBV, WWX}.
138:
139: \emph{(ii) Traffic Dynamics.} From the start of the network
140: growing, traffic in all the sites are supposed to constantly
141: increase, with probability proportional to the node strength
142: $s_i/\sum_ks_k$ per step. We assume the growing speed of the
143: network's total traffic as a discrete constant $W$ (each unit can
144: be considered as an information packet in the case of Internet).
145: Then in statistic sense the newly created traffic in site $i$ per
146: step is
147: \begin{equation}
148: \Delta W_i=W\frac{s_i}{\sum_ks_k}.
149: \end{equation}These newly-added packets will be sent out from $i$ to their separate
150: destinations. Our model does not care their specific destinations
151: or delivering paths, but simply suppose that each new packet
152: preferentially takes the route-way with larger edge weight (data
153: bandwidth of links), i.e. with the probability $w_{ij}/s_i$, and
154: it hence will increase the traffic (strength) in the corresponding
155: neighbor $j$ of node $i$. It is a plausible mechanism in many
156: real-world webs. For instance, in the case of the airport
157: networks, the potential passenger traffic in larger airports (with
158: larger strength, often located in important cities) will be
159: usually greater than that in smaller airports, and busy airlines
160: often get busier in development. For Internet, routers that have
161: larger traffic handling capabilities are responsible to deal with
162: more information packets. Also, the route-ways with broader data
163: bandwidth will get busier. Admittedly, this ``busy get busier"
164: scenario is intuitive in physics, though perhaps not strict in
165: mathematics.
166:
167: \subsection{Analytical Results vs. Numerical Simulations}
168: The model time is measured with respect to the number of nodes
169: added to the graph, i.e. $t=N-N_0$, and the natural time scale of
170: the model dynamics is the network size $N$. In response to the
171: demand of increasing traffic, the systems must expand in topology.
172: With a given size, one technological network assumably has a
173: certain ability to handle certain traffic load. Therefore, it
174: could be reasonable to suppose for simplicity that the total
175: weight on the networks increases synchronously by the natural time
176: scale. That is why we assume $W$ as a constant. This assumption
177: also bring us the convenience of analytical discussion \cite{WWX}.
178: By using the continuous approximation, we can treat $k, w, s$ and
179: the time $t$ as continuous variables. The time evolution of the
180: weights $w_{ij}$ can be computed analytically as follows:
181: \begin{eqnarray}
182: \frac{dw_{ij}}{dt}&=&\Delta W_i\frac{w_{ij}}{s_i}+\Delta
183: W_j\frac{w_{ij}}{s_j} \nonumber\\
184: &=&W\frac{s_i}{\sum_ks_k}\frac{w_{ij}}{s_i}+
185: W\frac{s_j}{\sum_ks_k}\frac{w_{ij}}{s_j} \nonumber\\
186: &=&2W\frac{w_{ij}}{\sum_ks_k}.
187: \end{eqnarray} The term $\Delta W_iw_{ij}/s_i$ represents the
188: contribution to weight $w_{ij}$ from site $i$. Considering
189: \begin{equation}
190: \sum_ks_k\approx(2W+2m)t,
191: \end{equation}one can rewrite the above evolution equation as:
192: \begin{equation}
193: \frac{dw_{ij}}{dt}=\frac{W}{W+m}\frac{w_{ij}}{t}.
194: \end{equation}
195: \newcommand{\zwfs}[2]{\frac{\;#1\;}{\;#2\;}}
196: The link (i,j) is created at $t_{ij}=max(i,j)$ with initial
197: condition $w_{ij}(t_{ij})=1$, so that
198: \begin{equation}
199: w_{ij}(t)=\left(\frac{t}{t_{ij}}\right)^{W/(W+m)}.
200: \end{equation} Further, we can obtain the evolution equations for $s_i(t)$ and
201: $k_i(t)$:
202: \begin{eqnarray}
203: \frac{ds_i}{dt}&=&\sum_{j\in \Gamma(i)}\frac{dw_{ij}}{dt}+m\frac{s_i}{\sum_ks_k} \nonumber\\
204: &=&2W\frac{\sum_jw_{ij}}{\sum_ks_k}+\frac{ms_i}{\sum_ks_k} \nonumber\\
205: &=&(2W+m)\frac{s_i}{\sum_ks_k} \nonumber\\
206: &=&\frac{2W+m}{2W+2m}\frac{s_i}{t},
207: \end{eqnarray}and
208: \begin{equation}
209: \frac{dk_i}{dt}=m\frac{s_i}{\sum_ks_k}=\frac{ms_i}{2(W+m)t}.
210: \end{equation}These equations can be readily integrated with
211: initial conditions $k_i(t_i)=s_i(t_i)=m$, yielding
212: \begin{eqnarray}
213: s_i(t)&=&m\left(\zwfs{t}{i}\right)^\frac{2W+m}{2W+2m},\\
214: k_i(t)&=&m\frac{2W+s_i}{2W+m}.
215: \end{eqnarray}The strength and degree of vertices are thus related
216: by the following expression
217: \begin{equation}
218: s_i=\frac{2W+m}{m}k_i-2W.
219: \end{equation}
220: In order to check the analytical predictions, we performed
221: numerical simulations of networks created by the present model
222: with various values of $W$ and minimum degree $m$. In Fig. 1, we
223: report the average strength $s_i$ of vertices with connectivity
224: $k_i$ and confirm the validity of Eq. (11).
225:
226: The time $t_i=i$ when the node $i$ enters the system is uniformly
227: distributed in $[0,t]$ and the strength probability distribution
228: can be written as
229: \begin{equation}
230: P(s,t)=\frac{1}{t+N_0}\int_{0}^{t}\delta(s-s_i(t))dt_i,
231: \end{equation}
232: where $\delta(x)$ is the Dirac delta function. Using equation
233: $s_i(t)\sim(t/i)^{a}$ obtained from Eq. (9), one obtains in the
234: infinite size limit $t\rightarrow\infty$ the power-law
235: distribution $P(s)\sim s^{-\gamma_{_A}}$ (as shown in Fig. 2) with
236: \begin{equation}
237: \gamma_{_A}=1+\frac{1}{a}=2+\frac{m}{2W+m}.
238: \end{equation}Obviously, when $W=0$ the model is topologically
239: equivalent to the BA network and the value $\gamma_{_A}=3$ is
240: recovered. For larger values of $W$, the distribution is gradually
241: broader with $\gamma_{_A}\rightarrow2$ when $W\rightarrow\infty$.
242: Since $s$ and $k$ are proportional, one can expect the same
243: behavior of degree distribution $P(k)\sim k^{-\gamma_{_A}}$.
244: Analogously, the weight distribution can be calculated yielding
245: the scale-free property $P(w)\sim w^{-\alpha_{_A}}$, with the
246: exponent $\alpha_{_A}=2+m/W$ (See Fig. 3).
247:
248: \begin{figure}
249: \scalebox{0.80}[0.75]{\includegraphics{As_k.eps}}
250: \caption{\label{fig:epsart} The average strength $s_i$ of the
251: nodes with connectivity $k_i$ for different $W$ (log-log scale).
252: Linear data fittings all give slope $1.00\pm0.02$, demonstrating
253: the predicted linear correlation between strength and degree.}
254: \end{figure}
255:
256: \begin{figure}
257: \scalebox{0.80}[0.75]{\includegraphics{Astrength.eps}}
258: \caption{\label{fig:epsart} Cumulative strength probability
259: distribution $P_c(s)$ with various $W$. Data agree well with the
260: power-law form $s^{-\gamma_{_A}}$. The inset reports $\gamma_{_A}$
261: from data fitting (filled circles), in comparison with the
262: theoretical prediction
263: $\gamma_{_A}=2+\frac{m}{2W+m}=2+\frac{5}{2W+5}$(line), averaged
264: over 20 independent networks of size N=7000.}
265: \end{figure}
266:
267: \begin{figure}
268: \scalebox{0.80}[0.75]{\includegraphics{Aweight.eps}}
269: \caption{\label{fig:epsart} Weight probability distribution $P(w)$
270: with various values of $W$. Data are consistent with a power-law
271: behavior $w^{-\alpha_{_A}}$. In the inset we give the value of
272: $\alpha_{_A}$ obtained by data fitting (filled circles), together
273: with the analytical expression $\alpha_{_A}=2+m/W=2+5/W$(line).
274: The data are averaged over 20 independent realizations of network
275: size N=7000.}
276: \end{figure}
277:
278: \subsection{Clustering and Correlations}
279: A complete characterization of the network structure must take
280: into account the level of clustering and degree correlations
281: present in the network. Information on the local connectedness is
282: provided by the clustering coefficient $c_i$ defined for any
283: vertex $i$ as the fraction of connected neighbors of $i$. The
284: average clustering coefficient $C=N^{-1}\sum_ic_i$ thus expresses
285: the statistical level of cohesiveness measuring the global density
286: of interconnected vertices' triples in the network. Further
287: information can be gathered by inspecting the average clustering
288: coefficient $C(j)$ restricted to classes of vertices with degree
289: $k$:
290: \begin{equation}
291: C(k)=\frac{1}{NP(k)}\sum_{i/k_i=k}c_i.
292: \end{equation}
293: In many networks, $C(k)$ exhibits a power-law decay as a function
294: of $k$, indicating that low-degree nodes generally belong to well
295: interconnected communities (high clustering coefficient) while
296: high-degree sites are linked to many nodes that may belong to
297: different groups which are not directly connected (small
298: clustering coefficient). This is generally the signature of a
299: nontrivial architecture in which hubs (high degree vertices) play
300: a distinct role in the network. Correlations can be probed by
301: inspecting the average degree of the nearest neighbors of a vertex
302: $i$, that is, $k_{nn,i}=k_i^{-1}\sum_{j}k_j$. Averaging this
303: quantity over nodes with the same degree $k$ leads to a convenient
304: measure to investigate the behavior of the degree correlation
305: function
306: \begin{equation}
307: k_{nn}(k)=\frac{1}{NP(k)}\sum_{i/k_i=k}k_{nn,i}=\sum_{k'}k'P(k'|k),
308: \end{equation}
309: If degrees of neighboring vertices are uncorrelated, $P(k'|k)$ is
310: only a function of $k'$ and thus $k_{nn}(k)$ is a constant. When
311: correlations are present, two main classes of possible
312: correlations have been identified: {\it assortative} behavior if
313: $k_{nn}(k)$ increases with $k$, which indicates that large degree
314: vertices are preferentially connected with other large degree
315: vertices, and {\it disassortative} if $k_{nn}(k)$ decreases with
316: $k$. The above quantities provide clear signals of a structural
317: organization of networks in which different degree classes show
318: different properties in the local connectivity structure. Almost
319: all the social networks empirically studied show assortative
320: mixing pattern, while all others including technological and
321: biological networks are disassortative. The origin of this
322: difference is not understood yet. To describe these types of
323: mixing, Newman further proposed some simpler measures, which is
324: called assortativity coefficients \cite{mixing}. In this paper, we
325: will also use the formula proposed by Newman \cite{mixing},
326: \begin{equation}
327: r=\frac{M^{-1}\sum_ij_ik_i-[M^{-1}\sum_i\frac{1}{2}(j_i+k_i)]^{2}}
328: {M^{-1}\sum_i\frac{1}{2}(j_i^{2}+k_i^{2})-[M^{-1}\sum_i\frac{1}{2}(j_i+k_i)]^{2}},
329: \end{equation}
330: where $j_i$, $k_i$ are the degrees of vertices at the ends of the
331: $i$th edges, with $i=1,...,M$ ($M$ is the total number of edges in
332: the observed graph). Simply, $r>0$ means assortative mixing, while
333: $r<0$ implies disassortative pattern.
334:
335: \begin{figure}
336: \scalebox{0.80}[0.75]{\includegraphics{Ack_k.eps}}
337: \caption{\label{fig:epsart} The scaling of $C(k)$ with $k$ for
338: various $W$. The data are averaged over 20 independent runs of
339: network size N=7000. The inset shows the average clustering
340: coefficient $C$, depending on increasing $W$.}
341: \end{figure}
342:
343: \begin{figure}
344: \scalebox{0.80}[0.75]{\includegraphics{Aknn_k.eps}}
345: \caption{\label{fig:epsart} Average connectivity $k_{nn}(k)$ of
346: the nearest neighbors of a node depending on its connectivity $k$
347: for different $W$. The data are averaged over 20 network
348: realizations of N=7000. The assortativity coefficient $r$
349: depending on $W$ is shown in the inset.}
350: \end{figure}
351:
352: In order to inspect the above properties we perform simulations of
353: graphs generated by the model for different values of $W$, fixing
354: $N=7000$ and $m=5$. In the case of clustering, the model also
355: exhibits properties which are depending on the basic parameter
356: $W$. More precisely, for small $W$, the clustering coefficient of
357: the network is small and $C(k)$ is flat. As $W$ increases however,
358: the global clustering coefficient increases and $C(k)$ becomes a
359: power-law decay similar to real network data \cite{hierarchy}.
360: Fig. 4 shows that the increase in clustering is determined by
361: low-degree vertices. The average clustering coefficient $C$ is
362: found to be a function of $W$, as shown in its inset. This
363: numerical result obviously demonstrates the important effect of
364: traffic on the hierarchical structure of technological networks.
365: Analogous properties are obtained for the degree correlation
366: spectrum. For small $W$, the average nearest neighbor degree
367: $k_{nn}(k)$ is quite flat as in the BA model. The disassortative
368: character emerges as $W$ increases and gives rise to a power law
369: behavior of $k_{nn}(k)\sim k^{-\eta}$ (Fig. 5). The assortativity
370: coefficient $r$ versus $W$, as reported in the inset of Fig. 5,
371: demonstrates the tunable disassortative property of this model,
372: which is supported by measurements in real technological networks
373: \cite{Internet}. The qualitative explanations of the correlations
374: and clustering spectrum can be found in \cite{BBV2}, and their
375: theoretical analysis appears in \cite{BP}. In sum, all the
376: simulation results for clustering and degree correlation, as
377: empirically observed, imply us that the increasing traffic may be
378: the driven force to shape the hierarchical and organizational
379: structure of real technological networks.
380:
381: \subsection{Comparison with the BBV model}
382: One may notice that if the parameter $W$ is replaced by
383: $W=m\delta_{_A}$, then the mathematical framework of our
384: traffic-driven model is equivalent to that of BBV's \cite{BBV2},
385: though the specific weights' dynamics are quite different between
386: the two. By comparison with $\delta_{_{BBV}}$ (that is, the
387: fraction of weight which is locally ``induced" by the new edge
388: onto the neighboring others), the parameter $\delta_{_A}$ in our
389: model, with macroscopic perspectives, is the ratio of the total
390: weight increment on the expanding structure (W) to the number of
391: newly-established links (m) at each time step. It is an important
392: measure for the relative growing speed of traffic vs. topology,
393: and controls a series of the network scale-free properties. Thus,
394: there is an obvious difference between BBV model and ours: the
395: former is based on the local rearrangement of weights induced by
396: newly added links, while the latter is built upon the global
397: traffic growth and the redistribution of weights according to the
398: local nature of network. Noticeably, the weight dynamical
399: evolution of the BBV model is triggered only by newly added
400: vertices, hardly resulting in satisfying interpretations to
401: collaboration networks or the airport systems. For these two
402: cases, even if the size of networks keeps invariant, co-authored
403: papers will still come out and airports can become more crowded as
404: well. In contrast, this difficulty for practical explanations
405: naturally disappear in our model, due to its global weight
406: dynamics. Above all, the traffic-driven model here, without loss
407: of simplicity and practical senses, has generalized BBV's work and
408: narrowed its applicable scope to technological networks. Based on
409: it, more complicated variations of the microscopic rules may be
410: implemented to better mimic technological networks. Especially
411: worth remarking is that the present empirical studies on airport
412: networks and Internet indicate the nonlinear degree-strength
413: correlation $s\sim k^{\beta}$ with $\beta>1$. In Ref. \cite{BBV2},
414: Barrat \emph{et al.} proposed the heterogeneous coupling mechanism
415: to obtain this property. This is not difficult to introduce into
416: the present traffic-driven version. Moreover, we find that the
417: nontrivial weight-topology correlation can also emerge from the
418: accelerating growth of traffic weight \cite{BH} or from the
419: accelerating creation and reinforcement of internal edges
420: \cite{WWX, BH}.
421:
422: \section{Model B}
423: \subsection{The Neighbor-Connected Model for Social Networks}
424: Social networks are a paradigm of the complexity of human
425: interactions, which have also attracted a great deal of attention
426: within the statistical physics community. The study of social
427: networks has been traditionally hindered by the small size of the
428: networks considered and the difficulties in the process of data
429: collection (usually from questionnaires or interviews). More
430: recently, however, the increasing availability of large databases
431: has allowed scientists to study a particular class of social
432: networks, the so-called collaboration networks. The co-authorship
433: network of scientists represents a prototype of complex evolving
434: networks, which can be defined in a clear way. Their large size
435: has allowed researchers to get a reliable statistical description
436: of their topological and weight properties, and hence reach
437: reliable conclusions of the network structure and dynamics. In
438: weighted social networks, the edge weight between a pair of nodes
439: can represent the tightness of their connection. The larger weight
440: indicates the more frequency of interaction; e.g. the number of
441: co-authored papers between two scientists, the frequency of
442: telephone or email contacts between two acquaintances, etc. In
443: addition, it is more probable that two vertices with a common
444: neighbor get connected than two vertices chosen at random.
445: Clearly, this property leads to a large average clustering
446: coefficient since it increases the number of connections between
447: the neighbors of a vertex. This is already observed in a model
448: proposed by Davidsen, Ebel and Bornhodt \cite{DEB}.
449:
450: Our neighbor-connected model starts from an initial graph of $N_0$
451: vertices, fully connected by links with assigned weight $w_0=1$.
452: Its evolution then is simply based on the dynamics of
453: \emph{connecting nearest-neighbors}: At each time step, a new
454: vertex $n$ is added with one primary link and $m$ secondary links,
455: which connect with $m+1$ existing vertices (the initial network
456: configuration hence requires $N_0>m+1$). Actually, the newly-built
457: connections are not independent, but related with each other. The
458: primary link ($w_0=1$) first preferentially attaches to an old
459: node with large strength; i.e. a node $i$ is connected by the
460: primary link with probability
461: \begin{equation}
462: \Pi_{n\rightarrow i}=\frac{s_i}{\sum_ks_k}.
463: \end{equation}Then, the $m$ secondary connections
464: (assigned $w_0=1$ each) are preferentially built between the new
465: vertex and $m$ neighbors of node $i$, with the weight preferential
466: probability
467: \begin{equation}
468: \Pi_{n\rightarrow j}=\frac{w_{ij}}{s_i},
469: \end{equation}where $j\in\Gamma(i)$. After building the primary link $(n, i)$,
470: the creation of every secondary link $(n, j)$ is assumed to
471: introduce variations of network weights. For the sake of
472: simplicity, we limit ourselves to the case where the introduction
473: of a primary link on node $i$ will trigger only local
474: rearrangement of weights on the existing neighbors
475: $j\in\Gamma(i)$, according to the rule
476: \begin{equation}
477: w_{ij}\rightarrow w_{ij}+\delta.
478: \end{equation}In general, $\delta$ depends on the local
479: dynamics and can be a function of different parameters such as the
480: weight $w_{ij}$, the degree or the strength of $i$, etc. In the
481: following, we will simply focus on the case that $\delta=const$.
482: After the weights have been updated, the evolving process is
483: iterated by introducing a new vertex until the desired size of the
484: network is reached.
485:
486: The above mechanisms have simple physical and realistic
487: interpretations. Once a fresh member joins a social community, he
488: will be introduced to his neighbors or take initiatives to
489: interact with them. Then, his social connections will soon be
490: built within his neighborhood. It is reasonable that the entering
491: of this new member can trigger the local variation of connections.
492: Take the SCN for example, a scientist joining a research group
493: will often collaborate with both the group director (primary link)
494: and the other group members (secondary links). The scientist's
495: affiliation can naturally boost the research productivity of the
496: group and also, enhance the collaborations of other members. The
497: above scenario may be a best interpretation of the origin of our
498: model parameter $\delta$. We use $\delta$ to control the effect of
499: the newly-introduced member on the weights of connections among
500: the local neighbors. In the proceeding section, we will see the
501: model also gives a wealth of scale-free behaviors depending on
502: this basic parameter.
503:
504:
505: \begin{figure}
506: \scalebox{0.80}[0.75]{\includegraphics{Bweight.eps}}
507: \caption{\label{fig:epsart} Weight probability distribution with
508: m=3. Data are consistent with a power-law behavior $P(w)\sim
509: w^{-\alpha_{_B}}$. In the inset we give the value of $\alpha_{_B}$
510: obtained by data fitting (filled circles), together with the
511: analytical form Eq. (22) (line). The data are averaged over 100
512: independent realizations of network size N=7000.}
513: \end{figure}
514:
515: \subsection{Analytical and Numerical Results}
516: Along the analytical lines used in Section II, one can also
517: calculate the time evolution of the strength, weight and degree,
518: and hence calculated their scale-free distributions as follows:
519: \begin{equation}
520: \frac{dw_{ij}}{dt}=\frac{ms_i}{\sum_ks_k}\frac{w_{ij}}{s_i}\delta+
521: \frac{ms_j}{\sum_ks_k}\frac{w_{ij}}{s_j}\delta=2m\delta\frac{w_{ij}}{\sum_ks_k}.
522: \end{equation}By noticing $\sum_ks_k\approx2(m+1)t+2m\delta t=2(1+m+m\delta)t$, we have
523: \begin{equation}
524: \frac{dw_{ij}}{dt}=\frac{m\delta}{1+m+m\delta}\frac{w_{ij}}{t}=\theta\frac{w_{ij}}{t},
525: \end{equation}and so that $w_{ij}(t)=(t/t_{ij})^{\theta}$,
526: which indicates the power-law distribution of weight $P(w)\sim
527: w^{-\alpha_{_B}}$ with exponent
528: \begin{equation}
529: \alpha_{_B}=1+\frac{1}{\theta}=2+\frac{1+m}{m\delta}.
530: \end{equation}Further, the evolution equations for $s_i$ and $k_i$ are obtained
531: \begin{eqnarray}
532: \frac{ds_i}{dt}&=&\sum_j\frac{dw_{ij}}{dt}+\frac{s_i}{\sum_ks_k}+
533: \sum_{j\in\Gamma(i)}\frac{s_j}{\sum_ks_k}m\frac{w_{ij}}{s_j}
534: \nonumber\\
535: &=&2m\delta\frac{\sum_jw_{ij}}{\sum_ks_k}+(m+1)\frac{s_i}{\sum_ks_k}
536: \nonumber\\
537: &=&\frac{1+m+2m\delta}{2+2m+2m\delta}\frac{s_i}{t}=\lambda\frac{s_i}{t},\\
538: \frac{dk_i}{dt}&=&\frac{s_i}{\sum_ks_k}+\sum_{j\in\Gamma(i)}
539: \frac{s_j}{\sum_ks_k}m\frac{w_{ij}}{s_j} \nonumber\\
540: &=&\frac{m+1}{2+2m+2m\delta}\frac{s_i}{t}.
541: \end{eqnarray}Integrating with the initial conditions
542: $k_i(t=i)=s_i(t=i)=m+1$, we have
543: \begin{eqnarray}
544: s_i(t)&=&(m+1)\left(\zwfs{t}{i}\right)^{\lambda} \nonumber\\
545: k_i(t)&=&(m+1)\frac{s_i(t)+2m\delta}{1+m+2m\delta},
546: \end{eqnarray}which determine the scale-free distributions of both
547: strength and degree, with the same power-law exponent
548: \begin{equation}
549: \gamma_{_B}=1+\frac{1}{\lambda}=2+\frac{1+m}{1+m+2m\delta}.
550: \end{equation}
551:
552:
553: \begin{figure}
554: \scalebox{0.80}[0.75]{\includegraphics{Bstrength.eps}}
555: \caption{\label{fig:epsart} Strength probability distribution with
556: m=3. Data agree well with the power-law form $P(s)\sim
557: s^{-\gamma_{_B}}$. The inset reports $\gamma_{_B}$ from data
558: fitting (filled circles) averaged over 100 independent networks of
559: size N=7000, in comparison with the theoretical prediction Eq.
560: (26) (line).}
561: \end{figure}
562:
563: \begin{figure}
564: \scalebox{0.85}[0.75]{\includegraphics{Bs_k.eps}}
565: \caption{\label{fig:epsart} The average strength $s_i$ of vertices
566: with connectivity $k_i$ for different $\delta$ with m=3 (log-log
567: scale). Linear data fittings all give slope $1.00\pm0.02$,
568: confirming the prediction $\beta=1$.}
569: \end{figure}
570:
571: We also performed numerical simulations of networks generated by
572: the model with various values of $\delta$ and minimum degree $m$.
573: As one can see, Fig. 6 and 7 recover the theoretical predictions
574: for scale-free distributions of weight and strength, and Fig. 8
575: validates the linear strength-degree correlation. It is worth
576: stressing that the empirical evidence in co-authorship networks
577: just indicates the linear correlation $s\sim k$ \cite{air2}.
578:
579: \begin{figure}
580: \scalebox{0.80}[0.75]{\includegraphics{Bck_k.eps}}
581: \caption{\label{fig:epsart} The scaling of $C(k)$ with $k$ for
582: various $\delta$ with m=3. Their fitted power-law exponents all
583: give 0.94 (dashed line). The data are averaged over 100
584: independent runs of network size N=7000. The inset shows the
585: average clustering coefficient $C$ depending on increasing
586: $\delta$.}
587: \end{figure}
588:
589: \begin{figure}
590: \scalebox{0.80}[0.75]{\includegraphics{Bck_k_m.eps}}
591: \caption{\label{fig:epsart} The scaling of $C(k)$ with $k$ for
592: various $m$ with $\delta=1$. The data are averaged over 100
593: independent runs of network size N=7000. The inset shows the
594: average clustering coefficient $C$ depending on increasing $m$.}
595: \end{figure}
596:
597: \begin{figure}
598: \scalebox{0.80}[0.75]{\includegraphics{Bknn_k.eps}}
599: \caption{\label{fig:epsart} Average connectivity $k_{nn}(k)$ of
600: the nearest neighbors of a node depending on its connectivity $k$
601: for different $\delta$ with m=3. The data are averaged over 100
602: network realizations of N=7000. The assortativity coefficient $r$
603: versus $\delta$ is also reported in the inset.}
604: \end{figure}
605:
606: \subsection{Discussions}
607: There are two important differences between the BBV model and our
608: neighbor-connected one, though the latter can be regarded as an
609: interesting variation of the former. First, in the BBV model the
610: evolution and distributions of such quantities as strength, weight
611: and degree are simply depending on the parameter $\delta_{_{BBV}}$
612: which controls the coupling between local topology and weights. In
613: our model, however, the evolution and distributions of those
614: quantities are controlled by two parameters ($\delta$ and $m$, as
615: reflected in theoretical part), which together determine the
616: effect of the new node on the local weights and topology. Though
617: we have fixed $m$ in most simulations, the role of parameter $m$
618: should not be ignored. As Fig. 9 reports, the curvature of $C(k)$
619: is not sensitive to the variations of $\delta$, but it
620: nontrivially depends on $m$ as shown in Fig. 10. Second, given the
621: same minimum degree, the average clustering coefficient $C$ of our
622: neighbor-connected model (see the inset of Fig. 9) can be much
623: larger than that of BBV's model or of our Model A, because the
624: secondary links in Model B considerably increase the density of
625: triangles within the system. Compared with the original model,
626: this larger clustering demonstrate an important advantage of Model
627: B in modelling the small-world property of real complex networks.
628: One question arises from the inset of Fig. 10: at first sight, it
629: may be surprising to see that $C$ greatly decreases when
630: increasing the secondary linking number $m$. Actually, larger $m$
631: in the model means larger minimum degree. When a new node arrives,
632: the number of triangles in the system will increase by $m$. But
633: for a smallest-degree node $i$, its clustering is
634: $c_i(m)=2N_\vartriangle(i)/m(m+1)$ where $N_\vartriangle(i)$
635: denotes the number of connected neighbors of node $i$. Therefore,
636: increasing $m$, we will decrease $c_i$ more greatly, resulting in
637: the decaying of $C$. Admittedly, there still exists a common point
638: which leads to the restriction of Model B to mimic and interpret
639: social networks. The degree correlations in both models are
640: negative (see the inset of Fig. 11), indicating their
641: disassortative mixing patten that is opposite in social networks.
642: Is it possible to find out a unified minimum model to characterize
643: both the assortative and disassortative networks? This question is
644: very challenging and appears among the leading ones in front of
645: network researchers \cite{top10}. Our recent studies may shed some
646: new light on this tackling problem \cite{WangHu}. Anyway, the
647: present neighbor-connected model (though disassortative) has
648: maintained the simplicity of the BBV model and appears as a more
649: specific version for weighted social networks, considering its
650: larger clustering and clearer hierarchical structure.
651:
652: \section{Review and outlook}
653: In this paper, we have presented and studied two evolving models
654: for weighted complex networks. These two models intend to mimic
655: technological networks and social graphs respectively, and can be
656: regarded as a meaningful development of the original BBV model.
657: Though their specific evolution dynamics are different, all of
658: them are found to bear similar mathematical structures and hence
659: exhibit several common behaviors, e.g. the power-law distributions
660: and evolution of degree, weight and strength. In each case, we
661: also studied the nontrivial clustering coefficient $C$ and tunable
662: degree assortativity $r$ as well as their degree-dependent
663: correlations. In such context, we compared our generalized models
664: with the original one, and got several interesting conclusions,
665: which may provide us with a better understanding of the
666: hierarchical and organizational architecture of weighted networks.
667: For all the above reasons, we would like to classify these models
668: into a class, within which the BBV's is the first one and may be
669: the simplest one. It must be admitted that this class of models do
670: not take into account the internal connections during the network
671: evolution, which is yet beyond the scope of this paper. Still, we
672: hope that our generalized work can make this model family more
673: diversified and help bring it some new sights.
674:
675:
676: \begin{thebibliography}{ref1}
677: \bibitem{Internet} R. Pastor-Satorras and A. Vespignani, {\it Evolution
678: and Structure of the Internet: A Statistical Physics Approach}
679: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2004).
680:
681: \bibitem{WWW} R. Albert, H. Jeong, and A.-L. Barab\'asi, Nature \textbf{401}, 130 (1999).
682:
683: \bibitem{CN1} M.E.J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{64}, 016132 (2001).
684:
685: \bibitem{CN2} A.-L. Barab\'asi, H. Jeong, Z. N\'eda. E. Ravasz, A.
686: Schubert, and T. Vicsek, Physica (Amsterdam) \textbf{311A}, 590
687: (2002).
688:
689: \bibitem{air1} R. Guimera, S. Mossa, A. Turtschi, and L.A.N Amearal, cond-mat/0312535.
690:
691: \bibitem{air2} A. Barrat, M. Barth\'elemy, R. Pastor-Satorras, and
692: A. Vespignani, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. \textbf{101}, 3747
693: (2004).
694:
695: \bibitem{BA} R. Albert and A.-L. Barab\'asi, Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{74}, 47 (2002).
696:
697: \bibitem{top10} A virtual round tabel on ten leading questions for
698: network research can be found in the special issue on Applications
699: of Networks, edited by G. Caldarelli, A. Erzan and A. Vespignani
700: [Eur. Phys. J. B \textbf{38}, 143 (2004)].
701:
702: \bibitem{ref1} W. Li and X. Cai, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{69}, 046106
703: (2004).
704:
705: \bibitem{traffic-driven} K.-I. Goh, B. Kahng, and D. Kim,
706: cond-mat/0410078 (2004).
707:
708: \bibitem{empirical} R. Pastor-Satorras, A. V\'azquez, and A.
709: Vespignani, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{87}, 258701 (2001).
710:
711: \bibitem{BBV} A. Barrat, M. Barth\'elemy, and A. Vespignani, Phys.
712: Rev. Lett. \textbf{92}, 228701 (2004).
713:
714: \bibitem{WWX} W.-X. Wang, B.-H. Wang, B. Hu, G. Yan, and Q. Ou,
715: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{94}, 188702 (2005).
716:
717: \bibitem{mixing} M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{67}, 026126
718: (2003).
719:
720: \bibitem{hierarchy} E. Ravasz and A.-L Barab\'asi, Phys. Rev. E
721: \textbf{67}, 026112 (2003).
722:
723: \bibitem{BBV2} A. Barrat, M. Barth\'elemy, and A. Vespignani, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{70}, 066149 (2004).
724:
725: \bibitem{BP} A. Barrat and R. Pastor-Satorras, Phys. Rev. E
726: \textbf{71}, 036127 (2005).
727:
728: \bibitem{BH} B. Hu \emph{et al.} (unpublished).
729:
730: \bibitem{DEB} J. Davidsen, H. Ebel, and S. Bornhodt, Phys. Rev.
731: Lett. \textbf{88}, 128701 (2001).
732:
733: \bibitem{WangHu} W.-X. Wang, B. Hu, B.-H. Wang, and G. Yan (unpublished).
734: \end{thebibliography}
735:
736: \end{document}
737: