1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
4: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
5: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
6: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{Statistical Self-Similar Properties of Complex Networks}
10: \author{Chang-Yong Lee}
11: \email{clee@kongju.ac.kr}
12: \affiliation{The Department of Industrial Information, Kongju National
13: University, Chungnam, 340-702 South Korea}
14: \author{Sunghwan Jung}
15: \affiliation{Applied Mathematics Laboratory, Courant Institute for
16: Mathematical Science, New York University, New York, NY 10012 USA}
17: %\date{\today}
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
23: \begin{abstract}
24: It has been shown that many complex networks shared distinctive
25: features, which differ in many ways from the random and the regular
26: networks. Although these features capture important characteristics of
27: complex networks, their applicability depends on the type of
28: networks. To unravel ubiquitous characteristics that complex networks
29: may have in common, we adopt the clustering coefficient as the
30: probability measure, and present a systematic analysis of various
31: types of complex networks from the perspective of statistical
32: self-similarity. We find that the probability distribution of the
33: clustering coefficient is best characterized by the multifractal;
34: moreover, the support of the measure had a fractal dimension. These
35: two features enable us to describe complex networks in a unified way;
36: at the same time, offer unforeseen possibilities to comprehend complex
37: networks.
38: \end{abstract}
39: \pacs{89.70.+c, 05.45.Df, 87.23.Ge}
40: \maketitle
41:
42: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
43: \section{Introduction}
44: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
45: The structure of complex systems across various disciplines can be
46: abstracted and conceptualized as networks (or graphs) of nodes and links to
47: which many quantitative methods can be applied so as to extract any
48: characteristics embedded in the system~\cite{newmansiam}.
49: Numerous complex systems have been expressed in
50: terms of networks, and have often been categorized by the research
51: field, such as social~\cite{amaral,newmansocial},
52: technological~\cite{fal,albertweb}, and biological
53: networks~\cite{guelzin,jeong}, to name a few.
54:
55: It was shown that many complex networks had distinctive
56: global features in common, including the small-world~\cite{watts} and
57: the scale-free~\cite{scale} properties. These uncovered
58: characteristics distinguish complex networks from the random and the regular
59: networks in that the average path between any two nodes is shorter
60: while maintaining highly clustered connections, and that the degree of
61: nodes approximately follows a power law distribution.
62: In addition to the global characteristics, investigations on
63: complex networks at the local level have been directed to
64: reveal local characteristics from the
65: perspective of finding patterns of interconnections among
66: nodes. Notable examples include the network motif~\cite{milo}, the
67: (dis)assortativity~\cite{assort,maslov}, and the topological modules
68: in the metabolic~\cite{ravasz} as well as the protein
69: interaction networks~\cite{maslov}.
70: Motivated by these characteristics, numerous models for the network
71: growth and evolution have been proposed to
72: understand the underlying mechanism of complex networks.
73:
74: To gain further understanding of complex networks, we investigate
75: local features of the networks from the perspective of the statistical
76: self-similarity. This may provide us with not only
77: deeper insight into complex networks, but a unified way of
78: describing them. To this end, we focus on the clustering
79: coefficient~\cite{watts} of a node $i$, defined as
80: \begin{equation}
81: C_{i}= \frac{n_{i}}{k_{i}~(k_{i}-1)}~ ,
82: \end{equation}
83: where $n_{i}$, $0 \le n_{i} \le k_{i}(k_{i}-1)$,
84: is the number of directed links (an undirected link counts twice)
85: among $k_{i}$ nearest neighbor nodes of the node $i$. It is a measure of the
86: interconnectivity among nearest neighbors of a node, or the
87: modularity~\cite{ravasz}, thus can be a quantity representing the local
88: structure of the network.
89:
90: The clustering coefficient has been analyzed from the perspective of
91: the degree correlation. It was found that the clustering coefficient
92: correlated with the degree in some complex networks. In particular,
93: there is a power law correlation between the clustering coefficient
94: and the degree for the deterministic scale-free network
95: model~\cite{doro}, the Internet~\cite{vazquez}, and metabolic
96: networks~\cite{ravasz}. It is a form of $\langle C \rangle(k) \sim
97: k^{- \delta}$, where $\langle \cdot \rangle$ represents the average
98: over the same degree, and $\delta$ depends on the type of
99: networks. However, a similar analysis of the clustering coefficient
100: reveals that the power law correlation is not manifest to other types
101: of networks, such as the protein interaction and social networks. As
102: shown in Fig.~1, the clustering coefficient of the film actor network
103: correlates with the degree not with a power-law, but exponentially (Fig.~1A);
104: while the neural network has an approximate linear correlation between the
105: clustering coefficient and the degree (Fig.~1B). Moreover, there is no
106: evident correlation in the protein networks (Fig.~1C, 1D).
107:
108: This finding suggests that in general the clustering coefficient is
109: not a simple quantity which can be related for some common ground to
110: other quantities, such as the degree. Thus, it is desirable to
111: analyze the clustering coefficient beyond the degree correlation.
112: In this paper, we focus on the systematic analysis of the clustering
113: coefficient in the wide classes of complex networks~\cite{data},
114: together with theoretical models for the complex networks, such as the
115: random~\cite{er}, the scale-free~\cite{scale}, and the small-world
116: networks~\cite{watts}.
117: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
118: \section{Data Description}
119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
120: We analyzed the clustering coefficient in the complex networks of the
121: film actor network, WWW, the scientific collaboration network,
122: metabolic networks, protein interaction networks, the neural network,
123: and the Internet of both Autonomous System (AS) and the router
124: levels; together with models for the random, the scale-free, and the
125: small-world networks. For directed networks such as metabolic networks
126: and WWW, we distinguish the network into the directionality (in-degree and
127: out-degree) and carry out separate analysis. The source of the network
128: data is in Ref.~\cite{data}, and more information
129: of each network is the following. \\
130: {\bf Film actor:}
131: An actor represents a node, and actors casted in the same movie are
132: linked. (374511 nodes and 2445818 undirected links) \\
133: {\bf Scientific collaboration:}
134: Each author corresponds to a node and co-authors are linked among
135: others in the Los Alamos E-print Archive between 1995 and 1999
136: (inclusive) in the field of the condensed matter. (13861 nodes and 89238
137: undirected links) \\
138: {\bf Internet of Autonomous Systems (AS) level:}
139: Each autonomous system represents a node, and a physical network connection
140: between nodes represents a link. (6474 nodes and 25144 undirected links) \\
141: {\bf Internet of router level:}
142: The Internet connection at the router level. The data is collected
143: by the Mercator (\url{http://www.isi.edu/scan/mercator/}), a program
144: that infers the router-level connectivity
145: of the Internet. (284772 nodes and 898456 undirected links) \\
146: {\bf WWW:}
147: World Wide Web connection network for \url{http://www.nd.edu}. Each HTML
148: document represents a node, connected directionally by a hyperlink
149: pointing from one document to another. It is a directed
150: network of 325729 nodes and 1469679 directed links. \\
151: {\bf Metabolic networks:}
152: Metabolic networks of six organisms, two for
153: each domain, are analyzed. They are {\it Archaeoglobus fulgidus} (459
154: nodes and 2155 directed links) and {\it Methanobacterium
155: thermoautotrophicum} (399 nodes and 1937 directed links) in Archae;
156: {\it Escherichia coli} (698 nodes and 3747 directed links) and {\it
157: Salmonella typhi} (735 nodes and 3882 directed links) in Bacteria;
158: {\it Saccharomyces cerevisiae} (511 nodes and 2690 directed links)
159: and {\it Caenorhabditis elegans} (413 nodes and 2061 directed links)
160: in Eukaryote. Note that the metabolic network is a directed
161: network. \\
162: {\bf Protein interaction networks:}
163: We have analyzed protein interaction networks of six organisms. They
164: are {\it Saccharomyces cerevisiae} (4687 nodes and
165: 30312 undirected links), {\it Escherichia coli} (145 nodes and 388
166: undirected links), {\it Caenorhabditis elegans} (2386 nodes and 7650
167: undirected links), {\it Drosophila melanogaster} (6926 nodes and
168: 41490 undirected links), {\it Helicobacter pylori} (686 nodes and
169: 2702 undirected links), and {\it Homo sapiens} (563 nodes and 1740
170: undirected links) \\
171: {\bf Neural network:}
172: Somatic nervous system of {\it Nematode C. elegans} except that in
173: the pharynz is considered. A link joins two nodes representing
174: neurons, if they are connected by either a synapse or a gap
175: junction. All links are treated as undirected. (265 nodes and 3664
176: undirected links) \\
177: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
178: \section{Multifractality of complex networks}
179: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
180: The set of $C_{i}$ for
181: each network can be used to form a probability
182: distribution (Fig.~2). As shown in Fig.~2A-2D, the distribution
183: of $C_{i}$ in complex networks differ considerably
184: from that of the random
185: network (Fig.~2F). Probability distributions for complex networks
186: bring out high irregularity of various intensities in different
187: clustering coefficients, developing a long tail extending to either large
188: (Fig.~2A-2C) or small (Fig.~2D) values of the
189: clustering coefficient. This suggests that not a few but many, possibly
190: infinite, parameters may be needed to characterize the distribution.
191: To quantify the variation in the distribution, a continuous spectrum
192: of scaling indices has been proposed~\cite{halsey}.
193: For the spectrum that quantifies the inhomogeneity in the probability
194: distribution, we utilize the clustering coefficient as
195: the probability measure, and analyze the distribution from the
196: perspective of the statistical self-similarity, the
197: multifractal~\cite{stanley,paladin}.
198:
199: The multifractal, which is not necessarily related to geometrical
200: properties~\cite{benzi}, is a way to describe different self-similar
201: properties for different ``regions'' in an appropriate set (in our
202: case, different values of the clustering coefficient), and applied,
203: for instance, to the fully developed
204: turbulence~\cite{mandelbrot1,benzi}, which is one of the most common
205: examples of complex systems. It consists of spectra displaying
206: the range of scaling indices and their density in the set, thus has
207: been used to explain richer and more complex scaling behavior of a
208: system than the case in the critical phenomena.
209: The multifractal can be accomplished by examining the scaling
210: properties of the measure characterized by the singularity strength
211: $\alpha$ and its fractal dimension $f(\alpha)$, which
212: roughly indicates how often a particular value of $\alpha$
213: occurs~\cite{halsey}. In practice, $\alpha$ and $f(\alpha)$ are
214: customarily obtained from the Legendre transformation of $q$ and
215: $D_{q}$, via
216: \begin{equation}
217: \alpha=\frac{d}{dq} \{ (q-1) D_{q} \}~,
218: \end{equation}
219: and
220: \begin{equation}
221: f(\alpha)=q\alpha-(q-1)D_{q}~,
222: \end{equation}
223: where $D_{q}$ is the generalized correlation dimension often estimated
224: by the correlation integral method~\cite{hent}. It is the
225: quantity for anomalous scaling law whose value depends on different
226: moment $q$. $D_{q}$ is defined as
227: \begin{equation}
228: D_{q}=\lim_{R\rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{q-1} \frac{\ln S_{q}(R)}{\ln
229: R}~,
230: \label{basic}
231: \end{equation}
232: where $S_{q}(R)$ is known as the correlation sum (or correlation
233: integral), and it is given, using Heaviside function $\Theta$, as
234: \begin{equation}
235: S_{q}(R)=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{j=1}^{M}\left\{ \frac{1}{M-1} \sum_{k=1, k\ne
236: j}^{M} \Theta\left(R-\left|C_{j}-C_{k}\right|\right)
237: \right\}^{q-1} ,
238: \end{equation}
239: where $M$ is the number of nodes and $C_{i}$ is the clustering
240: coefficient of node $i$.
241: The spectrum $D_{q}$ may be smoothed before transforming into $\alpha$
242: and $f(\alpha)$ to avoid the contradiction of the general
243: property of $D_{q}$, i.e., $D_{q} \le D_{q^{\prime}}~~\mbox{if}~~
244: q^{\prime} \le q$.
245:
246: There is a difficulty in taking the limit $R\rightarrow 0$ in
247: Eq.~(\ref{basic}) for a finite number of data points. Due to the
248: finiteness, there always exists the minimum distance of
249: $\left|C_{j}-C_{k}\right|$. Thus, when $R$ is less than the minimum
250: distance, the correlation sum becomes zero and no longer scales with
251: $R$. Therefore, in practice, the generalized dimension $D_{q}$ is determined by
252: plotting $\ln S_{q}(R)/(q-1)$ as a function of $\ln R$ and estimating
253: the slope within an appropriate scaling region using a least square
254: fit. The error associated with the fit can be obtained as a
255: statistical uncertainty based on fitting a straight line in the scaling region.
256:
257: Fig.~3 displays the estimated $f(\alpha)$ versus $\alpha$ for various complex
258: networks. As shown in Fig.~3A-3D, the infinitely many different
259: fractal dimensions, manifested by the shapes of $f(\alpha)$, suggest
260: that the measure is a multifractal, and thus, cannot be explained by a
261: single fractal dimension. All of the complex networks we have
262: examined, except for the neural network of {\it Caenorhabditis
263: elegans}, form multifractals irrespective of their global
264: characteristics, such as the number of nodes and their degree
265: distributions. Furthermore, for all complex networks we have analyzed,
266: the average and standard deviation of the most probable singularity
267: strength $\alpha_{0}$, where $f(\alpha)$ takes its maximum value, are
268: $\langle \alpha_{0} \rangle = 1.2 \pm 0.3$; those of $f(\alpha_{0})$
269: are $\langle f(\alpha_{0}) \rangle =0.8 \pm 0.1$.
270:
271: The multifractal observed in complex networks implies that the
272: distribution of clustering coefficients can be described as
273: interwoven sets of singularities of strength $\alpha$, each of which
274: has its corresponding fractal dimension $f(\alpha)$~\cite{halsey}. In
275: our case, this implies that different values (or range of values)
276: of the clustering coefficient may have different fractal dimensions. From
277: the viewpoint of network dynamics in which rewiring and/or adding
278: new nodes and links are involved, the multifractal suggests that as a
279: network grows, nodes of large clustering coefficients change their
280: clustering coefficients by a factor that differs from nodes of small
281: clustering coefficients change theirs.
282:
283: The different rate of changing the clustering
284: coefficient may stem from two sources (or modes): the degree of a node
285: $k$ and the corresponding interconnectivity $n$. For a fixed $k$, the
286: clustering coefficient depends only on the interconnectivity $n$, so
287: that $C \sim n$. In this case, the dynamics (via rewiring and/or
288: adding new links) drive networks in such a way that different values
289: of $n$ are not equally probable; rather, some values of $n$ are more
290: probable than others. This assertion is further supported by the fact
291: that as $k$ increases, the number of distinct $n$ does not increase
292: quadratically in $k$, and that $n$ and $k$ are linearly correlated
293: (see below). For a fixed $n$, $C \sim k^{-2}$. Thus, the addition of
294: new links to higher degree nodes is more likely to drop their
295: clustering coefficient much faster than that of new links to lower degree
296: ones. Therefore, the dynamics of complex networks can be characterized
297: by an evolution via interplay between the two sources.
298:
299: Contrary to most complex networks, the irregularity of the
300: distribution is absent in the neural network of {\it Caenorhabditis
301: elegans} (Fig.~2E). The estimate $D_{q}\approx 0.83 < 1$ is
302: independent of $q$, resulting in $\alpha=f(\alpha)\approx 0.83$. Thus,
303: the measure is not a multifractal, rather it can be characterized by a single
304: fractal dimension. The absence of the multifractality
305: is probably due to the biologically intrinsic property of the
306: neuron. The geometric character of the neuron imposes a
307: constraint on the number of synaptic contacts (i.e. links), leaving no
308: room for the irregularity of the distribution~\cite{amaral,neural}.
309:
310: Typically, $f(\alpha)$ satisfies $0 < f(\alpha) < D_{0}$, where $D_{0}$ is
311: the dimension of the support of the measure, which is the set of clustering
312: coefficients without their relative frequencies. We find
313: $D_{0} < 1$ for all complex networks (Fig.~3A-3D), indicating that
314: supports of the measure have fractal dimensions, just like the Cantor
315: set. This means that forbidden regions are embedded in the range of
316: allowed clustering coefficients so that some values are highly suppressed.
317: A possible cause of the suppression might stem from the correlation between
318: the degree $k$ of a node and its corresponding interconnectivity $n$.
319: A simple statistic, such as the
320: Pearson's correlation coefficient $r$, ranging $-1 < r < 1$, can be
321: used to quantify the correlation, as it reflects to what extent the two
322: quantities are linearly correlated. The result (Fig.~4A) reveals that
323: complex networks have higher linear correlation than the
324: random network. Moreover, some complex networks, such as metabolic
325: networks and the Internet of AS level, disclose strong linear correlations
326: ($r > 0.95$).
327:
328: For metabolic networks and the Internet of AS level in which the
329: degree of a node and its interconnectivity among its nearest neighbor
330: nodes are strongly correlated, we ask how the next nearest neighbor
331: nodes are interconnected, and whether the distribution of the
332: corresponding clustering coefficients maintains the
333: multifractality. To this end, we extend the definition of the
334: clustering coefficient to the next nearest nodes by including the next
335: nearest nodes for both the degree of a node $k$ and its
336: interconnectivity $n$, which is the number of links between two next
337: nearest nodes. The irregularity and the long-tail
338: characteristics are again found in the distribution of the extended
339: clustering coefficient, suggesting the existence of the
340: multifractal. As shown in Fig.~4B-4D, the probability distribution
341: of the extended version of the measure can again be characterized by
342: the multifractal, indicating that the statistical self-similarity is
343: not necessarily restricted to the local interconnectivity.
344: By including the next nearest neighbor nodes to the definition of the
345: clustering coefficient, more distinct values of the clustering
346: coefficient are possible than that of the nearest neighbor
347: nodes. This can be expected since the extended version of the
348: clustering coefficient of a node includes an average over the
349: clustering coefficients of its nearest neighbor nodes, partly
350: smoothing out the irregularity. This is also
351: manifested by the fact that $D_{0}^{\ast}$, the dimension of the
352: support of the extended clustering coefficient, is bigger than
353: corresponding $D_{0}$.
354:
355: Based on the multifractal found in complex networks, for
356: comparison, we carried out similar analysis to models of the random,
357: the scale-free, and the small-world networks.
358: In the case of the random network, the clustering coefficients are
359: smoothly distributed, by having a ``bell-shape'' (Fig.~2F). Furthermore,
360: $D_{q}\approx 1.0$ for all $q$, indicating that there is no
361: self-similarity. This can be expected since the support of the
362: measure can be regarded as a line, which is one dimensional.
363:
364: The distribution of the clustering coefficient for the scale-free network
365: shows the irregularity, similar to the case of complex networks;
366: furthermore the
367: distribution can be described by the multifractal (Fig.~3E). From
368: simulation results with various different parameters for the network,
369: however, we found that not only the most probable singularity
370: strength $\alpha_{0}$ ($0.64 < \alpha_{0} < 0.76$),
371: but the dimension of the support $D_{0}$ ($0.45 < D_{0} < 0.50$)
372: is smaller than that of complex networks, suggesting that more
373: severe restriction is imposed on the possible values of the clustering
374: coefficient. According to the model, nodes
375: of higher degree are preferred to have additional links rather than those
376: of lower degree. This preferential attachment leaves the clustering
377: coefficient of high degree nodes to decrease much faster than that of
378: low degree
379: ones. Thus when the number of nodes is doubled, for instance, the
380: clustering coefficient of high degree nodes changes by a factor
381: different from that of low degree nodes, analogous to the kinetics of
382: the diffusion-limited aggregation~\cite{meakin}.
383:
384: For the small-world network, the rewiring probability $p$ dictates
385: both the irregularity in the distribution and the multifractality. For a small
386: rewiring probability (say, $p=0.01$), the multifractal emerges
387: (Fig.~3F); however the dimension of the support is $D_{0}\approx 1.0$,
388: implying that the set of the measure entirely covers the space of the
389: clustering coefficient. As the rewiring probability increases, the range of
390: the clustering coefficients becomes smaller and the degree of inhomogeneity
391: decreases, and then the network finally becomes a random network as we can
392: easily anticipate.
393: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
394: \section{Summary and Conclusion}
395: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
396: Based on the irregularity of intensities in the probability
397: distribution of the clustering coefficient,
398: we regarded the clustering coefficient as the probability measure and
399: analyzed the clustering coefficient of various types of complex
400: networks from the perspective of the statistical self-similarity. We
401: found that the probability measure and the support of the measure can be
402: characterized by the multifractal and the fractal,
403: respectively. Furthermore, for complex networks having strong linear
404: correlation between the degree and the interconnectivity, the
405: multifractality extends into the clustering coefficient of the next
406: nearest neighbor nodes. These characteristics are unique to the real
407: complex networks and cannot be found in the
408: random network. From the aspect of the multifractality, models
409: of the scale-free and the small-world differ from real networks in the
410: distribution of the singularity strength $f(\alpha)$.
411:
412: The statistical self-similarity in the distribution of the clustering
413: coefficient can be served as a general characteristic of complex
414: networks; at the same time, giving a further insight into the
415: understanding of complex networks. The multifractality shared by
416: different complex networks suggests that a similar law may govern
417: the diverse complex networks of nature as well as artificiality.
418: Furthermore, it can be used to classify the complex networks, and
419: serves as a ``touchstone'' of proposed models for complex networks.
420: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
421: \begin{acknowledgments}
422: We like to thank M. Newman for providing us with the scientific
423: collaboration data. We also appreciate the open source of various
424: complex network data available at
425: \url{http://www.nd.edu/~networks/}. This work was supported by the
426: Korea Research Foundation Grant funded by the Korean Government (MOEHRD)
427: (KRF-2005-041-H00052).
428: \end{acknowledgments}
429: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
430: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
431: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
432: \bibitem{newmansiam} For a review of the network theory, see, for
433: example, M. Newman, SIAM Review {\bf 45} 167 (2003), and
434: R. Albert and A.-L. Barab{\' a}si, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 74},
435: 47 (2002).
436: \bibitem{amaral} L. Amaral, A. Scala, M. Barthelemy, and H. E. Stanley,
437: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA {\bf 97}, 11149 (2000).
438: \bibitem{newmansocial} M. Newman, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA {\bf 98},
439: 404 (2001).
440: \bibitem{fal} M. Faloutsos, P. Faloutsos, and C. Faloutsos,
441: Comput. Commun. Rev. {\bf 29}, 251 (1999).
442: \bibitem{albertweb} R. Albert, H. Jeong, and A.-L. Barab{\' a}si, Nature
443: (London) {\bf 401}, 130 (1999).
444: \bibitem{guelzin} N. Guelzim, S. Bottani, P. Bourgine, and F. Kepes,
445: Nature Genetics {\bf 31}, 60 (2002).
446: \bibitem{jeong} H. Jeong, B. Tombor, R. Albert, Z. Litvai, and
447: A.-L. Barab{\' a}si, Nature (London) {\bf 407}, 651 (2000).
448: \bibitem{watts} D. Watts and S. Strogatz, Nature (London) {\bf 393},
449: 440 (1998).
450: \bibitem{scale} A.-L. Barab{\' a}si and R. Albert, Science {\bf 286},
451: 509 (1999).
452: \bibitem{milo} R. Milo {\it et al}, Science {\bf 298}, 824 (2002).
453: \bibitem{assort} M.E.J. Newman, Phys. Rev. Letts. {\bf 89}, 208701 (2002).
454: \bibitem{maslov} S. Maslov and K. Sneppen, Science {\bf 296}, 910 (2002).
455: \bibitem{ravasz} E. Ravasz, A. L. Somera, D. A. Mongru, Z. N. Oltvai,
456: and A.-L. Barab{\' a}si, Science {\bf 297}, 1551 (2002); E. Ravasz
457: and A.-L. Barab{\' a}si, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 67}, 026112 (2003).
458: \bibitem{doro} S. N. Dorogovtsev, A. V. Goltsev, and J. F. F. Mendes,
459: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 65}, 066122 (2002).
460: \bibitem{vazquez} A. V{\' a}zquez, R. Pastor-Satorras, and
461: A. Vespignani, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 65}, 066130 (2002).
462: \bibitem{data} The sources for various types of network data are the
463: following. Film actors, WWW, and metabolic networks were obtained from
464: \url{http://www.nd.edu/~networks/}; the scientific
465: collaboration data was provided by M. Neuman; the Internet of
466: Autonomous Systems level was obtained from
467: \url{http://moat.nlanr.net/Routing/rawdata/}; the Internet of
468: router level is collected by the Mercator and is available at
469: \url{http://www.isi.edu/scan/mercator/}; protein interaction
470: networks data are available at \url{http://dip.doe-mbi.ucla.edu};
471: the somatic nervous system of {\it Nematode C. elegans} was obtained from
472: \url{http://ims.dse.ibaraki.ac.jp/research/}.
473: \bibitem{er} P. Erd{\"o}s and A. R{\' e}nyi,
474: Pulb. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci. {\bf 5}, 17 (1960); B. Bollob{\'
475: a}s, Random Graphs (Academic Press, London, 1985).
476: \bibitem{halsey} T.C. Halsey, M.H. Jensen, L.P. Kadanoff, I. Procaccia, and
477: B.I. Shraiman, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 33}, 1141 (1986).
478: \bibitem{stanley} H.E. Stanley and P. Meakin, Nature (London) {\bf
479: 335}, 405 (1988).
480: \bibitem{paladin} G. Paladin and A. Vulpiani, Physics Reports {\bf
481: 156}, 147 (1987).
482: \bibitem{benzi} R. Benzi, G. Paladin, G. Parisi, and A. Vulpiani,
483: J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. {\bf 19}, 823 (1986).
484: \bibitem{mandelbrot1} B.B. Mandelbrot, J. Fluid Mech. {\bf 62},
485: 331 (1974).
486: \bibitem{hent} P. Grassberger and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
487: 50}, 346 (1983); H. Hentschel and I. Procaccia, Physica (Amsterdam)
488: {\bf 8D}, 435 (1983); K. Pawelzik and H. G. Schuster, Phys. Rev. A
489: {\bf 35}, R481 (1987).
490: \bibitem{neural} J. White, E. Southgate, J. Thomson, and
491: S. Brenner, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London B {\bf 314}, 1 (1986).
492: \bibitem{meakin} P. Meakin, A. Coniglio, H.E. Stanley, and T.A. Witten,
493: Phys Rev. A {\bf 34}, 3325 (1986).
494: \end{thebibliography}
495: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
496: \newpage
497: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
498: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
499: \begin{figure}
500: \centerline{
501: \includegraphics{fig1}
502: }
503: \caption{Plots of the clustering coefficient averaged over all nodes
504: of the same degree versus the degree for selected complex
505: networks. (A) the film actor network, (B) the neural network of {\it
506: Caenorhabditis elegans}, (C) the protein interaction network of {\it
507: Helicobacter pylori}, (D) the protein interaction network of {\it
508: Homo sapiens}. Note that the abscissa of (A), and the abscissa as
509: well as the ordinate of (C) and (D) are in log scale.}
510: \end{figure}
511: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
512: \begin{figure}
513: \centerline{
514: \includegraphics{fig2}
515: }
516: \caption{Probability distributions of the clustering coefficient for
517: selected complex networks as examples. (A) the film actor network, (B)
518: the protein interaction network for {\it Caenorhabditis elegans}, (C) the
519: metabolic network (in-degree) of {\it Escherichia coli}, (D) the
520: scientific collaboration network, (E) the neural network, and (F)
521: the random network of 2000 nodes with the connection probability
522: $p=0.1$. Note that ordinates of (A)-(D) are in log scale for
523: the display purpose.}
524: \end{figure}
525: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
526: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
527: \begin{figure}
528: \centerline{
529: \includegraphics{fig3}
530: }
531: \caption{$f(\alpha)$ versus $\alpha$ for selected complex networks as
532: examples. Error-bars are the root mean square in estimating
533: $f(\alpha)$, and $D_{0}$ (the maximum of $f(\alpha)$) is the
534: dimension of the support of the measure. (A) WWW (in-degree), (B)
535: the scientific collaboration network (cond-mat), (C) the
536: metabolic network (out-degree) of {\it Escherichia coli}, (D) the
537: protein interaction network of {\it Saccharomyces
538: cerevisiae}, (E) the model of the scale-free network with 10000 nodes,
539: (F) the small-world model of the
540: rewiring probability $p=0.01$.}
541: \end{figure}
542: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
543: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
544: \begin{figure}
545: \centerline{
546: \includegraphics{fig4}
547: }
548: \caption{(A): The linear correlation coefficients $r$ of complex networks
549: plotted against the number of nodes are compared with the
550: random networks of different numbers of nodes: the
551: metabolic networks ($\Box$), the Internet of AS level ($\triangle$),
552: the scientific collaboration network ($\triangledown$), protein
553: interaction networks ($\bigcirc$), the actor network
554: ($\blacktriangle$), WWW ($\blacktriangledown$), the Internet of
555: router level ($\bullet$), and the random network
556: ($\blacksquare$). For random networks,
557: each node has on average 10 links. (B)-(D): $f(\alpha)$ versus
558: $\alpha$ for selected organisms in the metabolic networks and the Internet of
559: the AS level. $D^{\ast}_{0}$ represents the dimension of the support
560: for the extended clustering coefficient. (B) the
561: metabolic network of {\it Archaeoglobus fulgidus} (in-degree), (C) the
562: metabolic network of {\it Caenorhabditis elegans} (in-degree), (D)
563: the Internet of AS level. Note that $D^{\ast}_{0}$ for (B)-(D) are larger
564: than corresponding $D_{0}$ for the case of the nearest neighbor,
565: where, from 3B to 3D, $D_{0}=0.79, 0.73, 0.87$, respectively.}
566: \end{figure}
567: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
568: \end{document}
569: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
570: