1: %\documentclass[aps,preprint,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

2: \documentclass[aps,twocolumn,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

3: %\documentclass[aps,pre,preprint,groupedaddress,floatfix]{revtex4}

4: 

5: %\documentclass[aps,twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

6: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

7: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

8: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

9: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

10: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

11: \usepackage{amssymb}

12: \usepackage{amsmath}

13: %\nofiles

14: 

15: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}

16: 

17: \begin{document}

18: 

19: \title{On the Separability of Attractors in Grandmother Dynamic Systems

20: with Structured Connectivity}

21: 

22: 

23: \author{Luciano da Fontoura Costa}

24: \email{luciano@if.sc.usp.br}

25: \affiliation{Instituto de F\'{\i}sica de S\~{a}o Carlos,

26: Universidade de S\~{a}o Paulo, Av. Trabalhador S\~{a}o Carlense 400,

27: Caixa Postal 369, CEP 13560-970, S\~{a}o Carlos, S\~ao Paulo, Brazil}

28: 

29: \date{22nd Dec 2006}

30: 

31: 

32: \begin{abstract}

33: The combination of complex networks and dynamic systems research is

34: poised to yield some of the most interesting theoretic and applied

35: scientific results along the forthcoming decades.  The present work

36: addresses a particularly important related aspect, namely the

37: quantification of how well separated can the attractors be in dynamic

38: systems underlined by four types of complex networks

39: (Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi, Barab\'asi-Albert, Watts-Strogatz and as well as a

40: geographic model).  Attention is focused on grandmother dynamic

41: systems, where each state variable (associated to each node) is used

42: to represent a specific prototype pattern (attractor).  By assuming

43: that the attractors spread their influence among its neighboring nodes

44: through a diffusive process, it is possible to overlook the specific

45: details of specific dynamics and focus attention on the separability

46: among such attractors.  This property is defined in terms of two

47: separation indices (one individual to each prototype and the other

48: considering also the immediate neighborhood) reflecting the balance

49: and proximity to attractors revealed by the activation of the network

50: after a diffusive process.  The separation index considering also the

51: neighborhood was found to be much more informative, while the best

52: separability was observed for the Watts-Strogatz and the geographic

53: models.  The effects of the involved parameters on the separability

54: were investigated by correlation and path analyses.  The obtained

55: results suggest the special importance of some measurements in

56: underlying the relationship between topology and dynamics.

57: \end{abstract}

58: 

59: 

60: \pacs{}

61: 

62: 

63: \maketitle

64: 

65: 

66: \vspace{0.5cm}

67: \emph{`Nothing in excess.' (Delphic proverb)}

68: 

69: 

70: \section{Introduction}

71: 

72: Most dynamic systems, from neuronal networks to pattern formation,

73: involves several interconnected variables, which can be properly

74: represented in terms of a graph (e.g.~\cite{West01,Bollobas90}) or

75: complex network (e.g.~\cite{Barabasi:surv, Dorogov:surv, Watts03,

76: Wasserman94, Newman03, Boccaletti05, Costa:survey}).  Such systems are

77: henceforth called \emph{complex dynamic systems}.  A state variable

78: $v(i)$ is normally associated to each node $i$, so that the complete

79: evolution of the system can be described by the $N

80: \times 1$ vector $\vec{v}^{(t)}$. In a neuronal network, for instance,

81: each neuron can be expressed as a vertex (or a node), while synapses

82: are represented by links (or edges) and the node activation by the

83: respective state variable.  Once the underlying connectivity of such a

84: system is represented in terms of its \emph{weight matrix}

85: $W$~\footnote{$W(j,i)=w$ whenever node $i$ is connected to node $j$ by

86: an edge with weight $w$.}, several important types of dynamics can be

87: subsumed as

88: 

89: \begin{equation}  \label{eq_dyn}

90: \vec{v}^{(t+1)} = f(W \vec{v}^{(t)}).  

91: \end{equation}

92: 

93: Any layer of the perceptron neuronal network

94: (e.g. ~\cite{Rosenblatt:1958,Haykin:1999}), for instance, is obtained

95: by substituting $f()$ by some abrupt function (e.g. hard limit or

96: sigmoid).  At the same time, the complete classic Hopfield model

97: (e.g.~\cite{Hopfield:1984,Haykin:1999}) can be represented by this

98: equation.  A simpler, linear model is obtained by making $f(x)=x$, so

99: that $\vec{v}^{(t+1)} = W \vec{v}^{(t)}$.  In case $W$ is also a

100: stochastic matrix (the transition matrix), this linear equation

101: subsumes all first order Markov chains, a particularly useful and

102: important dynamic model which is intrinsically associated to random

103: walks (e.g.~\cite{Rudnik:2004}), Markov chains

104: (e.g.~\cite{Bremaud:2001}) and diffusion

105: (e.g.~\cite{Crank:1980,Havlin:2000}).

106: 	

107: In many dynamic systems (e.g.~\cite{Haykin:1999,Boccara:2004}), the

108: codification of external stimuli as well as the results from the

109: network dynamics take place in the $N-$dimensional space defined by

110: the state variables.  For instance, one particularly pattern may be

111: represented as the state $\vec{v_1} = [1, 0, -1, 0.5, 1, 0]$, while

112: another pattern may be associated to $\vec{v_2} = [0, 1, -1, 0, 1,

113: 0]$.  This type of representation is called ~\emph{vector coding}

114: (e.g.~\cite{Georgopoulos:1986,Salinas:1994}). States which are near

115: any of such pattern-states are frequently understood to be associated

116: to that pattern.  For instance, in the case of the example above, a

117: third pattern similar to $\vec{v_1}$ will tend to be coded as a state

118: vector $\vec{v_3}$ such that $\delta = ||\vec{v_1}-\vec{v_3}||$ is

119: small.  Such a smooth, graded coding along the state space is

120: interesting because it allows for some robustness/redundancy and

121: flexibility/generality for the representation of the patterns, while

122: also favoring good dynamic properties such as where the patterns are

123: accessed through gradient-descent or similar methods

124: (e.g.~\cite{Haykin:1999,Rudnik:2004}).

125: 

126: However, it is also possible and interesting to consider the situation

127: where the patterns are associated to specific nodes, not to specific

128: points in the state space, such as in systems involving the so-called

129: \emph{grandmother cells} (e.g.~\cite{Barlow:1972, Gross:2002, 

130: Gazzaniga:1998}).  Extremely important systems including great part of

131: the mammals cortex are believed to be so organized.  In these cases, a

132: pattern is associated to a node $i$ such that high values of $v(i)$

133: signalizes the presence of that pattern.  This type of cells is

134: ubiquitous in several cortical areas (e.g.~\cite{McIlwain:1996,

135: Zeki:1990, Zeki:1999}).  For instance, cells which are highly specific

136: to hands and faces have been found in the inferior temporal

137: cortex~\cite{Gross:1969, Perrett:1982, Gross:2002}.  It is also known

138: (e.g.~\cite{Eichenbaum:1989,McIlwain:1996,Zeki:1999,Bosking:2002})

139: that much of the mammals cortical architecture is characterized by

140: spatial smoothness, in the sense that cells which are spatially close

141: tend to exhibit similar dynamics and response (i.e. state

142: correlations), except at eventual singularities involving

143: fractures~\cite{Zeki:1999,Bosking:2002}.  Such an organization reminds

144: of the smooth coding discussed above for dynamic systems where

145: patterns are represented by the overal state (i.e. vector coding).  It

146: is important to note that the smoothness property is not exclusive to

147: topographically organized systems~\footnote{By topographic system it

148: is henceforth meant that the network nodes have well-defined positions

149: along an $N-$dimensional space (usually the two-dimensional

150: space). The terms

151: \emph{geographic} or \emph{geometric networks} have also been used

152: in the graph theory and complex networks literatures.} such as the

153: mammals cortex.  In other words, even in networks where the nodes have

154: no specific position in an embedding space, neighboring grandmother

155: nodes may tend to have similar dynamics and response.  In such cases,

156: it is interesting to use the concept of progressive neighborhoods

157: around a node (e.g.~\cite{Faloutsos99,Newman_hier01,Cohen03,

158: Costa04,Costa06,Costa_Silva07})), defined by the immediate neighbors

159: of a node as well as its second neighbors, and so

160: on. Following~\cite{Costa04,Costa_Silva07,Costa_Silva07}, in this work

161: we organize the successive neighborhoods in terms of their

162: \emph{hierarchical level}.  Therefore, the immediate neighbors of a node $i$

163: are at hierarchy 1 of $i$, and so on.  In brief, the coding smoothness

164: property in grandmother systems is reflected by the fact that the

165: hierarchical neighbors of each node will tend to have responses

166: similar, though progressively diverging, to that of node $i$.

167: 

168: In dynamic networks with a finite number of nodes, the situation

169: considered herein, a particularly interesting problem arises as a

170: consequence of a tension between the grandmother coding and the

171: smoothness property, a phenomenon directly related to the limited

172: number of patterns which can be properly represented

173: (e.g.~\cite{Amit:1993}).  Before proceeding further, it is important

174: to provide a more objective characterization of such a problem.

175: Consider that $M$ prototypic, distinct, patterns are to be represented

176: in the network.  If each of such patterns is represented by a

177: respective prototypic neuron (node), in the sense that this neuron

178: will be the most highly activate when that pattern is invoked by the

179: network, we also need to allow for intermediate cells with graded

180: replies between pairs of nodes. Observe that such prototype nodes

181: typically act as attractors for the dynamics of the respective dynamic

182: system, being accessed, for instance, by using gradient descent and/or

183: random walks methods. If $M$ is too large, a point will be reached

184: where each network node will be required to represent each

185: prototypical pattern, running out of nodes for implementing the graded

186: responses.  Although this situation occurs at the very limit of the

187: network capacity, it is important to observe that it may still provide

188: a complete, invertible representation of the patterns (i.e. an

189: one-to-one mapping).  On the other hand, the smoothness of the coding

190: is undermined as the number of prototypical patterns increases.  In

191: addition to destroying the network potential for generality and

192: robustness, it will also become impossible to retrieve the patterns by

193: gradient-descent like mechanisms along the network.

194: Figure~\ref{fig:ex} illustrates two small topographic state spaces:

195: one (a) corresponding to the limit situation where each pattern is

196: associated to each node, the other (b) depicting a smooth map defined

197: by diffusion around five prototype nodes.  These two spaces were

198: assumed to have local connectivity, in the sense that each cell

199: communicates only with its most immediate neighbors in the orthogonal

200: lattice.  Observe that it is virtually impossible to devise an

201: effective retrieval or activation mechanism capable of getting to any

202: specific prototype node in Figure~\ref{fig:ex}(a). In addition, the

203: failure of any cell will imply in the irrecoverable lost of one

204: pattern (the origin of the \emph{gradmother cell} concept). On the

205: other hand, the state space in Figure~\ref{fig:ex}(b) allows a good

206: level of tolerance to failure (this also means some redundancy), at

207: the same time as simple dynamic mechanisms such as gradient descent

208: can be employed for retrieving and activating nodes.

209: 

210: 

211: \begin{figure}[htb]

212:   \begin{center} 

213:   \includegraphics[scale=0.5,angle=0]{im1_a.eps} \\

214:   (a) \\ \vspace{0.3cm}

215:   \includegraphics[scale=0.5,angle=0]{im1_b.eps} \\

216:   (b) \\

217:   \caption{Gray-level visualizations of a topographic state space

218:   with too many prototypical patterns (a) and of a smooth

219:   topographic state space (b). Both these spaces are underlined by

220:   4-neighborhood in the orthogonal lattice. The five prototype

221:   patterns in (b) have been marked in black for the sake of better

222:   visualization.~\label{fig:ex}}

223:   \end{center}

224: \end{figure}

225: 

226: For all that has been said above, it becomes very important to

227: quantify and study the pattern separability in dynamic systems such as

228: neuronal networks.  In the case of the dynamic systems which can be

229: fully represented by Equation~\ref{eq_dyn}, these two properties are

230: necessarily implied by the network connectivity, defined by the weight

231: matrix $W$, and the function $f()$.  The present work focuses

232: precisely on the investigation of the separability between patterns in

233: grandmother complex dynamic systems.  By considering a diffusive

234: process emanating from each prototype node, followed by a process

235: which assigns to each edge the difference between the activation

236: states at its head and tail nodes, a graded representation of the

237: prototype patterns can be obtained.  This allows full generality of

238: the reported investigations as an approximation to many types of

239: grandmother dynamic systems.  The accessibility to the original

240: prototypes is simulated through a preferential random walk (diffusion)

241: starting at every node of the network. After a given relaxation time,

242: the activation of the network is normalized so as to correspond to

243: occupancy probabilities and compared to the original prototypes

244: position.  This is done by considering two separation indices, one

245: individual, considering the resulting activity only at the prototype

246: nodes, and the other considering the activation not only at these

247: nodes, but also at their immediate neighbors.  These two indices, are

248: henceforth abbreviated as $s_{ind}$ and $s$, are obtained in terms of

249: the normalized geometric average of the activations at (or around)

250: each prototype node.  Therefore, the maximum value of these indices

251: (equal to one) is achieved only when the resulting activation is

252: totally and uniformly distributed among only the prototype nodes (for

253: $s_{ind}$) or among these nodes and their immediate neighbros (for

254: $s$).

255: 

256: The performed simulations and analyses first consider specific network

257: configurations, in order to gather insights about the influence of each

258: involved parameter, which are identified and discussed.  Subsequently,

259: a more systematic investigation of some parameter variations are

260: performed.  In order to infer the influence of the topologic

261: features on the dynamics properties (i.e. attractors separation), we

262: apply correlation analysis and path analysis.  A series of interesting

263: results are obtained regarding not only the separation indices, but

264: also the importance of several local and global topologic features

265: on the overall attractors separation.  Although the current work

266: concentrates on attractors in grandmother dynamic systems, several of

267: the results, measurements and methods can be immediately extended to

268: other relevant systems based on complex networks, including those

269: involving information transfer and retrieval.

270: 

271: This article starts by presenting a brief review of more closely

272: related works, and follows by describing the adopted notation and

273: methodologies.  Next, each of the four considered theoretic network

274: models are briefly reviewed and their generation described.  The

275: diffusion procedure and `differentiation' of the state values adopted

276: to implement the attraction basins are described next, as well as the

277: diffusion-base mechanism for activation/retrieval of prototypes.  The

278: two separation indices are motivated and mathematically defined.  The

279: simulation results and respective discussion are then presented,

280: followed by the correlation and path analyses of the effects of the

281: topologic features of the network on the respective attractors

282: separability.  Several interesting findings and effects are identified

283: and discussed.  The article concludes with a general synthesis of the

284: reported investigation and with identification of possible future

285: developments.

286: 

287: 

288: \section{A Brief Review of Previous Developments} \label{sec:review}

289: 

290: The subject of attractor characterization has been extensively

291: addressed in the literature, so we limit ourselves to reviewing a

292: small subset of those works which are more general or more directly

293: related to the investigations being considered in the present work.  

294: 

295: A comprehensive study of attractor networks has been presented by

296: Amit~\cite{Amit:1992}.  Torres et al. have considered the storage

297: capacity of attractor neural networks in which the synapses can undergo

298: depression~\cite{Torres:2002} and found that the memory capacity

299: decreases with the intensity of the depression. Amit and

300: Brunel~\cite{Amit:1993} investigated learning in attractor networks

301: considering the effects of stimuli in a network with wired-up

302: patterns.  Topographic neuronal networks involving grandmother cells

303: have been extensively studied by T. Kohonen and collaborators

304: (e.g.~\cite{Kohonen:1982, Kohonen:2003, Kohonen:2006}) in the form of

305: the self-organizing map (SOM) or Kohonen networks.  Here, the neurons

306: are spatially distributed and develop specificity to prototype pattern

307: stimuli by influencing the weights of neighboring nodes.  Therefore,

308: spatially adjacent smooth attraction basins are defined.

309: 

310: Several works have brought together the two important areas of complex

311: networks and dynamic systems, including neuronal networks.  At least

312: two excellent surveys have been written about this important

313: issue~\cite{Newman03, Boccaletti05}.  The problem of neuronal

314: structure and dynamics has also been a subject of growing interest,

315: including but by no means limited to~\cite{Costa_Salou:2005,

316: Peichl_Wassle:1983, Costa_BM:2003, SI_BM:2003, GA_hipp:2005,

317: Ooyen:1995, Ooyen:1999, Ooyen:2001, Ooyen:2004}.  Stauffer et

318: al.~\cite{Stauffer_etal:2003} investigated the performance of diluted

319: Hopfield networks underlined by the BA model.  The influence of the

320: network topology on the dynamics of neural networks has been

321: investigated also by Costa and Stauffer~\cite{Costa_Stauffer:2003},

322: who considered spatial neural networks and concluded that its

323: performance increased with the spatial uniformity of the cells

324: distribution.  Torres et al.~\cite{Torres:2004}, showed that the

325: pattern capacity of an attractor neural network with scale free

326: topology is higher than for a random-diluted network with the same

327: number of connections.  They also found that, at zero temperature, the

328: performance of scale free nets improves for larger values of the

329: power-law exponent. Models of non-randomly diluted neuronal networks

330: whose connectivity is determined as a function of the shape of its

331: individual neurons (as well as their relative spatial positions) has

332: been reported by Costa and

333: collaborators~\cite{Costa_BM:2003,Costa_EPJB:2004}.  It was found that

334: the shape of individual neurons can have a great influence on the

335: respective memory capacity, suggesting that shapes more similar to

336: real neurons tend to have better attractor properties.  The influence

337: of the network topology on the recovery of patterns in recurrent

338: neuronal networks was addressed by Castillo et

339: al.~\cite{Castillo_etal:2004}. Their work showed that the retrieval

340: properties can be enhanced by considering connectivity more structured

341: than in random networks.  Morelli et al.~\cite{Morelli:2004}

342: investigated the memory capacity in associative networks and found

343: that the best performance is obtained at an intermediate level of

344: disorder. Zhou and Lipowski~\cite{Zhou_Lipowski:2005} investigated,

345: through analytic and simulation means, a general class of dynamic

346: systems on scale free networks with binary states.  They reported

347: important variations of performance with respect to the scale free

348: exponential coefficient. The effect of structured connections on the

349: interactive statistical mechanics algorithm for minimization of the

350: Bethe free energy (associated to Ising models) has been studied by

351: Ohkubo et al.~\cite{Ohkubo_etal:2005}.  The adaptation of the Sznajd

352: dynamics to take place over the network connectivity instead of its

353: states has been reported by Costa~\cite{L_sznaj:2005}, yielding

354: network realizations which are a consequence of an inherent dynamical

355: process.  Lu et al.~\cite{Lu_etal:2006} considered the effect of

356: regular, random, small-world and scale free topologies on Hopfield

357: networks.  They reported, among other findings, that the performance

358: improved with the local order of the connections, which seems to be in

359: agreement with~\cite{Costa_Stauffer:2003}. The periodicity of activity

360: in networks with small-world and scale-free topologies were

361: investigated by Paula et al.~\cite{Paula_etal:2006} who concluded,

362: among other findings, that periodic activity appears only for

363: relatively small networks. Perotti et al.~\cite{Perotti_etal:2006}

364: studied the interesting problem of associative memory on a growing

365: diluted Hopfield model which converges to a small-world, scale free

366: topology and showed that the performance of such a network is higher

367: than that of a randomly diluted network with the same

368: connectivity. More recently, Davey et al.~\cite{Davey:2006}

369: investigated sparse small world associative memory considering

370: Perceptron training under small world connectivity ranging from local

371: to global and found that non-symmetric connectivity networks exhibited

372: superior performance.  By considering random walks as a reference

373: model for implementing dynamics in complex networks, Costa et

374: al. investigated the correlations between the topology (node degree)

375: and activation (frequency of visits to nodes at equilibrium).  They

376: found that while full correlation is guaranteed for undirected

377: networks, it can vary substantially in directed networks such as

378: biological neuronal networks and the Internet, implying that topologic

379: hubs are not necessarily hubs of activity.  That work also identified

380: a relationship between scale free networks and the Zipf's

381: law~\cite{Newman_Zipf:2005}. A study of self-organizing models

382: underlined by complex networks related to mental processes has been

383: reported by Wedemann et al.~\cite{Wedemann:2006}. The investigation of

384: the relationship between topology and dynamics at higher spatial

385: scales (e.g. cortical areas) has also been addressed in an increasing

386: number of works (e.g.~\cite{Sporns:2002, Hilgetag:2002,

387: Hilgetag_etal:2000, Sporns_etal:2000, Sporns_etal:2004,

388: Costa_Sporns:2006, Costa_Sporns:2007, Costa_etal:2006}).

389: 

390: Increasing attention has also been drawn on the synchronization of

391: oscillations as the means for pattern encoding and retrieval

392: (e.g.~\cite{Arecchi:2004}).  Among the works related to the separation

393: of attractors, Arecchi~\cite{Arecchi:2005} has considered a metric

394: structure for the percept space, while taking into account the

395: separation between states.  Wang et al. investigated the influence of

396: the node degree distribution in the synchronization of two-layer

397: neural networks.  The criticality of coupling parameters on the

398: synchronization of an ensemble of identical neural networks with

399: small-world topology has been addressed by Wang et

400: al.~\cite{Wang_etal:2005}.

401: 

402: All in all, as far as the influence of connectivity on the performance

403: of dynamic systems for storing patterns is concerned, several of the

404: above reviewed works seem to indicate that better results tend to be

405: obtained by considering non-random connectivity, but at a level of

406: order that ranges from low to intermediate.

407: 

408: 

409: \section{Notation, Basic Concepts and Methodology}

410: 

411: This section covers the concepts and methods used in the current

412: investigation.  Its subsections present the basic concepts and

413: measurements in complex networks, the four considered theoretic

414: network models, the procedure suggested to extend the prototype

415: influence through their successive neighborhoods in order to establish

416: the attraction basins, the diffusive way to activate the attractors,

417: the separation measurements, and the correlation and path analyses

418: considered in this work.

419: 

420: 

421: \subsection{Complex Networks Concepts and Topologic Measurements} 

422: \label{sec:conc}

423: 

424: A \emph{graph} $\Gamma$ involves a set $V$ of $N$ nodes interconnected

425: by a set $U$ of $E$ edges, i.e. $\Gamma = (V,U)$.  Each directed edge

426: linking a node $i$ to a node $j$ is represented as $(i,j)$.  Such a

427: graph can be conveniently expressed in terms of its \emph{adjacency

428: matrix} $K$, so that $K(j,i)=1$ whenever an edge $(i,j)$ exists

429: (otherwise, $K(j,i)=0$).  A graph such that $K(i,j)=K(j,i)=1$ is said

430: to be non-oriented.  Although the present work focuses on this type of

431: graph, all reported developments can be extended to directed graphs.

432: The graphs considered henceforth are also devoid of self-connections

433: (i.e. $K(i,i)=0$ for every node $i$).  A \emph{complex network} is

434: henceforth understood as a graph exhibiting a particularly intricated

435: structure, in the sense of differing from a random graph of the

436: Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi type~\cite{ErdosRenyi:1959,ErdosRenyi:1960}.

437: However, because of statistic fluctuations, a random graph can also

438: exhibit intricated structure.

439: 

440: Given a generic node $i$, some measurements can be associated to it

441: (e.g.~\cite{Barabasi:surv,Newman03,Costa:survey}).  Its \emph{degree}

442: $k(i)$ is defined as the number of edges attached to it, so that

443: 

444: \begin{equation}

445:   k(i) = \sum_{p=1}^{N} K(p,i). 

446: \end{equation}

447: 

448: The immediate neighbors of a node $i$ correspond to those nodes which

449: are directly attached to it. The \emph{clustering coefficient} of a

450: node $i$ expresses the degree of connectivity among its immediate

451: neighbors and can be calculated as

452: 

453: \begin{equation}

454:   cc(i) = \frac{e(i)}{e_{max}},

455: \end{equation}

456: 

457: where $e(i)$ is the number of undirected edges between the immediate

458: neighbors of $i$ and $e_{max}$ is the maximum possible number of such

459: connections, given as $e_{max} = e(i)(e(i)-1)/2$.

460: 

461: The \emph{shortest path} between any two nodes $i$ and $j$ corresponds

462: to the minimal set $SP$ of adjacent edges connecting those two nodes.

463: A network in which all nodes can be reached, through paths, from any

464: other node is henceforth said to be \emph{connected}.  The respective

465: \emph{shortest path length} $sp$ is defined as the number of edges in $SP$.

466: Therefore, the immediate neighbors of a node $i$ can be alternatively

467: defined as the nodes which are at shortest path length of 1 from node

468: $i$.  The second neighborhood (or neighbors of second hierarchy) are

469: those nodes which are at shortest path length of 2 from $i$, and so

470: on.  The maximum shortest path length between any pair of nodes is

471: defined as the network \emph{diameter}, henceforth abbreviated as

472: $diam$.

473: 

474: Given a set $R$ of $M$ reference (or seed) nodes, it is possible to

475: obtain the respective \emph{Voronoi} tessellation~\cite{Stoyan:1996}

476: of the network~\cite{Costa_Silva07} with respect to the seeds, which

477: partitions the $N$ nodes into $M$ connected subgraphs associated to

478: each of the reference nodes.  This can be achieved by, for each node

479: $i$, identifying which of the reference nodes is closest (in the sense

480: of shortest path) to $i$ and assigning it to that region.  Given two

481: nodes $i$ and $j$, whose respective immediate neighbors are

482: represented by the sets $n(i)$ and $n(j)$, we define their

483: \emph{common neighbors} as the set $c(i) = n(i) \cap n(j)$.  

484: Given the Voronoi partition of a network, it is interesting to devise

485: a measurement capable of expressing the uniformity of the areas $A(i)$

486: (i.e. number of nodes) of each of the $M$ partitioned regions $i$.

487: This can be conveniently achieved by considering the \emph{geometric

488: average} $\left[ A \right]$ of the areas, i.e.

489: 

490: \begin{equation}

491:   \left[ A \right] = \left( \prod_{i=1}^{M} A(i) \right)^{1/M},

492: \end{equation}

493: 

494: Observe that the geometric average implies a high penalty on higher

495: variations of the Voronoi areas, therefore providing a more strict

496: quantification of the homogeneity of those areas.

497: Figure~\ref{fig:avgs} illustrates the comparison between the

498: arithmetic and geometric average considering two measurements $p$

499: (with $0 \leq p \leq 1$) and $q = 1-p$.  The ability of the geometric

500: average in quantifying the similarity between $p$ and $q$ is evident

501: from this figure.  While dispersion-related measurements

502: (e.g. standard deviation and entropy of the state activations) could

503: be used, they could not be interepreted as quantifications of the

504: activations.

505: 

506: 

507: \begin{figure}[htb]

508:   \begin{center} 

509:   \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=0]{avgs.eps} \hspace{0.5cm}

510:   \caption{The arithmetic ($*$) and geometric ($+$)

511:   averages between the values $p$ and $q = 1-p$. The

512:   geometric average allows the quantification of the 

513:   uniformity between the values of $p$ and $q$, with a

514:   peak at $p = q = 0.5$.~\label{fig:avgs}}

515:   \end{center}

516: \end{figure}

517: 

518: As the geometric average $u$ for the $M$ Voronoi areas varies as $0

519: \leq u \leq 1/M$, it is convenient to redefined $\left[ A \right]$ as

520: 

521: \begin{equation}

522:  \left[ A \right] = M \left( \prod_{i=1}^{P} A(i) \right)^{1/M}.

523: \end{equation}

524: 

525: The \emph{matching index}~\cite{Sporns:2002,Hilgetag:2002} of a pair

526: of nodes $i$ and $j$, expressing the relative degree of overlap

527: between the immediate neighborhoods of those nodes, can be calculated

528: as

529: 

530: \begin{equation}

531:   mi(i,j) = \frac{n(i) \cap n(j)}{n(i) \cup n(j)}.

532: \end{equation}

533: 

534: This measurement gives the fraction of immediate neighbors of $i$ and

535: $j$ which are common neighbors to them both.  For instance, for the

536: situation depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:common}, we have that the

537: matching index of the pair of nodes $P1$ and $P2$ is given as

538: $m(P1,P2) = 2/8 = 0.25$.

539: 

540: 

541: \subsection{Complex Networks Theoretic Models}

542: 

543: Four theoretic models of complex networks are considered in the

544: present work: Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi (ER), Barab\'asi-Albert (BA),

545: Watts-Strogatz (WS) and a geographic model (GG).  Reflecting their

546: different natures and organizing principles, these models correspond

547: to a significant portion of the complex networks found in nature,

548: providing therefore a representative choice of models for the current

549: study of attractor separability. In order to account for a more

550: coherent comparison between the separability of attractors in these

551: four models, each comparison always consider $N$ and $\left< k

552: \right>$ for each model to be as similar as possible~\footnote{Observe

553: that it is not possible to ensure identical values of such parameters

554: in all models. For instance, the average degree $\left< k \right>$

555: will naturally vary within a limited interval in all models.}.  In

556: this work, the average degree of the BA model (defined by the

557: parameter $m$) is always taken as a reference for defining the average

558: degree of the other models.  The methodology for constructing such

559: models are described in the following subsections.

560: 

561: 

562: \subsubsection{Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi}

563: 

564: \emph{Random networks}, also called Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi --

565: ER, were among the first models of stochastic networks to be

566: extensively

567: studied(e.g.~\cite{Rapoport:1957,ErdosRenyi:1959,ErdosRenyi:1960}).

568: These networks are characterized by constant probability of having a

569: connection between any of the possible pairs of nodes, and are

570: therefore related to Poisson processes.  The connectivity of ER

571: networks can generally be well approximated in terms of its average

572: degree, implying that such networks are similar to regular networks,

573: characterized by having the same degree at any of its nodes. As a

574: consequence of its indiscriminate connectivity and largely regular

575: organization, the ER type of networks does not typically provide a

576: good model of natural structures and phenomena, where the connections

577: tend to follow more purposive and specific rules.

578: 

579: In an ER graph, each possible connection between each possible pair of

580: nodes, has constant probability $\gamma$ of existence.  Such networks

581: can be easily created through Monte Carlo simulation by making

582: $K(i,j)=K(j,i)=1$, with $i \neq j$, with probability $\gamma$.

583: Observe that the construction of ER networks consider only two

584: parameters: $N$ and $\gamma$.  In order to obtain values of $\left< k

585: \right>$ similar to the BA reference, we enforce $\gamma = 2m/(N-1)$,

586: where $m$ is a parameter of the BA model (see next subsection).

587: 

588: 

589: \subsubsection{Barab\'asi-Albert}

590: 

591: The so-called \emph{Barab\'asi-Albert

592: model}~\cite{Albert:1999,Barabasi:Linked,Barabasi:surv} -- BA, belongs

593: to the important class of \emph{scale free} networks.  This type of

594: network is characterized by the fact that the loglog plot of their

595: node degrees tends to a straight line, implying the absence of any

596: characteristic scale.  In other words, the node distribution in such a

597: network follows a \emph{power law}.  One of the most important

598: properties of scale free networks

599: (e.g.~\cite{Barabasi:surv,Barabasi:Linked}), when compared to models

600: such as the ER, is the higher probability of existence of \emph{hubs},

601: i.e. nodes with particularly high degree.  Such special nodes are

602: particularly important in defining the connectivity and topologic

603: features of the network, such as the average shortest path length.

604: For instance, the fact that a hub connects to many nodes immediately

605: implies that the shortest path between any of these nodes will be at

606: most equal to 2 edges.  Several important natural and human-made

607: structures -- including the Internet, WWW, protein interaction and

608: even scientific collaborations -- have been found to exhibit the scale

609: free property (e.g.~\cite{Barabasi:surv,Barabasi:Linked,Newman03}).

610: The BA model incorporates the so-called

611: \emph{rich-get-richer} paradigm because of its attachment of links being

612: preferential to the degree of existing nodes.

613: 

614: In the current work, BA networks are generated starting with $m0$

615: randomly connected nodes.  At each subsequent step, a new node with

616: $m$ edges is added to the network, with each of the $m$ edges being

617: attached to previous network nodes preferentially to their degree.

618: Therefore, each new connection is more likely to be established with

619: previous nodes with high degree, implementing the `rich get richer'

620: paradigm.  As with the ER model, the construction of BA networks also

621: involves only two parameters: $N$ and $m$.

622: 

623: 

624: \subsubsection{Watts-Strogatz}

625: 

626: Historically, the \emph{small world networks} of Watts and

627: Strogatz~\cite{Watts_Strogatz:1998,Watts03} followed the random

628: networks of Erd\H{o}s, R\'enyi and collaborators.  Small world

629: networks are exactly as implied by their name, i.e. the average

630: shortest path length between their nodes tends to be small.  At the

631: same time, they also tend to be characterized by relatively high

632: clustering coefficient, implying that they local connectivity is

633: relatively high.  The small world property, which has been found to be

634: present in many interesting networks including ER and BA, has

635: important implications for the separation of attractors because it

636: implies that many prototype nodes will be near one another and,

637: consequently, possibly less separated as far as the dynamics is

638: concerned.  The WS model considered in this work, however, presents

639: some specific topologic organization which has potential

640: implications for the distribution of the prototypes.  More

641: specifically, this model is characterized by a relatively high

642: regularity and uniformity of local connectivity.

643: 

644: The Watts-Strogatz networks used in the current work have been

645: constructed by starting with a ring of nodes where each node is

646: connected to its $m$ clockwise and anti-clockwise nodes.  After such

647: an initial network is obtained, $\alpha$\% of the existing connections

648: are rewired at random.  This network model involves three parameters:

649: $N$, $m$ and $\alpha$.  All configurations in this work assume

650: $\alpha = 10$\%.

651: 

652: 

653: \subsubsection{A Geographic Model}

654: 

655: Geographic networks (e.g.\cite{Costa_Stauffer:2003, Costa:2003,

656: Spatial_Satorras:2004, Costa_Diambra:2005, Spatial_Barrat:2005,

657: Spatial_Newman:2006})) -- also called spatial, geometric or topologic

658: -- are characterized by the fact that their nodes have well-defined

659: spatial positions within an embedding space.  Frequently, the

660: connectivity in such networks is considered to be highly influenced by

661: the spatial adjacencies and/or spatial proximity between its nodes, in

662: the sense that two nodes which are adjacent or near one another will

663: have higher chances of being connected.  Therefore, geographic models

664: in small dimensional spaces (e.g. 2D or 3D) tend not to be small

665: world.  Such a property is particularly important as far as the

666: separation of the prototype nodes is concerned because, in principle,

667: this type of network allows more space distribution of nodes which are

668: relatively further apart.  Here, we consider one of the simplest

669: possible approaches to obtaining a geographic model, which involves

670: the distribution of the $N$ nodes uniformly along a 2D space followed

671: by the interconnection of all nodes which are closer than a given

672: distance $d$.

673: 

674: In order to build a GG network, we start with an empty $L \times L$

675: discrete space $S$, such that each of its positions is expressed as

676: $S(x,y)$, where $i$ and $j$ are integer values so that $1 \leq x, y

677: \leq N$.  This space is henceforth understood as a Poisson 

678: field with density $\rho$, in the sense that any region with area $a$

679: (i.e. number of discrete elements $(x,y)$) will have, in the average,

680: a total of $a \rho$ points marked as $S(x,y)=1$~\cite{Stoyan:1996}.

681: The network nodes are selected by considering each position $(x,y)$ in

682: the space $S$ with probability $\rho = N/L^2$, implying an average

683: total number of nodes $N$.  Then, each of such nodes, marked as

684: $S(x,y)=1$, is connected to all other nodes to be found up to a

685: maximum Euclidean distance $d$.  Therefore, the average degree of the

686: network can be defined by controlling $d$.  More specifically, we make

687: $d = L\sqrt{2m/(N \pi)}$, so that every disk of radius $r$ in $S$

688: centered at each node will contain, in the average, $\left< k \right>

689: = 2m$, where $m$ is the BA parameter taken as the reference.  The

690: growth parameters of such a network model therefore are again limited

691: to only $N$ and $m$.  In order to ensure a relatively small variation

692: of $N$, every generated network with a total number of nodes smaller

693: than 90\% of the desired value of $N$ were discarded.

694: Figure~\ref{fig:exs} illustrates a GG complex network obtained by

695: using the methodology described above for $N=50$ and $m=3$.

696: 

697: 

698: \subsection{Generating the Attraction Basins}

699: 

700: As indicated in the Introduction, in order to avoid the intricacies

701: and specificities of how each distinct dynamic system represents

702: attractors, here we resort to a simple methodology involving diffusion

703: of activity from the prototype nodes, followed by the transformation

704: of the so obtained activity into a derivative

705: network~\cite{Costa_simple:2004,Costa_Travieso:2005}.

706: Although not reproducing in detail the attraction basins which would

707: be otherwise produced by diverse specific dynamics, this approach does

708: ensure the smoothness of coding, i.e. the property that nodes which

709: are topologic close will tend to have similar state dynamics.  The

710: details of such a methodology are presented as follows.

711: 

712: Let the $M$ prototype patterns be associated with respective nodes

713: chosen with uniform probability among the $N$ network nodes.  Let

714: $\vec{P}$ be the vector such that $P(i)=1$ if and only $i$ is one of

715: the prototype nodes, with $P(i)=0$ otherwise.  In order to allow a

716: probabilistic interpretation, we normalize this vector as $\vec{p} =

717: \vec{P} / \sum_{i=1}^{N} p(i)$.  This vector will act as the fixed

718: source of probabilities during the diffusion.  The adjacency matrix

719: describing the network is also normalized into its respective transfer

720: matrix $W$, i.e.:

721: 

722: \begin{equation}

723:   W(i,j) = K(i,j) / k(i), 

724: \end{equation}

725: 

726: where $k(i)$ is the degree of node $i$. Note that all the sums of $W$

727: along each of its columns will now be equal to 1, i.e. $W$ is a

728: \emph{stochastic matrix}.  In order to ensure that the matrix $K$ is

729: connected (irreducible)~\cite{Bremaud:2001}, all the nodes which do

730: not belong to the main connected component are excluded from the

731: network at the end of its respective construction.  Because the

732: considered average node degrees are relatively high, and well above

733: the percolation critic density, very few nodes are removed through

734: such a procedure.

735: 

736: Now, the final distribution of occupancy $\vec{\Omega^{T}}$ of each

737: node $i$ after $T$ interactions can be calculated by applying

738: recursively ($T$ times) the following set of equations:

739: 

740: \begin{eqnarray} 

741:   \vec{a} = \left( \vec{\Omega}^{t} + \vec{p}  \right),    \nonumber \\

742:   \vec{b} = \left( \vec{a} / \sum_{i=1}^{N} a(i) \right),   \nonumber \\

743:   \vec{\Omega}^{t+1} = W \vec{b}.

744: \end{eqnarray}

745: 

746: The number $T_t$ of total interactions is henceforth defined as

747: corresponding to $3$ times the diameter of the respective network,

748: i.e. $T_t = 3 diam$.  Figure~\ref{fig:exs}(b) illustrates the

749: occupancy states obtained for a GG network with $N=100$, $\left< k

750: \right> = 6$ and $M=2$ after $T_t=27$ interactions.

751: 

752: After the occupancy state of each node is obtained for the network,

753: its respective \emph{derivative network} $\Delta$

754: (e.g.~\cite{Costa_simple:2004, Costa_Travieso:2005}) is obtained by

755: applying the equation below for each edge $(i,j)$ existing in the

756: original network.

757: 

758: \begin{eqnarray}

759:   aux = \Omega(j) - \Omega(i)  \nonumber \\

760:   \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}

761:     aux>0  \Rightarrow &  \Delta(j,i) = aux  \nonumber \\

762:     aux<0  \Rightarrow &  \Delta(j,i) = aux/10  \nonumber \\

763:     aux=0  \Rightarrow &  \Delta(j,i) = -1  \nonumber \\

764:     \end{array}

765:   \right.

766: \end{eqnarray}

767: 

768: The following substitution is applied afterwards:

769: 

770: \begin{equation}  \label{eq:subst}

771:     \Delta(j,i) = -1  \Rightarrow  \Delta(j,i)=max(\Delta)/\beta.

772: \end{equation}

773: 

774: All cases in this work assumes $\beta=1000$, but this parameters has

775: been found not to be critical.  

776: 

777: Note that the values $\Delta(j,i)$ correspond to the weights of the

778: respective edges $(i,j)$.  Those edges which connect a node with small

779: induced activity to a node with higher activity will have larger

780: weights.  More specifically, in case $aux>0$ the weights are directly

781: proportional to the difference of activations.  Edges leading from

782: higher to smaller activations have one tenth of the reciprocal edge.

783: Because several adjacent nodes may result with equal activations, the

784: eventual previous connectivity between then will be preserved though

785: at an incremental value proportional to the maximum activation

786: (Equation~\ref{eq:subst}).  Observe that the matrix $\Delta$ is not

787: symmetric.

788: 

789: 

790: \subsection{Activating the Network}

791: 

792: Once the derivative network defined by the weight matrix $\Delta$ has

793: been calculated, its activation can be easily achieved through a

794: random walk preferential to the weights of the edges (see

795: also~\cite{Toro:2004}, where information is transmitted considering

796: the gradient of a node).  In order to do so, we obtain the stochastic

797: version of $\Delta$ by applying the following equation to each of its

798: edge $(i,j)$

799: 

800: \begin{equation}

801:   \delta(j,i) = \Delta(j,i) / \sum_{j=1}^{N} \Delta(j,i).

802: \end{equation}

803: 

804: The activation after $T$ steps is now given as

805: 

806: \begin{equation}

807:   \vec{\alpha} = 1/N \delta^T \vec{1},

808: \end{equation}

809: 

810: where $\vec{1}$ is the $N \times 1$ vector of ones.  As before, we

811: assume that the total number of interactions $T_r$ is equal to 3 times

812: the network diameter.  Therefore, the final activation corresponds to

813: the near equilibrium occupancy of each node after starting from any

814: node.  Figure~\ref{fig:exs}(c) shows the activations obtained by the

815: method described above with respect to the network in

816: Figure~\ref{fig:exs}(b).  It is interesting to note that the peaks of

817: the obtained activations do not necessarily correspond to the original

818: prototype nodes.  This is an interesting consequence of the fact that

819: the activation of the derivative network is affected not only by the

820: attraction basins, but also by the

821: \emph{in-strength}~\footnote{In a directed weighted network such as the 

822: derivative network, the \emph{in-strength} of a node $i$ is defined as

823: being equal to the sum of the weights of each inbound edge.} and the

824: local connectivity of each node.  More

825: specifically~\cite{Costa_etal:2006}, in case the in-strength is equal

826: to the out-strength for all nodes, the equilibrium activation will be

827: directly proportional to the respective in-strength.  However, this

828: result is not guaranteed for asymmetric connectivity such as in the

829: derivative network.

830: 

831: \begin{figure*}[htb]

832:   \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.75,angle=0]{ex_GG.eps}

833:   \hspace{0.5cm} \includegraphics[scale=0.75,angle=0]{ex_diff.eps} \\

834:   (a) \hspace{8cm} (b) \vspace{0.5cm} \\

835:   \includegraphics[scale=0.75,angle=0]{ex_rw.eps} \hspace{0.5cm}

836:   \includegraphics[scale=0.75,angle=0]{ex_vor.eps} \\ (c) \hspace{8cm}

837:   (d) \\ \caption{Example of GG network obtained for $N=50$ and $m=3$

838:   (with $\left< k \right> = 5.5$) (a).  The

839:   respective occupancy states, defining the basis of the prototype

840:   nodes (striped), after $27$ interactions (b). Note the smooth

841:   distribution of states through both the topologic neighborhoods. 

842:   The activation induced by the random walks

843:   preferential to the weights of the respective derivative network

844:   (c).  The Voronoi tessellation defined by the two prototype nodes

845:   (represented as striped) (d).~\label{fig:exs}} \end{center}

846: \end{figure*}

847: 

848: 

849: \subsection{Separation Indices}

850: 

851: Given a specific grandmother dynamic system, it is important to

852: quantify in an objective manner the separability of its attractors.

853: Recall that the system incorporates $M$ prototype patterns, associated

854: to respective prototype nodes $p = 1, 2,

855: \ldots, M$.  In this work we propose two separation indices,  

856: $s_{ind}$ and $s_{ngh}$, defined by taking into account diffusion

857: dynamics along the complex network underlying the dynamic system.  For

858: simplicity's sake, the latter is henceforth called simply as

859: \emph{separation index} and abbreviated as $s$.  

860: 

861: Once the activations have been obtained in each of the dynamic states

862: associated to the nodes, we define the \emph{individual separation

863: index} $s_{ind}$ as being proportional to the geometric average of the

864: activations $v(p)$ at each prototype node $p = 1, 2,\ldots, M$, i.e.

865: 

866: \begin{equation}

867:   s_{ind} = M \left( \prod_{i=1}^{M} v(i) \right)^{1/M},

868: \end{equation}

869: 

870: where the proportionality factor $M$ is introduced in order to ensure

871: that $0 \leq w \leq 1$ instead of $0 \leq w \leq 1/M$.  As with the

872: quantification of the uniformity of the Voronoi areas

873: (Section~\ref{sec:conc}), the geometric average will reach its maximum

874: when all activations $v(i)$ have the same value.

875: 

876: However, as preliminary simulations (see Section~\ref{sec:fixed})

877: showed that this index tends to be too small, an alternative separation

878: index has been considered which takes into account also the immediate

879: neighborhoods of each prototype node.  Consider the situation

880: illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:common}.  This figure shows two

881: prototype nodes $P1$ and $P2$ as well as their common $C$ immediate

882: neighboring nodes.  Because these nodes are at the same shortest path

883: distance from $P1$ and $P2$, they do not contribute to the

884: discrimination between those prototype nodes and are therefore not

885: considered in the calculation of the neighborhood separation index,

886: which is more formally defined as follows.

887: 

888: Let $Z(i)$ be the set including the respective prototype node $i$ and

889: its immediated neighbors which are not common to the immediated

890: neighborhoods of any of the other prototype nodes.  The probability

891: $p(i)$ at this set of nodes corresponds to the sum of the normalized

892: activations of the states in $Z(i)$.  Ideally, all prototype nodes

893: should result with probability equal to $1/M$, implying that all

894: prototypes are equally accessible and therefore maximally separable.

895: In order to quantify how the obtained network state approaches such a

896: reference separation, we define the neighborhood separation index

897: $s_{ngh}$ as corresponding to the geometric average of the total

898: probabilities at each set $Z(i)$, for all $M$ prototype nodes $i$,

899: i.e.

900: 

901: \begin{equation}

902:   s = s_{ngh} = M \left( \prod_{i=1}^{M} p(i) \right)^{1/M},

903: \end{equation}

904: 

905: where the multiplying constant $M$ is, as before, included in order to

906: imply that $0 \leq s \leq 1$.  The maximum separation between

907: attractors is therefore obtained whenever $s=1$.  

908: 

909: 

910: \begin{figure}[htb]

911:   \begin{center} \includegraphics[scale=0.5,angle=0]{common.eps}

912:   \caption{A portion of a hypothetical network showing two prototype

913:   nodes ($P1$ and $P2$).  The nodes belonging to both immediate

914:   neighborhoods are identified by the region $C$, while the nodes

915:   belonging to the respective immediate neighborhoods minus the common

916:   nodes are enclosed by the regions $N1$ and $N2$,

917:   respectively.~\label{fig:common}} \end{center}

918: \end{figure}

919: 

920: 

921: \subsection{Correlation Analysis}

922: 

923: Given several measurements of the topology of the network under

924: analysis, as well as the separation indices, a first insight about

925: their possible relationship and redundancy can be obtained by

926: considering the \emph{Pearson correlation coefficient}.  Let us

927: express each measurement as a random variable $X$ of which we have

928: $N_X$ observations.  First, we

929: \emph{standardize}~\cite{Johnson_Wichern:2002} the variable $X$ as

930: 

931: \begin{equation}

932:   \tilde{X} = \frac{X - \mu_X}{\sigma(X)},

933: \end{equation}

934: 

935: where $\mu_X$ and $\sigma(X)$ are the estimate of the average and

936: standard deviation of $X$.  The new, normalized variable has average

937: zero and unit variance. The Pearson correlation coefficient $r(X,Y)$

938: between any pair of normalized measurements $X$ and $Y$ can now be

939: estimated as

940: 

941: \begin{equation}

942:   r(X,Y) = \frac{1}{N_X-1} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \tilde{X} \tilde{Y}.

943: \end{equation}

944: 

945: Observe that $-1 \leq r(X,Y) \leq 1$, while $r(X,Y)=0$ means lack of

946: correlation between the two measurements.  It is important to stress

947: that uncorrelation does not imply statistic independence.  At the same

948: time, correlation can by no means be understood as a certain

949: indication of \emph{causality}.  In case two measurements result with

950: high absolute value of the Pearson correlation coefficient, they are

951: said to be \emph{correlated}, indicating redundancy of measurements.

952: However, even correlated measurements can contribute to the

953: characterization and discrimination between the

954: networks~\cite{Costa:survey}.

955: 

956: 

957: \subsection{Path Analysis}

958: 

959: While the Pearson correlation coefficient quantifies, in a normalized

960: fashion, the joint variation of two measurements, such a pairwise

961: measurement does not consider information about additional

962: measurements.  A series of sound statistic methods, ranging from

963: \emph{multivariate regression} (e.g.~\cite{Kleinbaum:1998,

964: Montgomery:2001}) to the more sophisticated

965: \emph{Structural Equation Modeling} (SEM) (e.g.~\cite{Raykov:2000, 

966: Kline:2005}), can be considered in order to obtain a more

967: representative characterization of the relationship between multiple

968: random variables (including latent variables) or measurements.  In

969: this work we considered the \emph{Path Analysis} methodology

970: (e.g.~\cite{Wright:1920, Raykov:2000, Kline:2005}), understood here as

971: a particular case of the SEM framework, in order to obtain indication

972: about the influence of the several measurements of the topology of the

973: networks on the respective attractor separation indices.

974: 

975: Path analysis was largely developed by S. Wright

976: (e.g.~\cite{Wright:1920}) in order to model explanatory relationships

977: between observed variables.  This methodology is similar to the

978: solution of a system of equations implied by substituting the model

979: generated covariance matrix into the sample

980: covariance~\cite{Raykov:2000}.  One of the interesting features of

981: this approach is that it considers the influence of the covariances

982: between all variables, sometimes being closely related to multivariate

983: linear regression.  The path analysis performed in this work considers

984: the structural relationship between the topologic and dynamic

985: properties of the investigated networks as shown in

986: Figure~\ref{fig:diagram}.  A relatively simple relationship between

987: the measurements has been considered, where the topologic features are

988: understood to cause the dynamic properties, namely the individual and

989: neighborhood attractor separation indices ($s_{ind}$ and $s$,

990: respectively).  Each of the measurements are associated to a reference

991: number (upper righthand side of each box).  The parameters

992: $\gamma_ij$, which are in principle not known, express the importance

993: of the topologic measurements with respect to the separation indices.

994: 

995: \begin{figure}[htb]

996:   \begin{center} 

997:   \includegraphics[scale=0.7,angle=0]{diagram_path.eps} 

998:   \caption{The structural relationship between the topologic

999:   and dynamic measurements considered for the path analysis

1000:   reported in this work.  The covariances between variables

1001:   3 to 9 are not shown for simplicity's sake.~\label{fig:diagram}}

1002:   \end{center}

1003: \end{figure}

1004: 

1005: Equations~\ref{eq:sind} and~\ref{eq:s} express the relationship

1006: between the considered variables, reflecting the fact that the

1007: regression coefficients $\gamma_ij$ establish the weights of the

1008: influences of each topologic variable onto the two separation

1009: indices. The environment

1010: LISREL~\footnote{http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/index.html} was used

1011: in this work in order to perform path analysis.

1012: 

1013: \begin{eqnarray} 

1014:   s_{ind} \propto \gamma_{13}\left<cc\right> + \gamma_{14}\left<sp\right>

1015:   +\gamma_{15}\sigma{sp} + \gamma_{16}Vi \nonumber \\

1016:   +\gamma_{17}\left<mi\right> + \gamma_{18}\sigma(mi) +\gamma_{19}diam  

1017:   \label{eq:sind} \\ 

1018:   \nonumber \\ s \propto \gamma_{13}\left<cc\right> +

1019:   \gamma_{14}\left<sp\right> +\gamma_{15}\sigma{sp} +

1020:   \gamma_{16}Vi \nonumber \\ +\gamma_{17}\left<mi\right> +

1021:   \gamma_{18}\sigma(mi) +\gamma_{19}diam   \label{eq:s}

1022: \end{eqnarray}

1023: 

1024: 

1025: \section{Results and Discussion}

1026: 

1027: This section starts by identifying each involved parameter which can

1028: affect the simulations and follows by presenting the results obtained

1029: for specific configurations of $N$ and $m$ and an analysis of the

1030: variation of the parameters.  The statistic analysis of the

1031: relationship between the topologic and dynamic measurements by using

1032: correlation and path analyses is also reported.

1033: 

1034: 

1035: \subsection{Involved Parameters and Their Expected Effects}

1036: 

1037: An important first issue to be considered while investigating the

1038: attractors separation in complex dynamic networks concerns the

1039: identification of all involved parameters which can influence the

1040: results.  The parameters involved in our simulations, as well as their

1041: expected effects, are described in the following:

1042: 

1043: \emph{The network model and its intrinsic parameters:} Each theoretic

1044: model of complex network considered in this work is likely to yield

1045: different attractors separations.  Those networks characterized by the

1046: small world property (i.e. ER, BA and WS) are, in principle, likely to

1047: produce less separated attraction basis because of the relatively

1048: small shortest path distance, expected in the average, between the

1049: prototype nodes (however, see Section~\ref{sec:res_path})).  While the

1050: ER, BA and GG models can be generated by considering just two

1051: parameters (i.e. $N$ and $m$), the WS network also involves a third

1052: parameters corresponding to the percentage of rewirings, which is

1053: fixed as $\alpha = 10$\%.

1054: 

1055: \emph{The network size $N$:} This is an important global parameter of

1056: every complex network, corresponding to its total number of nodes.

1057: One of the most important aspects related to this parameter are the

1058: so-called \emph{finite size effects}, namely the fact that the network

1059: properties change considerably when moving from large (possibly

1060: infinite) to small values of $N$.  As an extreme example, the

1061: connectivity of any network will decrease when $N$ approaches just one

1062: or two nodes.  Although in this work we are more interested in finite

1063: size networks, it is often useful to try to extrapolate from

1064: properties measured for smaller values of $N$ to the infinite limit,

1065: as done in Section~\ref{sec:effs}.  Because of the computational

1066: demand required to simulate hundreds of realizations for each

1067: configuration, the current work is limited to relatively small values

1068: of $N$.  As far as the attractors separation is concerned, it is

1069: expected that, for fixed $m$ and $M$, the separability will tend to

1070: increase with $N$ because of the additional space thus allowed for the

1071: representation and distribution of the prototypes.

1072: 

1073: \emph{The network average node degree $\left< k \right>$:}  

1074: This parameter, which in this work is defined with respect to the

1075: reference $m$, is particularly important in defining the overall

1076: degree of connectivity in the network, especially in those structures

1077: which are not scale free and therefore have specific degree scales.

1078: Generally, smaller values of $\left< k \right>$ tend to imply longer

1079: shortest paths, possibly improving the attractors separation (however,

1080: see Section~\ref{sec:res_path}).  This parameter is not systematically

1081: investigated in this work, which mostly considers fixed $m = 3$

1082: (however, a situation with $m=10$ is considered in

1083: Section~\ref{sec:fixed}).

1084: 

1085: \emph{The number $M$ of prototype patterns to be represented:} 

1086: This parameter is directly involved in the separability of the

1087: prototype patterns, in the sense that the larger the number of

1088: prototypes, the less separated they tend to be.  

1089: 

1090: \emph{The number $T_t$ of interactions used for diffusion around each

1091: prototype node:} The diffusion of activity emanating from the

1092: prototype nodes has been verified to converge quickly for all

1093: considered networks, so that the assumption of the total number of

1094: interactions to be given as $T_t = 3 diam$ practically ensures the

1095: resulting activity to correspond to its equilibrium state.

1096: 

1097: \emph{The number $T_r$ of interactions considered in the retrieval

1098: random walk:} Again, the assumed total number of interactions used in

1099: the activation of the attraction basins is large enough to imply near

1100: equilibrium states.

1101: 

1102: 

1103: \subsection{Fixed Configurations} \label{sec:fixed}

1104: 

1105: In order to get a better understanding about the separability of the

1106: attractors in the considered four theoretic models and to obtain

1107: preliminary indications about the effects of the involved parameters,

1108: we considered a set of preliminary simulations as described in the

1109: following.  All results presented in this section considered

1110: $T_t=T_r=3 diam$ and 500 realizations of each configuration.

1111: 

1112: So as to have the first glimpses of the separability in each of the

1113: four complex networks models, we considered $N=100$, $\left< k \right>

1114: = 3$, and a relatively small number of prototypes $M=3$.  The

1115: individual separation indices $s_{ind}$ and $s$ obtained for each of

1116: the four models are shown in terms of their respective population

1117: histograms in Figures~\ref{fig:caso_sind} and~\ref{fig:caso1}.  The

1118: respective averages and standard deviations are also shown inside each

1119: graph.  The first important result is that the individual separation

1120: index $s_{ind}$ allows considerably less resolution than the

1121: neighborhood index $s$, with most of its values being close to zero

1122: (Fig.~\ref{fig:caso_sind}).  As this effect has been confirmed for

1123: other configurations, we henceforth focus attention on the

1124: neighborhood separation index $s$.  Interestingly, similar

1125: distributions have been obtained for the pairs of models ER/BA and

1126: WS/GG in Figure~\ref{fig:caso1}, the former being characterized by

1127: smaller averages of $s$.  Observe also the presence of cases where

1128: $s=0$ in the WS and GG cases.  The largest average, implying the

1129: better average attractor separability, was obtained for the WS model,

1130: followed by the GG networks, which also implied a significant number

1131: of null separability indices.  This phenomenon is caused whenever all

1132: immediate neighbors of the prototype nodes are common.  These results

1133: also show that a reasonable separation between the three prototype

1134: attractors have been obtained for the WS and GG cases.

1135: 

1136: \begin{figure*}[h]

1137:   \begin{center} 

1138:   \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=0]{caso_sind.eps}

1139:   \caption{The population histograms of the separation index $s_{ind}$

1140:   for the four considered theoretic models of complex networks with

1141:   $N=100$, $M=3$ and $\left< k \right> = 6$ (i.e. $m=3$).  It is clear

1142:   from these histograms that the separation index $s_{ind}$ does not

1143:   provide good resolution.~\label{fig:caso_sind}}

1144: \end{center}

1145: \end{figure*}

1146: 

1147: \begin{figure*}[htb]

1148:   \begin{center} 

1149:   \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=0]{caso1.eps} 

1150:   \caption{The population histograms of the separation index $s$

1151:   for the four considered theoretic models of complex networks

1152:   with $N=100$, $M=3$ and $\left< k \right> = 6$.

1153:   Similar results were obtained for the ER/BA and WS/GG models.

1154:   The former case involves smaller average and standard deviation of

1155:   the $s$ index.~\label{fig:caso1}}

1156:   \end{center}

1157: \end{figure*}

1158: 

1159: Next, we verify the possible influence of the network size $N$ by

1160: considering the same configuration as before, but with $N=200$.  The

1161: respective results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:caso2}.  It is clear

1162: from these results that the larger size of the network had relatively

1163: little influence on the separation indices, suggesting the finite size

1164: effect to be small for this number of parameters.  

1165: 

1166: \begin{figure*}[htb]

1167:   \begin{center} 

1168:   \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=0]{caso2.eps} 

1169:   \caption{The population histograms of the separation index $s$

1170:   for the four considered theoretic models of complex networks

1171:   with $N=200$, $M=3$ and $\left< k \right> = 6$.

1172:   Similar results were obtained for the ER/BA and WS/GG models.

1173:   The results are similar to those obtained for $N=100$ (see

1174:   Figure~\ref{fig:caso1}).~\label{fig:caso2}}

1175:   \end{center}

1176: \end{figure*}

1177: 

1178: Now we turn our attention to the influence of the number of prototype

1179: patterns to be represented.  The same configuration as in

1180: Figure~\ref{fig:caso1} is considered, except that $M=10$.  The

1181: obtained results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:caso3}.  It is clear

1182: that increase by more than threefold of the number of prototype

1183: patterns implied not only a substantially more cases such that $s=0$,

1184: but also the distributions to be strongly left-shifted in comparison

1185: with the respective cases in Figure~\ref{fig:caso1}.  This effect

1186: holds for all the four considered network models. The main reason

1187: behind such a substantial decrease of performance is that simply there

1188: was not much space left, in the average, between the prototype

1189: attractors.

1190: 

1191: \begin{figure*}[htb]

1192:   \begin{center} 

1193:   \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=0]{caso3.eps} 

1194:   \caption{The population histograms of the separation index $s$

1195:   for the four considered theoretic models of complex networks

1196:   with $N=100$, $M=3$ and $\left< k \right> = 6$.

1197:   A substantial decrease of the attractors separation has

1198:   been implied in all cases.~\label{fig:caso3}}

1199:   \end{center}

1200: \end{figure*}

1201: 

1202: Because the last configuration exhibited an accentuated loss of

1203: separability because of lack of space in the network, it is

1204: interesting to reconsider the effect of increasing $N$ for this

1205: situation.  The results obtained for the same previous configuration,

1206: but now with $N=200$, are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:caso4}.  The

1207: separation index increased substantially for all the four network

1208: models.  It could be expected that such improvements tend to decrease

1209: for still larger $N$, until reaching a regime where little improvement

1210: is observed.  In such a state, the prototype nodes would be

1211: sufficiently far away one another so that their separation no longer

1212: depends on $N$.  Additional investigation about the change of the

1213: average and standard deviation of $s$ are to be found in

1214: Section~\ref{sec:effs}.

1215: 

1216: \begin{figure*}[htb]

1217:   \begin{center} 

1218:   \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=0]{caso4.eps} 

1219:   \caption{The population histograms of the separation index $s$

1220:   for the four considered theoretic models of complex networks

1221:   with $N=100$, $M=10$ and $\left< k \right> = 6$.

1222:   A substantial decrease of the attractors separation has

1223:   been implied in all cases.~\label{fig:caso4}}

1224:   \end{center}

1225: \end{figure*}

1226: 

1227: Finally, we check for the possible effect of the average node degree

1228: on the separation index.  Again, the same configuration as the network

1229: in Figure~\ref{fig:caso1} is adopted, but now with $\left< k

1230: \right> = 20$ (i.e. $m=10$) instead of $\left< k \right> = 6$.  

1231: Figure~\ref{fig:caso5} depicts the respectively obtained results,

1232: which indicate a clear reduction of the attractors separability.  Such

1233: an effect is possibly a consequence of the fact that once the network

1234: become too intensely connected, the shortest path between the

1235: prototype nodes will be reduced and the separability undermined.

1236: 

1237: \begin{figure*}[htb]

1238:   \begin{center} 

1239:   \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=0]{caso5.eps} 

1240:   \caption{The population histograms of the separation index $s$

1241:   for the four considered theoretic models of complex networks

1242:   with $N=100$, $M=10$ and $\left< k \right> = 20$.  The effect

1243:   of increasing the average degree was to substantially 

1244:   decrease the attractors separation in all cases.~\label{fig:caso5}}

1245:   \end{center}

1246: \end{figure*}

1247: 

1248: 

1249: \subsection{Finite Size Effects}  \label{sec:effs}

1250: 

1251: The simulations discussed in the previous section seem to have

1252: indicated that increases of the value of $N$ would tend to improve the

1253: attractors separation until reaching a regime where so much space is

1254: available that the patterns no longer feels the finite size of the

1255: network.  In order to obtain further insights about this effect, the

1256: configuration involving $m=3$ and $M=3$ was simulated for $N = 50,

1257: 100, 150, 200, 250$ and the results are given in

1258: Figure~\ref{fig:finite}.  This figure shows the average (a) and

1259: standard deviation (b) of the neighborhood separation index in terms

1260: of $N$.  It is clear from these results that the increase of $N$ does

1261: enhance the attractors separation until reaching a plateau, where a

1262: possible 'unsaturation' occurs, indicating that the finite size

1263: effects are over for the specific parameters $m$ and $M$.  At the same

1264: time, $\sigma(s)$ decreases, also reaching a relatively low plateau.

1265: Similar results could be expected for other configurations.  In the

1266: case of a larger value of $M$, it is expected that $\left< k

1267: \right>$ will increase more steeply along the smaller values of $N$,

1268: reaching a similar plateau at larger values.  Therefore, as the

1269: 'unsaturation' effect was further corroborated by the additional

1270: analysis, such a behavior can be considered as a guideline for

1271: choosing a proper value of $N$ given $M$ and $m$, for instance by

1272: choosing $N$ where $\left< k

1273: \right>$ reaches a fixed proportion of its plateau value.

1274: 

1275: \begin{figure*}[htb]

1276:   \begin{center} 

1277:   \includegraphics[scale=0.55,angle=0]{finite_size.eps} \\

1278:   (a) \hspace{4cm} (b) \\

1279:   \caption{The average and standard deviation of the neighborhood

1280:   separation index ($\left< k \right>$ and $\sigma(s)$, respectively)

1281:   as a function of $N$ for the four models of networks considering

1282:   $m=3$ and $M=3$.  While the averages increase and then tend to 

1283:   a plateau, the standard deviations decrease and also stabilize.

1284:   ~\label{fig:finite}}

1285:   \end{center}

1286: \end{figure*}

1287: 

1288: 

1289: \subsection{Correlation Analysis}

1290: 

1291: In addition to studying the effects of the involved topologic

1292: measurements on the attractors separation, it is also particularly

1293: useful to try to identify in which ways the separation index is

1294: related to them.  This may allow the prediction of the separability

1295: without performing dynamic simulation, i.e. by considering only the

1296: topologic measurements.  Table~\ref{tab:pears} show the Pearson

1297: correlation coefficients obtained considering all pair os topologic

1298: measurement (i.e. $\left<cc\right>$, $\left<sp\right>$, $\sigma(sp)$,

1299: $Vi$, $\left<mi\right>$, $\sigma(mi)$ and $diam$) and the two

1300: separation indices ($s_{ind}$ and $s$).  

1301: 

1302: As previously verified in~\cite{Costa:survey}, the pattern of

1303: correlations resulted not similar for each model of network. In

1304: addition, the obtained results indicate several high absolute

1305: correlation values.  In the case of $ER$ networks, the most intense

1306: negative correlation (-0.79) was obtained between $\left<sp\right>$

1307: and $\left<mi\right>$, which was indeed expected as longer shortest

1308: path lengths tend to reduce the matching index.  While similar high

1309: correlation (-0.78) was observed also for $BA$, this specific

1310: correlation was relatively smaller for the $WS$ and $GG$ cases (-0.50

1311: and -0.42, respectively).  This fact was reflected in the intense

1312: negative correlation (-0.77) between $s$ and $\left<mi\right>$ and

1313: positive correlation (0.63) with $\left<sp\right>$ for the $ER$ model.

1314: A similar effect can be observed for the $BA$, $WS$ and $GG$ networks.

1315: Observe that $\left<mi\right>$ is highly correlated (0.72 for ER) with

1316: $\sigma(mi)$, suggesting a dependence between the standard deviation

1317: and average of this measurement. The index quantifying the uniformity

1318: of the Voronoi tessellation was found to be negatively correlated with

1319: $\left<mi\right>$ and $\sigma(mi)$, as expected, because higher $mi$

1320: values are favored by more irregular Voronoi areas.  Interestingly,

1321: low correlation values were observed between $s$ and the network

1322: diameter and clustering coefficients in all cases.  It is also

1323: interesting to note that rather different patterns of correlations

1324: were obtained between $s_{ind}$ and $s$ and the topologic measurements

1325: for all network models.

1326: 

1327: \begin{table*}[htb]

1328: \centering

1329: \vspace{1cm}

1330: {\bf ER} \hspace{0.5cm}

1331: \begin{tabular}{||c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c||}

1332:  \hline  \hline

1333:  &  $s_{ind}$  &  $s$ & $\left<cc\right>$ & $\left<sp\right>$ & 

1334:    $\sigma(sp)$ & $Vi$ & $\left<mi\right>$ & 

1335:    $\sigma(mi)$ & $ diam $   \\   \hline

1336:  $s_{ind}$         & 1   &     &     &     &     &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1337:  $s$               &-0.11& 1   &     &     &     &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1338:  $\left<cc\right>$ &-0.06&-0.11& 1   &     &     &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1339:  $\left<sp\right>$ &-0.51& 0.63&-0.11& 1   &     &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1340:  $\sigma(sp)$      & 0.31&-0.38& 0.07&-0.11& 1   &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1341:  $Vi$              &-0.17& 0.40&-0.03& 0.19&-0.19& 1   &     & &  \\  \hline

1342:  $\left<mi\right>$  & 0.51&-0.77& 0.08&-0.79& 0.49&-0.44& 1 & &  \\ \hline

1343:  $\sigma(m)i$       & 0.37&-0.52& 0.09&-0.51& 0.44&-0.52& 0.72& 1 &  \\  \hline

1344:  $diam$            & 0.02& 0.00&-0.06& 0.03&-0.01& 0.10&-0.01&-0.05& 1 \\ \hline  \hline

1345: \end{tabular} \hspace{0.5cm} (a) \vspace{0.3cm} \\

1346: {\bf BA} \hspace{0.5cm}

1347: \begin{tabular}{||c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c||}  % BA

1348:  \hline  \hline

1349:  &  $s_{ind}$  &  $s$ & $\left<cc\right>$ & $\left<sp\right>$ & 

1350:    $\sigma(sp)$ & $Vi$ & $\left<mi\right>$ & 

1351:    $\sigma(mi)$ & $ diam $   \\   \hline

1352:  $s_{ind}$         & 1   &     &     &     &     &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1353:  $s$               &-0.02& 1   &     &     &     &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1354:  $\left<cc\right>$ &-0.08&-0.26& 1   &     &     &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1355:  $\left<sp\right>$ &-0.53& 0.62&-0.13& 1   &     &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1356:  $\sigma(sp)$      & 0.25&-0.10&-0.16& 0.01& 1   &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1357:  $Vi$              &-0.10& 0.81&-0.26& 0.54&-0.12& 1   &     & &  \\  \hline

1358:  $\left<mi\right>$  & 0.44&-0.69& 0.13&-0.78& 0.40&-0.65& 1 & &  \\ \hline

1359:  $\sigma(mi)$       & 0.47&-0.35& 0.06&-0.58& 0.28&-0.46& 0.61& 1 &  \\  \hline

1360:  $diam$            & 0.03& 0.09&-0.24& 0.08&-0.08& 0.07&-0.06&-0.03& 1 \\ \hline  \hline

1361: \end{tabular} \hspace{0.5cm} (b) \vspace{0.3cm} \\

1362: {\bf WS} \hspace{0.5cm}

1363: \begin{tabular}{||c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c||}   %WS

1364:  \hline  \hline

1365:  &  $s_{ind}$  &  $s$ & $\left<cc\right>$ & $\left<sp\right>$ & 

1366:    $\sigma(sp)$ & $Vi$ & $\left<mi\right>$ & 

1367:    $\sigma(mi)$ & $ diam $   \\   \hline

1368:  $s_{ind}$         & 1   &     &     &     &     &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1369:  $s$               &-0.58& 1   &     &     &     &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1370:  $\left<cc\right>$ &-0.04& 0.09& 1   &     &     &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1371:  $\left<sp\right>$ &-0.46& 0.54& 0.10& 1   &     &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1372:  $\sigma(sp)$      & 0.43&-0.16& 0.06& 0.31& 1   &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1373:  $Vi$              &-0.55& 0.63& 0.10& 0.53&-0.09& 1   &     & &  \\  \hline

1374:  $\left<mi\right>$  & 0.89&-0.80&-0.04&-0.50& 0.36&-0.69& 1 & &  \\ \hline

1375:  $\sigma(mi)$       & 0.42&-0.54&-0.05&-0.37& 0.13&-0.37& 0.55& 1 &  \\  \hline

1376:  $diam$            &-0.01& 0.02& 0.29& 0.18& 0.16& 0.07&-0.02&-0.02& 1 \\ \hline  \hline

1377: \end{tabular} \hspace{0.5cm} (c) \vspace{0.3cm} \\

1378: {\bf GG} \hspace{0.5cm}

1379: \begin{tabular}{||c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c||}  %GG

1380:  \hline  \hline

1381:  &  $s_{ind}$  &  $s$ & $\left<cc\right>$ & $\left<sp\right>$ & 

1382:    $\sigma(sp)$ & $Vi$ & $\left<mi\right>$ & 

1383:    $\sigma(mi)$ & $ diam $   \\   \hline

1384:  $s_{ind}$         & 1   &     &     &     &     &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1385:  $s$               &-0.16& 1   &     &     &     &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1386:  $\left<cc\right>$ &-0.06& 0.04& 1   &     &     &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1387:  $\left<sp\right>$ &-0.04& 0.42& 0.13& 1   &     &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1388:  $\sigma(sp)$      & 0.16&-0.10& 0.11& 0.57& 1   &     &     & &  \\  \hline

1389:  $Vi$              &-0.38& 0.71& 0.08& 0.40&-0.09& 1   &     & &  \\  \hline

1390:  $\left<mi\right>$  & 0.40&-0.87&-0.06&-0.42& 0.16&-0.71& 1 & &  \\ \hline

1391:  $\sigma(mi)$       & 0.33&-0.72&-0.06&-0.31& 0.20&-0.58& 0.82& 1 &  \\  \hline

1392:  $diam$            &-0.07& 0.04& 0.19& 0.31& 0.30& 0.12&-0.10&-0.05& 1 \\ \hline  \hline

1393: \end{tabular} \hspace{0.5cm} (d) \vspace{0.3cm}

1394: \caption{Pearson correlation coefficients obtained for the

1395: ER (a), BA (b), WS (c) and GG (d) networks with $N=100$, $m=3$ and

1396: $M=3$ considering the individual ($s_{ind}$) and neighborhood

1397: ($s_{ngh}$) separability indices and seven measurements of the

1398: topology of the network (i.e. average clustering coefficient

1399: ($\left<cc\right>$), average shortest path between prototype nodes

1400: ($\left<sh_path\right>$), standard deviation of the shortest paths

1401: between the prototype nodes ($\sigma(sh_path)$)), average Voronoi

1402: index ($Vi$), average matching index between prototype

1403: nodes ($\left<m\right>$), standard deviation of the matching index

1404: between prototype nodes ($\sigma(mi)$) and diameter of the networks

1405: (diam)}.\label{tab:pears}

1406: \end{table*}

1407: 

1408: 

1409: 

1410: \subsection{Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) / Path Analysis}  

1411: \label{sec:res_path}

1412: 

1413: Although the correlation analysis described in the previous section

1414: can provide interesting information about the pairwise relationship

1415: between the separation indices and the topologic measurements, such

1416: results are limited because they do not reflect the general

1417: relationship between all the topologic measurements and the separation

1418: indices.  In addition, some of the high observed absolute

1419: correlation values can be a consequence of

1420: spurious~\cite{Raykov:2000,Kline:2005} effects between the variables.

1421: In order to gather additional insights about the how the dynamic

1422: parameters (i.e. the separation indices) are influenced (and even to a

1423: large extent defined) by the topology of the network, while

1424: considering all measurement co-variations, we performed path analysis

1425: considering the structural dependence between measurements as

1426: expressed in Figure~\ref{fig:diagram}.  It is expected that, by

1427: considering all dispersions, the path analysis can provide a more

1428: objective and filtered indication of the influences of the topologic

1429: measurements on the attractors separation.

1430: 

1431: The considered data were respective to ER, BA, WS and GG networks with

1432: $N=100$, $M=3$ and $m=3$. After estimation of the covariance of the

1433: measurements, coding and execution in the LISREL environment, the

1434: regression coefficients and residues ($E1$ and $E2$), as well as the

1435: relationship between these residuals ($C_{12}$) were obtained.  The

1436: results are given in Table~\ref{tab:pathan}.  

1437: 

1438: A series of interesting insights have been derived from these results.

1439: As with the correlations, the dependencies between the topology and

1440: separation are strictly specific to each network model, a dependency

1441: which may also change for other configurations with different values

1442: of the parameters $M$ and $m$.  In the case of the ER networks, the

1443: standard deviation of the matching index ($\sigma(mi)$) resulted

1444: particularly influent (negative influence = -0.96) on the $s$ index.

1445: At the same time, the average matching index ($\left<k\right>$) was

1446: found to have a strong influence on $s$.  Except for relatively

1447: smaller negative influence of the $\left< cc

1448: \right>$ on $s$, no particularly strong influences are observed with

1449: respect to the other topologic measurements.  Such a strong influence

1450: of the matching index can be understood because non-zero matching

1451: index are obtained only in extreme cases, where the prototype nodes

1452: are too close.  Therefore, nonzero matching indices are a strong and

1453: secure indication of poorly separated attractors.  For this reason,

1454: the matching index dominated the path analysis and implied smaller

1455: influences for most other measurements, including the shortest path.

1456: This effect can also be observed for the BA and WS cases.  However, it

1457: is interesting to note the weak influence of $\sigma(mi)$ on $s$ in

1458: the case of GG networks.  For the BA case, the strongest influence on

1459: $s$ was identified for the Voronoi index $Vi$, which is compatible

1460: with the fact that higher uniformity of the Voronoi tessellation by

1461: the prototype nodes tends to promote better separation between those

1462: nodes.  Interestingly, a particularly strong influence of $Vi$ on the

1463: $s$ has been observed only for the BA model.  This effect can be

1464: related to the fact that the BA provides the poorest general

1465: separation between attractors as a possible consequence of the

1466: generalized connectivity implemented by the hubs.  In such cases,

1467: where a larger number of non-zero matching indices are therefore

1468: obtained, the Voronoi separation may become more relevant as a

1469: predictor of the separability.  In the case of WS models, strong

1470: influence (positive = 0.65) was obtained for the $\left<cc\right>$.

1471: This effect is particularly interesting because it could be expected

1472: that, by promoting smaller shortest paths, this measurement would be

1473: inversely related to the separability, which is indeed the case for

1474: the respective ER and BA path analysis results.  Indeed, a very weak

1475: dependency with this variable had been revealed by the Pearson

1476: correlations.  However, the positive influence of $\left<cc\right>$ on

1477: $s$ can be a consequence of the fact that GG networks with higher

1478: average clustering coefficients will tend to have more intense local

1479: connectivity which could allow the activity to diffuse more uniformly

1480: and to concentrate effectively around the prototype nodes.  Such an

1481: effect would be more definite in the WS case because of the higher

1482: uniformity of local connections implied by its ring structure.  The

1483: influences of the topologic features on the $s$ obtained for the GG

1484: cases are dominated by $\left<mi\right>$ as discussed above.

1485: 

1486: 

1487: \begin{table*}[htb]

1488: \centering

1489: \vspace{1cm}

1490: \begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1491:   \hline  

1492:     & &  $\left<cc\right>$ & $\left<sp\right>$ & 

1493:     $\sigma(sp)$ & $ Vi$ & $\left<mi\right>$ & 

1494:     $\sigma(mi)$ & $ diam $ &  $Res.$ &  $C$ \\   \hline  \hline

1495:     ER  & 

1496:     $s_{ind}$   & $\gamma_{13}=-0.01$ & $\gamma_{14}=-0.02$ & 

1497:                 $\gamma_{15}=0.01$    & $\gamma_{16}=-0.01$ 

1498:                 & $\gamma_{17}=0.01$ & $\gamma_{18}=0.01$ & 

1499:                 $\gamma_{19}=0.00$ & $E1=0.00$ & $C_{1,2}=0.01 $ \\ 

1500:     & $s$       & $\gamma_{23}=-0.43$ & $\gamma_{24}=0.04$ & 

1501:                 $\gamma_{25}=-0.03$ & $\gamma_{26}=0.25$ & 

1502:                 $\gamma_{27}=-0.96$ & $\gamma_{28}=1.13$ & 

1503:                 $\gamma_{29}=-0.01$ & $E2=0.00$ & \\  \hline \hline

1504:     BA  & 

1505:     $s_{ind}$   & $\gamma_{13}=-0.02$ & $\gamma_{14}=-0.02$ & 

1506:                 $\gamma_{15}=0.01$    & $\gamma_{16}=0.03$ 

1507:                 & $\gamma_{17}=-0.02$ & $\gamma_{18}=0.06$ & 

1508:                 $\gamma_{19}=0.00$ & $E1=0.00$ & $C_{12}=0.00$ \\ 

1509:     & $s$       & $\gamma_{23}=-0.21$ & $\gamma_{24}=0.06$ & 

1510:                 $\gamma_{25}=0.01$ & $\gamma_{26}=0.75$ & 

1511:                 $\gamma_{27}=-0.39$ & $\gamma_{28}=0.73$ & 

1512:                 $\gamma_{29}=0.00$ & $E2=0.00$ & \\  \hline \hline

1513:     WS  & 

1514:     $s_{ind}$   & $\gamma_{13}=-0.05$ & $\gamma_{14}=0.00$ & 

1515:                 $\gamma_{15}=0.01$    & $\gamma_{16}=0.03$ 

1516:                 & $\gamma_{17}=0.17$ & $\gamma_{18}=-0.69$ & 

1517:                 $\gamma_{19}=0.00$ & $E1=0.00$ & $C_{12}=0.00$\\ 

1518:     & $s$       & $\gamma_{23}=0.65$ & $\gamma_{24}=0.01$ & 

1519:                 $\gamma_{25}=0.01$ & $\gamma_{26}=0.08$ & 

1520:                 $\gamma_{27}=-0.55$ & $\gamma_{28}=-3.54$ & 

1521:                 $\gamma_{29}=-0.16$ & $E2=0.00$ & \\  \hline  \hline

1522:     GG  & 

1523:     $s_{ind}$   & $\gamma_{13}=-0.03$ & $\gamma_{14}=0.00$ & 

1524:                 $\gamma_{15}=0.00$    & $\gamma_{16}=-0.02$ 

1525:                 & $\gamma_{17}=0.05$ & $\gamma_{18}=-0.01$ & 

1526:                 $\gamma_{19}=0.00$ & $E1=0.00$ & $C_{12}=0.01$ \\ 

1527:     & $s$       & $\gamma_{23}=-0.10$ & $\gamma_{24}=0.00$ & 

1528:                 $\gamma_{25}=0.00$ & $\gamma_{26}=0.17$ & 

1529:                 $\gamma_{27}=-0.87$ & $\gamma_{28}=-0.08$ & 

1530:                 $\gamma_{29}=-0.01$ & $E2=0.00$ & \\  \hline 

1531: \end{tabular}

1532: \caption{The influences of each considered topologic measurement

1533: on the attractors separation indices as revealed by path

1534: analysis considering $N=100$,$M=3$ and $m=3$.}\label{tab:pathan}

1535: \end{table*}

1536: 

1537: 

1538: While the previous path analysis has revealed a series of insights

1539: about the influence of the network topology on the dynamic separation

1540: of its attraction basins, it was strongly biased by the critical

1541: influence of the matching index.  In order to try to get further

1542: insights on the structure/dynamics relationship for the four

1543: considered models, we repeated the path analysis while not including

1544: $\left<mi\right>$ and $\sigma(mi)$.  The results are summarized in

1545: Table~\ref{tab:pathan2}.  Interestingly, except for relatively small

1546: increases with respect to $Vi$ and $\left<cc\right>$, the obtained

1547: influences remained similar, with small effects observed for the

1548: shortest path measurements.  This can be understood as a confirmation

1549: that the separation between the attractors is critically defined by

1550: the overlap between the hierarchical neighbors of the prototype

1551: nodes, especially their immediate neighbors (implying higher matching

1552: indices).  In the cases where the matching index is zero, the lack of

1553: congruence between the original attractors and the distribution of

1554: diffusive activity should be largely explained by the higher

1555: influences observed in Table~\ref{tab:pathan2}, which involve the

1556: average clustering coefficient of the network and the Voronoi index

1557: for the prototype nodes.  Indeed, in the cases where the prototype

1558: nodes are not topologically too close one another, the lack of

1559: agreement between the activity distribution and the original

1560: attractors (as in Figure~\ref{fig:ex}b and c) will depend particularly

1561: on the properties of the local connectivity as expressed by the

1562: clustering coefficient and the node degree.

1563: 

1564: 

1565: \begin{table*}[htb]

1566: \centering

1567: \vspace{1cm}

1568: \begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1569:   \hline  

1570:     & &  $\left<cc\right>$ & $\left<sp\right>$ & 

1571:     $\sigma(sp)$ & $Vi$ & $ diam $ &  

1572:     $Res.$ &  $C$ \\   \hline  \hline

1573:     ER  & 

1574:     $s_{ind}$   & $\gamma_{13}=-0.01$ & $\gamma_{14}=-0.02$ & 

1575:                 $\gamma_{15}=0.01$    & $\gamma_{16}=-0.01$ 

1576:                 & $\gamma_{17}=0.00$ & $E1=0.00$ & $C_{12}=0.00$  \\ 

1577:     & $s$       & $\gamma_{23}=-0.26$ & $\gamma_{24}=0.14$ & 

1578:                 $\gamma_{25}=-0.09$ & $\gamma_{26}=0.43$ & 

1579:                 $\gamma_{27}=-0.01$ & $E2=0.00$ & \\  \hline \hline

1580:     BA  & 

1581:     $s_{ind}$   & $\gamma_{13}=-0.02$ & $\gamma_{14}=-0.02$ & 

1582:                 $\gamma_{15}=0.01$    & $\gamma_{16}=0.03$ 

1583:                 & $\gamma_{17}=0.00$ & $E1=0.00$ & $C_{12}=0.00$ \\ 

1584:     & $s$       & $\gamma_{23}=-0.22$ & $\gamma_{24}=0.08$ & 

1585:                 $\gamma_{25}=-0.01$ & $\gamma_{26}=0.79$ & 

1586:                 $\gamma_{27}=-0.00$ & $E2=0.00$ & \\  \hline \hline

1587:     WS  & 

1588:     $s_{ind}$   & $\gamma_{13}=0.03$ & $\gamma_{14}=-0.01$ & 

1589:                 $\gamma_{15}=0.01$    & $\gamma_{16}=-0.05$ 

1590:                 & $\gamma_{17}=0.00$ & $E1=0.00$ & $C_{12}=0.00$\\ 

1591:     & $s$       & $\gamma_{23}=0.43$ & $\gamma_{24}=0.03$ & 

1592:                 $\gamma_{25}=-0.03$ & $\gamma_{26}=0.41$ & 

1593:                 $\gamma_{27}=-0.01$ & $E2=0.00$ & \\  \hline  \hline

1594:     GG  & 

1595:     $s_{ind}$   & $\gamma_{13}=-0.01$ & $\gamma_{14}=0.00$ & 

1596:                 $\gamma_{15}=0.0$    & $\gamma_{16}=-0.04$ 

1597:                 & $\gamma_{17}=0.00$ & $E1=0.00$ & $C_{12}=0.01$ \\ 

1598:     & $s$       & $\gamma_{23}=-0.21$ & $\gamma_{24}=0.04$ & 

1599:                 $\gamma_{25}=-0.03$ & $\gamma_{26}=0.51$ & 

1600:                 $\gamma_{27}=-0.01$ & $E2=0.00$ & \\  \hline 

1601: \end{tabular}

1602: \caption{The influences of each considered topologic measurement

1603: on the attractors separation indices as revealed by path

1604: analysis considering $N=100$,$M=3$ and $m=3$.}\label{tab:pathan2}

1605: \end{table*}

1606: 

1607: 

1608: \section{Conclusions}

1609: 

1610: The investigation about the relationship between the structure and

1611: function of networks (e.g.~\cite{Newman03, Boccaletti05,

1612: Costa_Salou:2005}) represents one of the most interesting perspectives

1613: for obtaining insights about complex dynamic systems.  As briefly

1614: reviewed in this article, several works have addressed the problem of

1615: how the structure of the connectivity may affect and largely define

1616: the properties of dynamic systems.  One particularly important aspect

1617: which has received relatively lesser attention concerns the

1618: separability between different grandmother attractors, each

1619: representing a prototype pattern or state.  This issue is critically

1620: relevant because it has great impact on the capacity of the network

1621: for proper representation of patterns, the level of

1622: redundancy/robustness of such representations, the degree of

1623: generalization for recognition of not previously trained prototypes,

1624: as well as the effectiveness during retrieval and activation of such

1625: prototypes.  While other types of coding can be used in dynamic

1626: system, grandmother representation stands out as particularly

1627: important because it seems to be the way a great part of the primates

1628: cortex is organized.  

1629: 

1630: The current work has reported an approach to the characterization of

1631: the separability between prototype patterns which incorporates a

1632: number of special features.  First, we have considered four

1633: representative theoretic models of complex networks -- namely the

1634: random networks of Erd\H{o}-R\'enyi, the scale free model of

1635: Barab\'asi-Albert, the small-world networks of Watts-Strogatz, as well

1636: as a simple, non-small-world topographic model.  Second, by using a

1637: generic diffusive process, followed by the calculation of the

1638: respective derivative network in order to obtain the attraction

1639: basins, we obtained a methodology which completely avoids the

1640: intricacies and specifities implied by each type of dynamic system.

1641: While it remains to be verified how good accurate and general such an

1642: approximation is, it does allow the definition of smooth attraction

1643: basins around each prototype node in a way which is remindful of many

1644: important dynamical systems such as Kohonen's self-organizing maps and

1645: the primates cortex.  Once the attraction basins are so defined, a

1646: simple diffusive scheme emanating from each network node is employed

1647: in order to obtain the general activation of the network.  Although

1648: ideally such a procedure should activate equally only the original

1649: prototype nodes, the structured connectivity of the networks will act

1650: so as to produce non-uniform activation, where just a fraction of the

1651: overall activation coincides with the prototype nodes.  The

1652: disagreement between the original prototypes and the induced activity

1653: has been quantified in terms of two separation indices, namely the

1654: individual and neighborhood indices.  Because the former consider only

1655: the agreement and balance between the induced activation and the

1656: original prototypes, it resulted to be too small and therefore with

1657: low resolution for quantifying the attractors separation.  By

1658: considering also the immediate neighborhood of the prototype nodes,

1659: the second index allowed a more informative indication of the

1660: attractors separability.

1661: 

1662: The specific topologic features of each of the four considered

1663: theoretic network models can have different effects for the separation

1664: of the attraction basins.  Therefore, we performed an investigation of

1665: the effects of the most important parameters of the simulations over

1666: the respective performance.  We verified that the separation tends to

1667: decrease with the number of prototypes and increase with the size of

1668: the network.  At the same time, more intense general connectivity, as

1669: expressed by the average node degree, also tended to undermine the

1670: attractors separation.  Special attention was given to the finite

1671: sizes implied by the parameter $N$.  The obtained results seem to

1672: suggest that the separability tends to increase with $N$ up to a

1673: regime where the finite size of the network is no longer felt

1674: (`unsaturation').  Therefore, by identifying the region where such a

1675: plateau of separability is reached, it is possible to obtain

1676: near-optimum values of $N$ for given $M$ and $m$.  Next, we applied

1677: correlation analysis in orde not only to identify the

1678: inter-relationships between each topologic measurement, but also

1679: between these and the two separation indices.  The presence of such

1680: correlations can not only help to understand the origin of the

1681: attractors separation, but also allow the prediction of such a

1682: property from measurements of the network topology, without the need

1683: of simulations.  Several tendencies were identified through such an

1684: analysis, including the tendency of the index $s$ to be strongly

1685: proportional to the uniformity of the Voronoi areas, as expressed by

1686: the Voronoi index $Vi$.  A positive, though weaker, correlation was

1687: also identified between $s$ and the average shortest path length

1688: $\left<sp\right>$ of the networks.  A strong negative correlation was

1689: identified between $s$ and the matching index $mi$.  Although all such

1690: behaviors are compatible with what could be expected, meaningfully

1691: different correlations differences were observed for each network

1692: model.  Interestingly, the network model allowing the best overall

1693: separation of attractors was found to be the Watts-Strogatz, followed

1694: by the geographic, random and scale-free models.  It is conjectured

1695: here that the superior properties of the WS model stem from its

1696: enhanced uniformity and low randomness of local connectivity as well

1697: as by the fact that, although being a small world model, there are

1698: relatively very few long range connections between any pair of nodes.

1699: Similar properties, though at the expense of a weaker local order and

1700: uniformity of local connections, are characteristic of the geographic

1701: model, which came in second in performance.  As a matter of fact, the

1702: WS and GG models showed similar behavior as far as the histograms of

1703: separation index were concerned.  The same was observed for the ER and

1704: BA cases.  Therefore, from the perspective of attractors separation,

1705: the WS/GG and ER/BA models seem to represent two different classes of

1706: systems, with the latter providing rather poorer separability.

1707: Interestingly, the small world property can not explain such a

1708: partition, as the GG is not a small world model as the other three

1709: cases.  Consequently, it seems that the common denominators in the

1710: pairs WS/GG and ER/BA seems to be more strongly related also to the

1711: uniformity of the local connectivity.  Such an explanation would be

1712: largely in agreement with several of the results of works

1713: investigating the effect of connectivity on memory, as reviewed in

1714: Section~\ref{sec:review}.

1715: 

1716: In order to try to learn more about the effects of the topological

1717: features of the network on the dynamical property of attractors

1718: separation, path analysis was also applied assuming a simple

1719: structural relationship.  To our best knowledge, this is the first

1720: time such an insightful analysis has been applied for the study of

1721: complex networks.  One of the main advantages of such an approach over

1722: the Pearson correlation coefficients is that here the dispersions of

1723: \emph{all} the considered measurements are taken into account instead

1724: of the pairwise relationships underlying the correlations.

1725: Interestingly, the path analysis yielded influences of the topologic

1726: measurements on the separation indices which were often substantially

1727: different from those suggested by the Pearson correlation

1728: coefficients.  Of particular interest was the near null influence

1729: assigned to the average and standard deviation of the shortest path

1730: length between the prototype nodes.  This is all the most surprising

1731: as it seems intuitively reasonable to discuss much of the effect of

1732: the topology of the network over the attractors separation by

1733: considering such measurements.  More specifically, networks where the

1734: prototype nodes are topologically close one another would tend to have

1735: poorer separation.  However, the performed path analysis substantially

1736: emphasized, for all the four considered models, the importance of the

1737: average matching index on the attractors separation.  On second

1738: thoughts, this is indeed reasonable because the presence of non-zero

1739: matching index is a certain indication of overlap of the attraction

1740: basins.  Even when repeating the path analysis while leaving out the

1741: matching index measurements, the other parameters (especially the

1742: shortest path length) did not result with higher influences.  Other

1743: interesting insights, including influences which were specific to

1744: network models, were also allowed by the path analysis, corroborating

1745: therefore the potential value of such a statistical approach in order

1746: to get insights about the relationship between structure and dynamics

1747: of complex dynamic systems.  However, it is important to keep in mind

1748: that every statistical methodology should be understood as a source of

1749: insights to be further investigated and corroborated rather than

1750: spelling definitive facts.

1751: 

1752: Despite the relative comprehensiveness of the presently reported

1753: investigation, and perhaps as its consequence, a series of future

1754: developments can be suggested.  First, it would be interesting to

1755: extend the reported investigation to larger network sizes and to

1756: consider additional measurements such as the standard deviation of the

1757: clustering coefficient and the spectral structure of the adjacency and

1758: weight matrix.  Second, the sources of the deviations of the induced

1759: activation from the prototype nodes could be further investigated by

1760: considering simulations involving a single attractor.  In such cases,

1761: all the loss of `separability' would necessarily be a consequence of

1762: the probability leakage from the prototype node into its neighbors.

1763: It would be particularly interesting to verify, through path analysis,

1764: which of the topological measurements of the network would be more

1765: influence on the attractor activation.  It would also be worth

1766: investigating the potential of using the \emph{percolation

1767: transform}~\cite{Costa_percol:2004, Costa_bioinfo:2005} over the

1768: network as the means to explain and predict the attractors

1769: separability.  Other promising possibilities include the extension of

1770: the matching index to take into account hierarchical levels larger

1771: than one, i.e. including also the second and higher neighborhoods.

1772: 

1773: Several real problems are closely related to the issue of attractor

1774: separation and prototype activation.  One real problem which could be

1775: particularly interesting to be addressed is the phenomenon of

1776: \emph{facilitation} of neurons (represented by nodes).  By

1777: facilitation of a neuron it is meant that that neuron will become more

1778: likely to engage into activity.  For instance, the definition of

1779: temporary priorities in the primates brain could be related to the

1780: reinforcement of one or more attractors, so that they become more

1781: likely to be revised along time (e.g. through a random walk).

1782: Interestingly, as suggested by the current work, the facilitation of a

1783: given node would be highly dependent on its local connectivity.  Such

1784: studies could be eventually extended to higher level mental dynamics,

1785: such as those underlying attention and even pathologies

1786: (e.g.~\cite{Wedemann:2006}). It is also reasonable to expect that the

1787: definition of attractors is a process which co-evolves with the

1788: network topology.  In this sense, it would be interesting to try to

1789: identify growing schemes where the connectivity is affected by the

1790: success of the establishment of prototype attractores, and vice-versa.

1791: Another related investigation would be the identification of topologic

1792: organizations of networks allowing optimal or near-optimal attractors

1793: separation.

1794: 

1795: 

1796: \vspace{1cm}

1797: {\bf List of Symbols}

1798: 

1799: \begin{trivlist}

1800: 

1801: \item  $\Gamma =$ a graph or complex network;

1802: 

1803: \item  $N =$ number of nodes in a network;

1804: 

1805: \item  $K =$ the adjacency matrix of a complex network;

1806: 

1807: \item  $k(i) =$ degree of a network node $i$;

1808: 

1809: \item  $m =$ the parameter in the BA model defining its average

1810:                node degree.  This parameter is considered as

1811:                reference for all network models in this work;

1812: 

1813: \item  $diam =$ the diameter of the network;

1814: 

1815: \item  $cc(i) =$ clustering coefficient of a network node $i$;

1816: 

1817: \item  $sp(i,j)$ shortest path between nodes $i$ and $j$ in a complex network;

1818: 

1819: \item  $mi(i,j) = $ the matching index of nodes $i$ and $j$;

1820: 

1821: \item  $Vi =$ the Voronoi index of separation between the areas of

1822:               influence of the prototype nodes;

1823: 

1824: \item $\left< a \right> =$ the arithmetic average of the property $a$;

1825: 

1826: \item $\left[ a \right] =$ the geometric average of the property $a$;

1827: 

1828: \item $\sigma(a) =$ the standard deviation of the random variable $a$;

1829: 

1830: \item $M =$ the number of prototype patterns to be represented in a network;

1831: 

1832: \item $\vec{\alpha} =$ the activations in a network after a long 

1833:       random walk;

1834: 

1835: \item $s_{ind} =$ the separability index between prototype nodes in a 

1836:       network at the level of individual nodes;

1837: 

1838: \item $s =$ the separability index between prototype nodes in a network

1839:             considering also the immediate neighborhood of such nodes;

1840: 

1841: \end{trivlist}

1842: 

1843: 

1844: \begin{acknowledgments}

1845: Luciano da F. Costa thanks CNPq (308231/03-1) and FAPESP (05/00587-5)

1846: for sponsorship.

1847: \end{acknowledgments}

1848: 

1849: %\bibliographystyle{plain}

1850: %\bibliographystyle{unsrt}

1851: \bibliography{mem}

1852: 

1853: \end{document}

1854: