1 / 45

Complex networks A. Barrat, LPT, Université Paris-Sud, France

Complex networks A. Barrat, LPT, Université Paris-Sud, France. I. Alvarez-Hamelin (LPT, Orsay, France) M. Barthélemy (CEA, France) L. Dall’Asta (LPT, Orsay, France) R. Pastor-Satorras (Barcelona, Spain) A. Vespignani (LPT, Orsay, France). http://www.th.u-psud.fr/. Plan of the talk.

leonora
Télécharger la présentation

Complex networks A. Barrat, LPT, Université Paris-Sud, France

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Complex networksA. Barrat, LPT, Université Paris-Sud, France I. Alvarez-Hamelin (LPT, Orsay, France) M. Barthélemy (CEA, France) L. Dall’Asta (LPT, Orsay, France) R. Pastor-Satorras (Barcelona, Spain) A. Vespignani (LPT, Orsay, France) http://www.th.u-psud.fr/

  2. Plan of the talk • Complex networks: examples • Small-world networks • Scale-free networks: evidences, modeling, tools for characterization • Consequences of SF structure • Perspectives: weighted complex networks

  3. Examples of complex networks • Internet • WWW • Transport networks • Protein interaction networks • Food webs • Social networks • ...

  4. Social networks:Milgram’s experiment Milgram, Psych Today2, 60 (1967) Dodds et al., Science 301, 827 (2003) “Six degrees of separation”

  5. Small-world properties:also in the Internet Distribution of chemical distances between two nodes Average fraction of nodes within a chemical distance d

  6. Usual random graphs: Erdös-Renyi model (1960) N points, links with proba p: static random graphs Poisson distribution (p=O(1/N)) short distances (log N) BUT...

  7. n 3 Higher probability to be connected 2 1 # of links between 1,2,…n neighbors C = n(n-1)/2 Clustering coefficient Clustering: My friends will know each other with high probability! (typical example: social networks)

  8. Asymptotic behavior Lattice Random graph

  9. In-between: Small-world networks N nodes forms a regular lattice. With probability p, each edge is rewired randomly =>Shortcuts N = 1000 • Large clustering coeff. • Short typical path Watts & Strogatz, Nature393, 440 (1998)

  10. Size-dependence p >> 1/N => Small-world structure Amaral & Barthélemy Phys Rev Lett 83, 3180 (1999) Newman & Watts,Phys Lett A263, 341 (1999) Barrat & Weigt, Eur Phys J B13, 547 (2000)

  11. Is that all we need ? NO, because... Random graphs, Watts-Strogatz graphs are homogeneous graphs (small fluctuations of the degree k): While.....

  12. Airplane route network

  13. CAIDA AS cross section map

  14. The Internet and the World-Wide-Web • Protein networks • Metabolic networks • Social networks • Food-webs and ecological networks Are Heterogeneous networks P(k) ~ k - • <k>= const • <k2>  Scale-free properties Topological characterization P(k) =probability that a node has k links ( 3) Diverging fluctuations

  15. Exp. vs. Scale-Free Poisson distribution Power-law distribution Exponential Network Scale-free Network

  16. Main Features of complex networks • Many interacting units • Self-organization • Small-world • Scale-free heterogeneity • Dynamical evolution Standard graph theory Random graphs • Static • Ad-hoc topology

  17. Origins SF (1) The number of nodes (N) is NOT fixed. Networks continuously expand by the addition of new nodes Examples: WWW : addition of new documents Citation : publication of new papers (2) The attachment is NOT uniform. A node is linked with higher probability to a node that already has a large number of links. Examples : WWW : new documents link to well known sites (CNN, YAHOO, NewYork Times, etc) Citation : well cited papers are more likely to be cited again Two important observations

  18. BA model Scale-free model P(k) ~k-3 (1)GROWTH: At every timestep we add a new node with m edges (connected to the nodes already present in the system). (2)PREFERENTIAL ATTACHMENT :The probability Π that a new node will be connected to node i depends on the connectivity ki of that node A.-L.Barabási, R. Albert, Science 286, 509 (1999)

  19. Connectivity distribution BA network

  20. More models • Generalized BA model • (Redner et al. 2000) • (Mendes et al. 2000) • (Albert et al. 2000) Non-linear preferential attachment : (k) ~ k Initial attractiveness : (k) ~ A+k • Highly clustered • (Dorogovtsev et al. 2001) • (Eguiluz & Klemm 2002) • Fitness Model • (Bianconi et al. 2001) • Multiplicative noise • (Huberman & Adamic 1999) Rewiring (....)

  21. Tools for characterizing the various models • Connectivity distribution P(k) =>Homogeneous vs. Scale-free • Clustering • Assortativity • ... =>Compare with real-world networks

  22. Topological correlations: clustering aij: Adjacency matrix ki=5 ci=0.1 ki=5 ci=0. i

  23. k=4 k=4 i k=3 k=7 Topological correlations: assortativity ki=4 knn,i=(3+4+4+7)/4=4.5

  24. Assortativity • Assortative behaviour: growing knn(k) Example: social networks Large sites are connected with large sites • Disassortative behaviour: decreasing knn(k) Example: internet Large sites connected with small sites, hierarchical structure

  25. Consequences of the topological heterogeneity • Robustness and vulnerability • Propagation of epidemics

  26. Robustness Robustness 1 node failure S fc 0 1 Fraction of removed nodes, f Complex systems maintain their basic functions even under errors and failures (cell  mutations; Internet  router breakdowns) S: fraction of giant component

  27. Case of Scale-free Networks Random failure fc =1 (2 <g 3) s Attack =progressive failure of the most connected nodes fc<1 fc 1 Internet maps R. Albert, H. Jeong, A.L. Barabasi, Nature 406 378 (2000)

  28. Robust-SF Failures vs. attacks Failures Topological error tolerance   3 : fc=1 (R. Cohen et al PRL, 2000) fc Attacks 1 S 0 1 f

  29. Other attack strategies • Most connected nodes • Nodes with largest betweenness • Removal of links linked to nodes with large k • Removal of links with largest betweenness • Cascades • ...

  30. bi is large bj is small i j Betweenness • measures the “centrality” of a node i: for each pair of nodes (l,m) in the graph, there are slm shortest paths between l and m silm shortest paths going through i bi is the sum of silm/ slm over all pairs (l,m)

  31. Other attack strategies • Most connected nodes • Nodes with largest betweenness • Removal of links linked to nodes with large k • Removal of links with largest betweenness • Cascades • ... Problem of reinforcement ? P. Holme et al., P.R.E 65 (2002) 056109 A. Motter et al., P.R.E 66 (2002) 065102, 065103 D. Watts, PNAS 99 (2002) 5766

  32. Epidemic spreading on SF networks • Natural computer virus • DNS-cache computer viruses • Routing tables corruption • Data carried viruses • ftp, file exchange, etc. Internet topology • Computer worms • e-mail diffusing • self-replicating E-mail network topology Epidemiology Air travel topology Ebel et al. (2002)

  33. Mathematical models of epidemics • Coarse grained description of individuals and their state • Individuals exist only in few states: • Healthy or Susceptible * Infected * Immune * Dead • Particulars on the infection mechanism on each individual are neglected. • Topology of the system: the pattern of contacts along which infections spread in population is identified by a network • Each node represents an individual • Each link is a connection along which the virus can spread

  34. r Absorbing phase Active phase Finite prevalence Virus death l c l The epidemic threshold is a general result The question of thresholds in epidemics is central (in particular for immunization strategies) SIS model: • Each node is infected with rate n if connected to one or more infected nodes • Infected nodes are recovered (cured) with rate dwithout loss of generality d =1 (sets the time scale) • Definition of an effective spreading rate l=n/d • Non-equilibrium phase transition • epidemic threshold=critical point • prevalence r=order parameter r=prevalence

  35. r Absorbing phase Active phase Finite prevalence Virus death l c l Computer viruses ??? What about computer viruses? • Very long average lifetime (years!) compared to the time scale of the antivirus • Small prevalence in the endemic case • Long lifetime + low prevalence = computer viruses always tuned • infinitesimally closeto the epidemic threshold ???

  36. <k> l c = <k2> SIS model on SF networks SIS= Susceptible – Infected – Susceptible Mean-Field usual approximation: all nodes are “equivalent” (same connectivity) => existence of an epidemic threshold 1/<k> for the order parameter r (density of infected nodes) Scale-free structure => necessary to take into account the strong heterogeneity of connectivities => rk=density of infected nodes of connectivity k =>epidemic threshold

  37. <k> l c = <k2> Epidemic threshold in scale-free networks <k2>   l c  0 Order parameter behavior in an infinite system

  38. Rationalization of computer virus data • Wide range of spreading rate with low prevalence (no tuning) • Lack of healthy phase = standard immunization cannot • drive the system below threshold!!!

  39. Results can be generalized to generic scale-free connectivity distributions P(k)~ k-g • If2 <g 3 we have absence of an epidemic threshold • and no critical behavior. • If 3 <g 4 an epidemic threshold appears, but • it is approached with vanishing slope (no criticality). • If g >4 the usual MF behavior is recovered. • SF networks are equal to random graph.

  40. Main results for epidemics spreading on SF networks • Absence of an epidemic/immunization threshold • The network is prone to infections (endemic state always possible) • Small prevalence for a wide range of spreading rates • Progressive random immunization is totally ineffective • Infinite propagation velocity Very important consequences of the SF topology! (NB: Consequences for immunization strategies) Pastor-Satorras & Vespignani (2001, 2002), Boguna, Pastor-Satorras, Vespignani (2003), Dezso & Barabasi (2001), Havlin et al. (2002), Barthélemy, Barrat, Pastor-Satorras, Vespignani (2004)

  41. Perspectives: Weighted networks • Scientific collaborations • Internet • Emails • Airports' network • Finance, economic networks • ... => are weighted networks !!

  42. Weights: examples • Scientific collaborations: (M. Newman, P.R.E. 2001) i, j: authors; k: paper; nk: number of authors : 1 if author i has contributed to paper k • Internet, emails: traffic, number of exchanged emails • Airports: number of passengers for the year 2002

  43. Weights • Weights: heterogeneous (broad distributions)? • Correlations between topology and traffic ? • Effects of the weights on the dynamics ?

  44. Weights: recent works and perspectives • Empirical studies (airport network; collaboration network: PNAS 2004) • New tools (PNAS 2004) • strength • weighted clustering coefficient (vs. clustering coefficient) • weighted assortativity (vs. assortativity) • New models (PRL 2004) • New effects on dynamics (resilience, epidemics...) on networks (work in progress)

  45. Alain.Barrat@th.u-psud.fr http://www.th.u-psud.fr/

More Related