5y6 ScaleFreeNetworks and BAM

Complejidad y Redes
Scale-free Networks
Complejidad y Redes.
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Designed by starline / Freepik

Slides based on:
Network Science
slides by L. Barabási and R. Sinatra
Ch 4 Original slides available at: http://barabasi.com/networksciencebook/
Nuevas Tecnologías y Empresa

slides by J.I. Santos
Ch 8 https://sites.google.com/site/meetnachosantos/
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Scale-free networks 2
Overview
• Power law degree distribu0on
• The scale-free property
• Proper0es of scale-free networks
Network models
We have seen that real networks are usually not like random networks:
® Picture by Network Science by A.L. Barabási
The Scale-Free property
Power law distribution
a.k.a. the 80-20 rule, a.k.a. the Pareto principle
func0onal rela0onship 𝑓 𝑥 = 𝑎𝑥 !"

Frequency f(x)
small is
common
large is rare
x
“When the probability of measuring a par5cular value of some quan5ty varies inversely as a power of that value, the
quan5ty is said to follow a power law, also known variously as Zipf’s law or the Pareto distribu5on” (Newman, 2006)
® Image from Wikimedia commons
Power laws everywhere
“Cumula've distribu'ons of twelve different quan''es measured in
physical, biological, technological and social systems of various kinds. All
have been proposed to follow power laws over some part of their range.
The ubiquity of power-law behavior in the natural world has led many
scien'sts to wonder whether there is a single, simple, underlying
mechanism linking all these different systems together. Several candidates
for such mechanisms have been proposed, going by names like self-
organized cri/cality and highly op/mized tolerance”.
® Newman 2006. Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law
r e power-
How a erated?
en
laws g
® Meme distributed in Complex Systems Summer School 2015, Santa Fe Institute
What does this have to do
with networks?
The first (network) analysis of the WWW R. Albert, H. Jeong, A-L Barabasi, Nature, 401 130 (1999).
Nodes: WWW documents

Links: URL links
~1012 nodes (documents)
Expected
ROBOT: collects all URL’s found in a document and
follows them recursively
If the WWW were to be a random network, the

degrees of the Web documents should follow a
Poisson distribuIon.
® Slide by Network Science by A.L. Barabási
The first (network) analysis of the WWW
The purpose of the map was to

compare the properties of the
Web graph to the random
network model. Indeed, in 1998
there were reasons to believe
that the WWW could be well
approximated by a random
network.
The first (network) analysis of the WWW R. Albert, H. Jeong, A-L Barabasi, Nature, 401 130 (1999).
Nodes: WWW documents

Links: URL links
Expected
~1012 nodes (documents)
ROBOT: collects all URL’s found in a document and

follows them recursively
𝑃 𝑘 ~𝑘 !#
𝛾𝑖𝑛 = 2.1 𝛾𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 2.45

𝑘 = 4.6 𝑘 = 4.6
Poisson degree distribution vs. Power law degree distribution
Hubs
How big are the hubs?
1010
POWER LAW
SCALE-FREE It depends
109 1 on the
17) 108 (N - 1) kmax ~ N ( ) exponent
107
kmax
ax-
105
on 104 RANDOM NETWORK
ed 103
kmax ~ InN
102
nce 101
100
102 104 106 N 10
8
1010 1012
off Figure 4.5

How big are the hubs?
1
Expected maximum degree kmax = kmin N γ −1
𝑘𝑚𝑎𝑥 increases with the size of the network. The larger a system is, the larger its biggest
hub
o For 𝛾 > 2, 𝑘𝑚𝑎𝑥 increases slower than N

The largest hub will contain a decreasing frac0on of links as N increases.
o For 𝛾 = 2, 𝑘𝑚𝑎𝑥~𝑁.
The size of the biggest hub is 𝑂(𝑁)
o For 𝛾 < 2, 𝑘𝑚𝑎𝑥 increases faster than N

The largest hub will grab an increasing frac0on of links.
The meaning of scale-free
Moments of a distribution
® * Screenshot from networksciencebook.com
In a Random network:
Binomial probability mass function
Figure bt Tayste - Own work, Public Domain,
p(k) https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3646951
𝜎=2.18
𝜎=3.12
k
𝑘 =10 𝑘 =20
In a Random Network, we can say that 𝐤 ≈ 𝒌 ± 𝝈 Poisson dist 𝜎 = 𝑘 $/&

Binomial dist 𝜎 = (𝑝 1 − 𝑝 𝑁 − 1 )$/&
The degrees of the nodes take a value around the average degree of the network, and we use the
standard deviaIon of the distribuIon to quanIfy this “around”.
Then, 𝒌 is the scale.

In a scale-free network:
The value of ⟨𝑘𝑛⟩ depends on the interplay between n and γ:
• If 𝑛 − 𝛾 + 1 ≤ 0 à kmaxn−γ+1, goes to zero as kmax increases. Therefore, all moments that

sa7sfy n ≤ γ−1 are finite.
• If 𝑛 − 𝛾 + 1 > 0 then ⟨𝑘𝑛⟩ goes to infinity as kmax→∞. Therefore, all moments n larger than γ−1
diverge.
For many scale-free networks the degree exponent γ is between 2 and 3. (γ=2 à n> 1 diverge)
Hence, for these in the N → ∞ limit the first moment 〈k〉 is finite, but the second and higher
moments,〈k2〉, 〈k3〉, go to infinity.
We cannot say nodes are in 𝑘 ± 𝜎 because 𝜎 → ∞ . FluctuaKons around the average can be arbitrary
large (or small).
We say there is no scale.

® From networksciencebook.com
0.15 1000 Figure 4.4
0.15 100 pkk ~ k-2.1 Poisson vs. Power-law Distributions
-2.1
0.15 pkk ~ k-2.1
-2.1 100-1
p ~ k-2.1 10 -1 pk ~ k-2.1-2.1
pk k~ k-2.1 pk ~ k
10-1 (a) Comparing a Poisson function with a
10-1
0.1 10-2-2 power-law function ( = 2.1) on a linear p
0.1
0.1 p10 10-2
kk -2 Both distributions have k = 10.
pkk p10
pk k -3-3
p POISSON
POISSON 10-3
pk k POISSON 10-3 (b) The same curves as in (a), but shown
Ultra-small world property

POISSON
0.05 10-4-4 log-log plot, allowing us to inspect the
0.05 10-4 ference between the two functions in
0.05 10-4 POISSON POISSON
10-5-5
-5
POISSON
POISSON high-k regime.
10
10-5-6
10 -6
10-6 0 (c) A random network with k = 3 and N =
0 10 20 k 30 40 50 10-6 10 00 1011 k 1022 1033 illustrating that most nodes have comp
0 10 20 30 40 50 100 101 1 k 102 2 103
0 10 20 kk 30 40 50 10 10 k 10 103 ble degree k k .
(d)
(c) (d) A scale-free network with =2.1 and
3, illustrating that numerous small-de
nodes coexist with a few highly conne
hubs.
Small world phenomena:

The Largest Hubthe average path length or the diameter depends
logarithmically on the system size.

𝑑 ~ ln 𝑁
All real networks are finite. The size of the WWW is estimated to be N
1012 nodes; the size of the social network is the Earth’s population, about N
7 × 109. These numbers are huge, but finite. Other networks pale in com-
Complejidad y Redes. parison: The genetic network in a human cell has approximately 20,000
genes while the metabolic network of the E. Coli bacteria has only about a
thousand metabolites. This prompts us to ask: How does the network size
Distances in scale-free networks
Four regimes as a func0on of the value of the exponent:

𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡. 𝛾=2 Anomalous Regime
ln ln 𝑁
2<𝛾<3 Ultra-Small World
ln(𝛾 − 1)
𝑑 ~
ln 𝑁
𝛾=3 Cri7cal Point
ln ln 𝑁
ln 𝑁 𝛾>3 Small World

Anomalous Regime (γ = 2)
Size of the biggest hub is of order O(N).
The degree of the biggest hub grows linearly with the system size,
i.e., kmax ~ N. This forces the network into a hub and
spoke configura0on in which all nodes are close to each other
because they all connect to the same central hub.
In this regime the average path length does not depend on N.
(b)
1000 Figure 4.4
Distances
10
10
100
0 in scale-free
p ~k networks
k
-2.1
Poisson vs. Power-law Distributions
-2.1
-1
10-1 pk ~ k-2.1
-1 pk k~ k-2.1
10 (a) Comparing a Poisson function with a
10-1
10-2-2 power-law function ( = 2.1) on a linear plot.
p10 10-2
kk -2 Both distributions have k = 10.
p
Ultra-Small World (2 ‹ (b)
pk10k -3-3
10-3
10-3
γ ‹The3)same curves as in (a), but shown on a
10-4-4 log-log plot, allowing us to inspect the dif-
10-4 ference between the two functions in the
10-4 POISSON POISSON
10-5-5
-5
POISSON
POISSON high-k regime.
10-5
10 -6
10 -6
10-6 0 (c) A random network with k = 3 and N = 50,
50
50
10-6 10 00
100
1011 k
101 1 k
1022
102 2
1033
103 The average distance
illustrating that most increases as 𝑑 ~ln ln 𝑁, a significantly slower
nodes have compara-
50 10 10 k 10 103 ble degree k k .
(d)
growth than the 𝑑 ~ ln 𝑁 derived for random networks.
(d) A scale-free network with =2.1 and k =
3, illustrating that numerous small-degree
The hubs radically reduce the path length.
nodes coexist with a few highly connected
hubs.
Cri=cal Point (γ = 3)
This value is of par0cular theore0cal interest, as the second moment of the degree
distribu0on does not diverge any longer.
At this cri0cal point, the lnN dependence encountered for random networks returns.
𝑙𝑛𝑁
𝑑~
𝑙𝑛 𝑙𝑛 𝑁
As a result, 𝑑 is comparable as those from random networks.
Small World (γ > 3)
In this regime ⟨𝑘2⟩ is finite and the average distance follows the small world result
derived for random networks.
𝑑 ~ ln 𝑁
While hubs con0nue to be present, for γ > 3 they are not sufficiently large and
numerous to have a significant impact on the distance between the nodes.
Summary of the behaviour of scale-free networks
Large scale-free
network with
γ ‹ 2, that lack
multi-links,
cannot exist.
® From
® Slide
networksciencebook.com
by Network Science by A.L. Barabási
Complejidad y Redes
Network models. The Barabási-Albert Model

(BAM)

Slides based on:
Networks: An Introduction.
Book by M.J. Newman, Ch 14
Nuevas Tecnologías y Empresa

slides by J.I. Santos
Ch 8 https://sites.google.com/site/meetnachosantos/
Network Science
slides by L. Barabási and R. Sinatra
Ch 5 Original slides available at: http://barabasi.com/networksciencebook/
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid The Barabási-Albert Model 27
Overview
• Introduc0on
• The cumula0ve advantage model
• The preferen0al aUachment model
• Are real networks scale-free?
INTRODUCTION
Network models
Genera7ve network models
They model the mechanisms by which networks are created. The idea behind models such
as these is to explore hypothesized genera7ve mechanisms to see what structures they
produce.
If the structures are similar to those of networks we observe in the real world, it suggests—
though does not prove—that similar genera7ve mechanisms may be at work in the real
networks.
The best-known example of a genera0ve network model, and the one that we study first in
this chapter, is the “preferen0al aUachment” model for the growth of networks with power-
law degree distribu0ons.
® From Networks: An Introduction, by M.J. Newman
The rich get richer
In 1955 Herbert Simon proposed the hypothesis "the rich get richer" on the mechanism by
which power law distributions are generated.
(Simon, H. A. (1955). "On a class of skew distribution functions". Biometrika 42 (3–4): 425–440)
“Simon noted the occurrence of power laws in a variety of (non-network) economic data,
such as the distribution of people’s personal wealth. Simon proposed an explanation for the
wealth distribution based on the idea that people who have money already gain more at a
rate proportional to how much they already have” ® From Networks: An Introduction, by M.J. Newman
What does this have to do
with networks?
Growth and preferen8al a9achment
Growth
Nodes Prefer to Link to the More Connected Nodes (a) 1•109
9•108 WORLD WIDE WEB
The random network model assumes that we randomly choose the in- 8•108
teraction partners of a node. Yet, most real networks new nodes prefer 7•108
NUMBER OF HOSTS
6•108
to link to the more connected nodes, a process called preferential attach-
ER model:ment (Figure 5.2).
5•108
4•108
the number of nodes, N, is fixed (static models) 3•108

2•108
1•108
Consider a few examples: 0•100
1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
YEARS
• We are familiar with only a tiny fraction of the trillion or more docu-
(b) 450000
ments available on the WWW. The nodes we know are not entirely ran- 400000 CITATION NETWORK
dom: We all heard about Google and Facebook, but we rarely encoun- 350000
300000
NUMBER OF PAPERS
ter the billions of less-prominent nodes that populate the Web. As our
Networksknowledge
expand through
is biased thepopular
towards the more addi3on of we
Web documents,
250000
200000
few links. new nodes

are more likely to link to a high-degree node than to a node with only 150000
100000
50000
0
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020
• No scientist can attempt to read the more than a million scientific pa- YEARS
pers published each year. Yet, the more cited is a paper, the more likely
(c) 250000
that we hear about it and eventually read it. As we cite what we read, ACTOR NETWORK
200000
our citations are biased towards the more cited publications, repre-
NUMBER OF MOVIES
Barabási & Albert, Science
senting 286, 509 (1999)
the high-degree nodes of the citation network. 150000
100000
• The more movies an actor has played in, the more familiar is a casting
50000
Complejidad y Redes. director with her skills. Hence, the higher the degree of an actor in the
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid The Barabási-Albert Model 0 34
actor network, the higher are the chances that she will be considered 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020
YEARS
Preferential attachment
ER model: links are added randomly to the network
Preferential attachment:
New nodes prefer to connect to the more connected nodes.
Barabási & Albert, Science 286, 509 (1999)
Network Science: Evolving Network Models
Cumulative advantage
and Price’s model
Price was interested in, among other things,

the cita7on networks of scien7fic papers,
having authored an important early paper
on the topic in the 1960s in which he
pointed out the power-law degree
distribu0on seen in these networks.
Price, D. J. de S. (1965). Networks of Scien5fic Papers,

Science, Vol. 149, Issue 3683, pp. 510-515
DOI: 10.1126/science.149.3683.510
Price adapted Simon’s methods, with rela0vely liUle change, to the network context. Price
gave a name to Simon’s mechanism: he called it cumula7ve advantage.
(Price, D. J. de S. (1976). "A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes". J. Amer. Soc.
Inform. Sci. 27 (5): 292–306)
Price’s model of a cita0on network is as follows:
• We assume that papers are published con0nually (though they do not have to be
published at a constant rate) and that newly appearing papers cite previously exis0ng
ones.
• the papers and cita0ons form a directed cita0on network: the papers being the ver0ces
and the cita0ons being the edges.
• no paper ever disappears aêr it is published, ver0ces in this network are created but
never destroyed.
• Let the average number of papers cited by a newly appearing paper be c. In the
language of graph theory, c is the average out-degree of the network.
• The probability of receiving a new citation is proportional to the number of citations.
• It cannot be precisely proportional since papers start out life with zero citations:
To get around this hitch, Price proposed that in fact the probability that a paper receives a
new citation should be proportional to the number that it already has plus a positive
constant a.
The constant a in effect gives each paper a number of “free” citations to get it started in the
race—each paper acts as though it started off with a citations instead of none.
An alternative interpretation is that a certain fraction of citations go to papers chosen
uniformly at random without regard for how many citations they currently have, while the
rest go to papers chosen in proportion to current citation count.
The crucial central assump0on of Price’s model is that a newly appearing paper cites
previous ones chosen at random with probability propor7onal to the number of cita-ons
those previous papers already have.
No ques7on of which papers are most relevant topically or which papers are most original
or best wriUen or the difference between research ar0cles and reviews, or any of the many
other factors that certainly affect real cita0on paUerns.
The Barabási-Albert model (BAM)
The preferential Attachment model (PAM)
The preferential attachment model
Preferen0al aUachment did not become widely accepted as a mechanism for genera0ng
power laws in networks un0l much later than Price’s model;
in the 1990s, when it was independently discovered by Barabási and Albert , who proposed
their own model of a growing network (along with the name “preferen0al aUachment”).
The Barabási-Albert model, which is one of the best-known genera0ve network model in
use today, is similar to Price’s, though not iden0cal, being a model of an undirected rather
than a directed network.
Albert-László Barabási & Réka Albert (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286 (5439): 509–512
Two genera0ve mechanisms
(1) Networks con0nuously expand by the GROWTH:

addi0on of new nodes add a new node with m links
WWW : addiIon of new documents
(2) New nodes prefer to link to highly PREFERENTIAL ATTACHMENT:

connected nodes the probability that a new node connects
WWW : linking to well known sites to an exis0ng node i with ki links is
propor0onal to ki :
𝑘$
π 𝑘$ =
∑% 𝑘%
Sum of all nodes degrees
Undirected network.
https://youtu.be/-QEx9B5FyEQ
Algorithm:
0. Let start with m0 nodes.

1. Each 0me t, a new node is created.
2. This node will create m links to previously
exis0ng nodes.
The probability 𝝅 of a node of gefng a new
link is propor0onal to its degree.
"'
π 𝑘$ = ∑
( "(
® Recording from D. Brockman http://rocs.hu-berlin.de/interactive/pa/index.html
Mathematical definition of the preferential attachment model
The defini)on of the Barabási-Albert model leaves many mathema)cal details open:
• It does not specify the precise ini)al configura)on of the first m0 nodes.
• It does not specify whether the m links assigned to a new node are added one by one, or
simultaneously.
This leads to poten)al mathema)cal conflicts: If the links are truly independent, they could
connect to the same node i, resul)ng in mul$-links.
Bollobás and collaborators proposed the Linearized Chord Diagram (LCD) to resolve these
problems, making the model more amenable to mathema)cal approaches.
NetworkX implementation barabasi_albert_graph(n, m, seed=None, initial_graph=None)
The defini)on of the Barabási-Albert model leaves many mathema)cal details open:
• ini)al configura)on of the first m0 nodes.
• It does not specify whether the m links assigned to a new node are added one by one, or
simultaneously.
This leads to poten)al mathema)cal conflicts: If the links are truly independent, they could
connect to the same node i, resul)ng in mul$-links.
The NetworkX implementation

create m links at the same time
Model properties
Preferential attachment model properties
• The average degree of the ensemble of networks is:
𝑘 = 2𝑚 (m: parameter of the model)
• Analy0cally, it can be proven (see Networks: An Introduc;on, by M.J. Newman) that the
degree distribu0on follows a power law:
𝑝" ~𝑘 !'
• The exponent is fixed, BAM only creates networks with 𝜸 = 𝟑.
• The hubs are large because they arrived earlier, a phenomenon called first-mover
advantage.
® Translated slide from NNTT y Empresa, by J.I. Santos
• Average distance
𝑙𝑛𝑁
small-world property 𝑑~
ln 𝑙𝑛𝑁
(since the degree exponent 𝛾 = 3)
• The clustering coefficient of the Barabási-Albert

model follows
The Barabási-Albert network is locally more clustered than a random

network.
(1) Bollobas, Riordan, 2002
(2) Konstantin Klemm, Victor M. Eguiluz, Growing scale-free networks with small-world behavior,
Phys. Rev. E 65, 057102 (2002), cond-mat/0107607
• The Barabási algorithm presents degree

correla0on to the age of the nodes (the
hubs correspond to the oldest nodes)
• However, this property does not appear

in some networks like WWW (Adamic,
2010).
Adamic, L. A. and Huberman, B. A.,
Power-law distribution of the world wide
web,Science287, 2115 (2000)
® Translated slide from NNTT y Empresa, by J.I. Santos
But…
The Barabási-Albert model is unable to describe many characterisIcs of real systems:

• The model predicts γ=3 while the degree exponent of real networks varies between 2 and 5
Degree Fluctua,ons in Real Networks

The table shows the first 〈k〉 and the second moment ⟨k2⟩ for ten reference networks. For directed networks we list 〈k〉=〈kin〉=〈kout〉. We also list the
es9mated degree exponent, γ, for each network. The stars next to the reported values indicate the confidence of the fit to the degree distribu9on. That is, * means
that the fit shows sta9s9cal confidence for a power-law (k−γ); while ** marks sta9s9cal confidence for a fit with an exponen9al cutoff. Note that the power grid is
not scale- free. For this network a degree distribu9on of the form e−λk offers a sta9s9cally significant fit, which is why we placed an “Exp” in the last column.
Complejidad y Redes
More on scale free networks

Plotting power laws
Plofng the degree distribu0on is an integral part of analyzing the proper0es of a
network. The process starts with obtaining Nk, the number of nodes with degree k. This
can be provided by direct measurement or by a model. From Nk we calculate pk = Nk /N.
The ques0on is, how to plot pk to best extract its proper0es.
Linear scale
LINEAR SCALE L
100
Using a linear k-axis compresses the numerous 0.15 (a)
small degree nodes in the small-k region, 10-1
rendering them invisible.
Similarly, as there can be orders of magnitude 0.1 10-2
differences in pk for k = 1 and for large k, if we plot pk pk
pk on a linear ver0cal axis, its value for large k will 10-3
appear to be zero. 0.05
10-4
The use of a log-log plot avoids these problems.
10-5
0 1000 2000 k 3000 4000 1
LOG-BINNING C
100 100
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Scale-free networks 55 (c)
10-1
10-1
Avoid Linear Binning
LINEAR SCALE
The most flawed method (yet frequently seen in the literature) LINEAR BINNING
is to simply plot pk = Nk/N on a log-log plot. This is called linear 100
binning, as each bin has the0.15
same size Δk = 1. For a scale-free
(a) (b)
network linear binning results in an instantly recognizable 10-1
plateau at large k, consisIng of numerous data points that form
a horizontal line. 0.1 10-2
pk pk
This plateau has a simple explanaIon: typically, we have only 10-3
one copy of each high degree
0.05node, hence in the high-k region
we either have Nk=0 (no node with degree k) or Nk=1 (a single 10-4
node with degree k). Consequently, linear binning will either
provide pk=0, not shown on a log-log plot, or pk = 1/N, which 10-5
applies to all hubs, genera7ng0a plateau at pk = 1/N.
k 3000 4000 100 101 102 3
104
1000 2000 k 10
LOG-BINNING CUMULATIVE
Complejidad y Redes. 100 100 56
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Scale-free networks
(c) (d)
® From networksciencebook.com 10-1
Avoid Linear Binning
This plateau affects our ability to SCALE

LINEAR es7mate the degree LINEAR BINNING
exponent γ using linear binning, the obtained γ is quite 100
different from the real value.
0.15 (a) (b)
10-1
The reason is that under linear binning we have a large number
of nodes in small-k bins, allowing
0.1 us to confidently fit pk in this 10-2
regime. pk
pk
10-3
In the large-k bins we have 0.05 too few nodes for a proper
staIsIcal esImate of pk. Instead, the emerging plateau biases
10-4
our fit. Yet, it is precisely this high-k regime that plays a key role
in determining γ. Increasing the bin size will not solve this
10-5
problem. It is therefore recommended to avoid linear binning
0 1000 2000 k 3000 4000 100 101 102 k 10
3
104
for fat tailed distribuIons.
Complejidad y Redes. 100 100 57
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Scale-free networks
(c) (d)
® From networksciencebook.com 10-1
Logarithmic Binning
0 1000 2000 k 3000 4000
Logarithmic binning corrects the non-uniform sampling of linear
binning. LOG-BINNING
100
For log-binning we let the bin sizes increase with the degree, (c)
making sure that each bin has a comparable number of nodes. 10-1
10-2
For example, we can choose the bin sizes to be multiples of 2, so 10-3
that the first bin has size b0=1, containing all nodes with k=1; the pk
second has size b1=2, containing nodes with degrees k=2 and 3; 10-4
the third bin has size b2=4 containing nodes with degrees k=4, 5, 10-5
6, 7. By induction the nth bin has size 2n-1 and contains all nodes 10-6
with degrees k=2n-1, 2n-1+1, ..., 2n-1-1. 10-7
10-8
The degree distribution is given by p⟨kn⟩=Nn/bn, where Nn is the
100 101 102 k 103 104
number of nodes found in the bin n of size bn and ⟨kn⟩ is the
average degree of the nodes in bin bn. 4.22b using linear binning, the obtai
real value =2.5. The reason is that un
58
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Scale-free networks number of nodes in small k bins, henc
10-4
Cumulative Distribution 10-5

0 1000 2000 k 3000 4000 100 101 102 k 10
3
104
Another way to extract informaIon from the tail of pk is to plot
100 100
the complementary cumulaIve distribuIon
(c) (d)
10-1
-2
10-1
10
which again enhances the 10
staIsIcal
-3 significance of the high-
10-2
degree region. pk
Pk
10-4 Cut off
The cumulaIve distribuIon10-5 again eliminates the plateau 10-3
observed for linear binning and leads to an extended scaling
10-6
region, allowing for a more -7accurate es7mate of the degree 10-4
10
exponent.
10-8 10-5
100 101 102 k 103 104 100 101 102 k 10
3
104
4.22b using linear binning, the obtained is quite different from the
real value =2.5. The reason is that under linear binning we have a large
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid number nodes in small k bins, hence in this regime
ofnetworks
Scale-free 59 we can confident-
Scale Free network examples
The internet network
Nodes: computers, routers

Links: physical lines
(Faloutsos, Faloutsos and Faloutsos, 1999)

Network Science: Scale-Free Property
Science citation index
Nodes: papers How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution
Links: citations (S. Redner, 1998)
The number of papers with x citations, N(x), has
a large-x power law decay with exponent 3 25
1736 PRL papers (1988)
H.E. Stanley,...
578...
P(k) ~k-g
(g = 3)

Science coauthorship
Nodes: scientist (authors)
Links: joint publication
M: math
NS: neuroscience
Complejidad y Redes. (Newman, 2000, Barabasi et al 2001)


Online communities
Swedish kind-of Tinder in 2002
Nodes: online user
Links: email contact Pussokram.com online community;
512 days, 25,000 users.
topology of e-mail network
Kiel University log files
112 days, N=59,912 nodes
Ebel, Mielsch, Bornholdtz, PRE 2002.

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Holme, Edling, Liljeros, 2002.
Online communities
Twitter: Facebook
Jake Hoffman, Yahoo,
Brian Karrer, Lars Backstrom, Cameron Marlowm 2011
Metabolic network
Archaea Bacteria Eukaryotes
Organisms from all three P in( k ) » k -2.2

domains of life are scale-free! Pout (k ) » k -2.2
H. Jeong, B. Tombor, R. Albert, Z.N. Oltvai, and A.L. Barabasi, Nature, 407 651 (2000)
Topology of the protein network
Characteris7cs of the yeast proteome
Nodes: proteins
Links: physical interac0ons-binding
k + k0
P(k ) ~ (k + k0 ) -g exp(- )
kt
H. Jeong,
Complejidad S.P. Mason, A.-L. Barabasi, Z.N. Oltvai, Nature 411, 41-42 (2001)
y Redes.

Drosophila M.
Animal world
Complejidad y Redes. Li et al. Science 2004

® Slide by Network Science by A.L. Barabási Giot et al. Science 2003

Human interaction network
Towards a proteome-scale map of the 2,800 Y2H interactions

4,100 binary LC interactions
human protein-protein interaction (HPRD, MINT, BIND, DIP, MIPS)
network
Rual et al. Nature 2005; Stelze et al. Cell 2005
Not all networks are scale-free
Networks appearing in material science, like the

network describing the bonds between the atoms
in crystalline or amorphous materials, where each
node has exactly the same degree.
The neural network of the C.elegans worm.
The power grid, consisIng of generators and

switches connected by transmission lines

¡Gracias!

5y6 ScaleFreeNetworks and BAM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5y6 ScaleFreeNetworks and BAM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complejidad y Redes

Designed by starline / Freepik

Nuevas Tecnologías y Empresa

• Power law degree distribu0on

• The scale-free property

• Proper0es of scale-free networks

func0onal rela0onship 𝑓 𝑥 = 𝑎𝑥 !"

® Meme distributed in Complex Systems Summer School 2015, Santa Fe Institute

Nodes: WWW documents

~1012 nodes (documents)

If the WWW were to be a random network, the

The purpose of the map was to

Nodes: WWW documents

ROBOT: collects all URL’s found in a document and

𝛾𝑖𝑛 = 2.1 𝛾𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 2.45

17) 108 (N - 1) kmax ~ N ( ) exponent

off Figure 4.5

o For 𝛾 > 2, 𝑘𝑚𝑎𝑥 increases slower than N

o For 𝛾 < 2, 𝑘𝑚𝑎𝑥 increases faster than N

In a Random Network, we can say that 𝐤 ≈ 𝒌 ± 𝝈 Poisson dist 𝜎 = 𝑘 $/&

Then, 𝒌 is the scale.

The value of ⟨𝑘𝑛⟩ depends on the interplay between n and γ:

• If 𝑛 − 𝛾 + 1 ≤ 0 à kmaxn−γ+1, goes to zero as kmax increases. Therefore, all moments that

We say there is no scale.

Ultra-small world property

Small world phenomena:

logarithmically on the system size.

Four regimes as a func0on of the value of the exponent:

ln 𝑁 𝛾>3 Small World

Size of the biggest hub is of order O(N).

In this regime the average path length does not depend on N.

As a result, 𝑑 is comparable as those from random networks.

Small World (γ > 3)

Network models. The Barabási-Albert Model

Designed by starline / Freepik

Nuevas Tecnologías y Empresa

• The cumula0ve advantage model

• The preferen0al aUachment model

• Are real networks scale-free?

Genera7ve network models

the number of nodes, N, is fixed (static models) 3•108

few links. new nodes

ER model: links are added randomly to the network

Barabási & Albert, Science 286, 509 (1999)

Price was interested in, among other things,

Price, D. J. de S. (1965). Networks of Scien5ﬁc Papers,

Price’s model of a cita0on network is as follows:

Two genera0ve mechanisms

(1) Networks con0nuously expand by the GROWTH:

(2) New nodes prefer to link to highly PREFERENTIAL ATTACHMENT:

0. Let start with m0 nodes.

® Recording from D. Brockman http://rocs.hu-berlin.de/interactive/pa/index.html

• ini)al conﬁgura)on of the ﬁrst m0 nodes.

The NetworkX implementation

• The average degree of the ensemble of networks is:

𝑘 = 2𝑚 (m: parameter of the model)

• The exponent is ﬁxed, BAM only creates networks with 𝜸 = 𝟑.

• The clustering coeﬃcient of the Barabási-Albert

The Barabási-Albert network is locally more clustered than a random

• The Barabási algorithm presents degree

• However, this property does not appear

The Barabási-Albert model is unable to describe many characterisIcs of real systems:

Degree Fluctua,ons in Real Networks