- Access by Xinjiang University
Approximating the largest eigenvalue of the modified adjacency matrix of networks with heterogeneous node biases
Phys. Rev. E 79, 056111 – Published 22 May, 2009
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.79.056111
Abstract
Motivated by its relevance to various types of dynamical behavior of network systems, the maximum eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix of a network has been considered and mean-field-type approximations to have been developed for different kinds of networks. Here is defined by if there is (is not) a directed network link to from . However, in at least two recent problems involving networks with heterogeneous node properties (percolation on a directed network and the stability of Boolean models of gene networks), an analogous but different eigenvalue problem arises, namely, that of finding the largest eigenvalue of the matrix , where and the “bias” may be different at each node . (In the previously mentioned percolation and gene network contexts, is a probability and so lies in the range .) The purposes of this paper are to extend the previous considerations of the maximum eigenvalue of to , to develop suitable analytic approximations to , and to test these approximations with numerical experiments. In particular, three issues considered are (i) the effect of the correlation (or anticorrelation) between the value of and the number of links to and from node , (ii) the effect of correlation between the properties of two nodes at either end of a network link (“assortativity”), and (iii) the effect of community structure allowing for a situation in which different values are associated with different communities.
Article Text
References (13)
- M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 208701 (2002).
- J. G. Restrepo, E. Ott, and B. R. Hunt, Phys. Rev. E 76, 056119 (2007).
- This definition of appears in Ref. [2]. Newman [1] characterized assortativity using a different quantity, but Eq. (2) is more relevant for our purposes.
- M. Girvan and M. E. J. Newman, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 7821 (2002).
- For example, see S. Boccaletti, V. Latora, Y. Moreno, M. Chavez, and D.-U. Hwang, Phys. Rep. 424, 175 (2006); L. M. Pecora and T. L. Carroll, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2109 (1998).
- J. G. Restrepo, E. Ott, and B. R. Hunt, Phys. Rev. E 71, 036151 (2005).
- E. Ott, P. So, E. Barreto, and T. M. Antonsen, Physica D 173, 29 (2002); J. G. Restrepo, E. Ott, and B. R. Hunt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 254103 (2006).
- A. Pomerance, E. Ott, M. Girvan, and W. Losert, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 8209 (2009).
- J. G. Restrepo, E. Ott, and B. R. Hunt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 058701 (2008).
- R. Cohen, K. Erez, D. ben-Avraham, and S. Havlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4626 (2000).
- Y. Moreno, R. Pastor-Satorras, and A. Vespignani, Eur. Phys. J. B 26, 521 (2002).
- A. Vazquez and Y. Moreno, Phys. Rev. E 67, 015101(R) (2003).
- M. Boguñá and R. Pastor-Satorras, Phys. Rev. E 66, 047104 (2002).