Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Rapid Communication
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Percolation and epidemics in random clustered networks

Joel C. Miller*

  • Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA and Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA

  • *joel.c.miller.research@gmail.com

Phys. Rev. E 80, 020901(R) – Published 4 August, 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.80.020901

Abstract

The social networks that infectious diseases spread along are typically clustered. Because of the close relation between percolation and epidemic spread, the behavior of percolation in such networks gives insight into infectious disease dynamics. A number of authors have studied percolation or epidemics in clustered networks, but the networks often contain preferential contacts in high degree nodes. We introduce a class of random clustered networks and a class of random unclustered networks with the same preferential mixing. Percolation in the clustered networks reduces the component sizes and increases the epidemic threshold compared to the unclustered networks.

Article Text

References (24)

  1. J. L. Cardy and P. Grassberger, J. Phys. A 18, L267 (1985).
  2. P. Grassberger, Math. Biosci. 63, 157 (1983).
  3. E. Kenah and J. M. Robins, J. Theor. Biol. 249, 706 (2007).
  4. D. Ludwig, Math. Biosci. 23, 33 (1975).
  5. J. C. Miller, Phys. Rev. E 76, 010101(R) (2007).
  6. M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E 66, 016128 (2002).
  7. Care must be taken that no dependence between edges arises. Such a dependence can arise from, for example, heterogeneity in duration of infection [5,23].
  8. S. Bansal, Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 2008.
  9. T. Britton, M. Deijfen, A. N. Lageras, and M. Lindholm, J. Appl. Probab. 45, 743 (2008).
  10. K. T. D. Eames, Theor. Popul. Biol. 73, 104 (2008).
  11. M. J. Keeling, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. B 266, 859 (1999).
  12. J. C. Miller, J. R. Soc., Interface (to be published).
  13. M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E 68, 026121 (2003).
  14. M. Á. Serrano and M. Boguñá, Phys. Rev. E 74, 056115 (2006).
  15. M. Á. Serrano and M. Boguñá, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 088701 (2006).
  16. This algorithm was simultaneously developed by Newman [24].
  17. M. Molloy and B. Reed, Random Struct. Algorithms 6, 161 (1995).
  18. M. E. J. Newman, SIAM Rev. 45, 167 (2003).
  19. In essence we have created a generalized edge which corresponds to a triangle. We could create other more general structures in much the same way.
  20. N. G. Becker, K. Glass, Z. Li, and G. K. Aldis, Math. Biosci. 193, 205 (2005).
  21. O. Diekmann, J. A. P. Heesterbeek, and J. A. J. Metz, J. Math. Biol. 28, 365 (1990).
  22. Without our simplification, we would need to further subdivide those infected along triangle edges into those whose other neighbor is still susceptible from those whose other neighbor is also infected.
  23. E. Kenah and J. M. Robins, Phys. Rev. E 76, 036113 (2007).
  24. M. E. J. Newman, e-print arXiv:0903.4009, Phys. Rev. Lett. (to be published).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation