| Literature DB >> 23805226 |
Giovanni Petri1, Martina Scolamiero, Irene Donato, Francesco Vaccarino.
Abstract
The statistical mechanical approach to complex networks is the dominant paradigm in describing natural and societal complex systems. The study of network properties, and their implications on dynamical processes, mostly focus on locally defined quantities of nodes and edges, such as node degrees, edge weights and -more recently- correlations between neighboring nodes. However, statistical methods quickly become cumbersome when dealing with many-body properties and do not capture the precise mesoscopic structure of complex networks. Here we introduce a novel method, based on persistent homology, to detect particular non-local structures, akin to weighted holes within the link-weight network fabric, which are invisible to existing methods. Their properties divide weighted networks in two broad classes: one is characterized by small hierarchically nested holes, while the second displays larger and longer living inhomogeneities. These classes cannot be reduced to known local or quasilocal network properties, because of the intrinsic non-locality of homological properties, and thus yield a new classification built on high order coordination patterns. Our results show that topology can provide novel insights relevant for many-body interactions in social and spatial networks. Moreover, this new method creates the first bridge between network theory and algebraic topology, which will allow to import the toolset of algebraic methods to complex systems.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23805226 PMCID: PMC3689815 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066506
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Weight rank clique filtration and homology of networks.
(a) The weight rank filtration proceeds from the bottom up. Weighted holes (colored) and cliques (gray) appear as links are added. Weighted holes can branch into smaller holes, which have then independent evolution, persisting or dying along the filtration as links close them by 3-cliques. The cartoon shows two very long-persistence holes (violet and purple) appearing quite early and living until the end, while the largest hole (red) branches into three smaller holes, of only one survives to the end of the filtration (green). (b) A selection of weighted holes from the US air passenger network (year 2000). The node colors represent the best modularity partition of the entire network. The cycles are all long-persistence one, chosen to represent different behaviors: for example, the Chicago-Los Angeles-San Jose-Seattle cycle spans a large spatial distance, implying weaker connectivity across the cycle and within the region encompassed by the cycle, while the cycle going east from New York connects the east coast to three large European network and its persistence is due to the reduced connectivity due to the Atlantic Ocean. (c) A selection of the strongest cycles in the face-to-face contact network in a primary school (see SI for details on dataset). Node colors represent different classes in the school. Cycles are often found across communities, since by definition they probe the presence of holes among network regions. However, this is not the only information they convey. The cycle contained in a single community (green) testify the presence of peculiar contact geometries even within dense community structures.
Figure 2Statistical and spectral properties of generators.
Box plots of the distributions of persistences (panel ), births (panel ) and lengths (panel ) for the 1d cycles ( generators) of real networks (black), reshuffled (white) and randomized (gray). The gray and green shaded areas identify the two network classes described in the main text: class I is significantly different from the random expectations, with shorter, less persistent cycles that appear across the entire filtration; class II networks are not significantly different from the random versions, with long cycles and late birth times in the filtration. The characteristics of class I networks imply a stratification of cycles that betrays the presence of large, non-local organisation in the network structure, which is not present in class II networks. For comparison, an example of RGG network (600 nodes in the unitary disk, linking distance 0.01), known to have higher order degree correlations, had edge weights set according to , with (linearly correlated weight RGG) and (random weight RGG). In both cases, the distributions of cycles’ properties resemble closely those of class I networks. Panel finally reports the distribution of adjacency spectral gaps and (left plot) and the Laplacian eigenratio (right plot). All the quantities show significant () differences between the two classes, implying that the homological structure affect the dynamical properties of networks, e.g. the synchronizability threshold.
Summary of spectral quantities values.
| Dataset (class) |
|
|
|
| Genes(I) | 1.14 | 14.6 | 873 |
| Online forums(I) | 0.5 |
|
|
| US Air 2000(I) | 0.868 |
|
|
| US Air 2002(I) | 0.872 |
|
|
| US Air 2006 (I) | 0.958 |
|
|
| US Air 20011(I) | 0.941 |
|
|
| Online messages(I) | 0.14 |
|
|
| School day 1 (II) | 0.11 |
| 56 |
| School day 2 (II | 0.08 |
| 110 |
| C. elegans (II) | 0.25 | 76 |
|
| Twitter (II) | 0.11 | 370 |
|
| Hep-th (II) | 0.11 | 7.4 |
|
| Cond-mat (II) | 0.005 | 0.24 |
|
| Lin. RGG | 0.0034 | 34 | 836 |
| Ran. RGG | 0.018 | 54 | 255 |
Summary of spectral quantities. For each dataset, we report the values of , and . The two classes inline different spectral properties, with particular reference to which is related to the network expansion property.
Summary of hollowness values.
| Dataset (class) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Genes(I) | 0.515 | 0.003 |
|
|
|
| 0.35 | 0.006 |
| Online forums(I) |
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.02 | 0.0003 |
| US Air 2000(I) | 0.160 | 0.001 |
|
|
|
| 0.02 | 0.0003 |
| US Air 2002(I) | 0.186 | 0.0008 |
|
|
|
| 0.23 | 0.002 |
| US Air 2006 (I) | 0.167 | 0.0005 |
|
|
|
| 0.165 | 0.001 |
| US Air 20011(I) | 0.181 | 0.0006 |
|
|
|
| 0.076 | 0.0007 |
| Online messages(I) | 0.21 | 0.0014 |
|
|
|
| 0.02 | 0.0003 |
| School day 1 (II) | 0.088 | 0.0034 |
|
|
|
| 0.015 | 0.0012 |
| School day 2 (II) | 0.090 | 0.0033 |
|
|
|
| 0.01412 | 0.00095 |
| C. elegans (II) | 0.0784 | 0.002 |
|
|
|
| 0.058 | 0.002 |
| Twitter (II) | 0.03 | 0.0001 |
|
|
|
| 0.01 | 0.0001 |
| Hep-th (II) | 0.08 | 0.0002 |
|
|
|
| – | – |
| Cond-mat (II) | 0.26 | 0.0004 |
|
|
|
| – | – |
| Lin. RGG | 0.227 | 0.003 |
|
|
|
| 0.28 | 0.006 |
| Ran. RGG | 0.3 | 0.0041 |
|
|
|
| 0.115 | 0.003 |
Summary of hollowness values. For each dataset, we report the values of the hollowness and cycle-length normalized hollowness for cycles for real networks and their randomisations ( and ). Most networks (class I in particular) show lower values than for their randomized versions. We also report the values of the hollowness and cycle-length normalized hollowness for cycles for real networks. The values for the randomized networks are not reported as –strikingly– the randomisations do not inline any higher homology, while almost all real networks inline positive values of the hollowness.