| Literature DB >> 26861189 |
Fernando Alcalde Cuesta1,2, Pablo González Sequeiros1,3, Álvaro Lozano Rojo1,4,5.
Abstract
For a network, the accomplishment of its functions despite perturbations is called robustness. Although this property has been extensively studied, in most cases, the network is modified by removing nodes. In our approach, it is no longer perturbed by site percolation, but evolves after site invasion. The process transforming resident/healthy nodes into invader/mutant/diseased nodes is described by the Moran model. We explore the sources of robustness (or its counterpart, the propensity to spread favourable innovations) of the US high-voltage power grid network, the Internet2 academic network, and the C. elegans connectome. We compare them to three modular and non-modular benchmark networks, and samples of one thousand random networks with the same degree distribution. It is found that, contrary to what happens with networks of small order, fixation probability and robustness are poorly correlated with most of standard statistics, but they depend strongly on the degree distribution. While community detection techniques are able to detect the existence of a central core in Internet2, they are not effective in detecting hierarchical structures whose topological complexity arises from the repetition of a few rules. Box counting dimension and Rent's rule are applied to show a subtle trade-off between topological and wiring complexity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26861189 PMCID: PMC4748249 DOI: 10.1038/srep20666
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1(a–d) Fixation probability functions for the US Power Grid, Internet2, C. elegans neuronal and hierarchical HR networks and asymptotically uniform samples of networks with the same degree distributions. We used and trials respectively for every fitness value varying from to with step size of . (e–f) Fixation probability functions for the Toy Worm and Barabási-Albert random models with samples of networks and trials for the same values of .
Robustness and fixation probability in the non-neutral case r = 1.5 compared with mean degree δ, heterogeneity H, heat heterogeneity H and some small-worldness measures (on average for asymptotically uniform samples of 103 networks in random networks).
| BA | 0.954 ± 0.010 | 0.339 ± 0.005 | 19.00 | 12.14 ± 0.37 | 0.48 ± 0.04 | 0.18 ± 0.01 | 2.06 ± 0.01 | 0.089 ± 0.004 |
| CE | 0.948 | 0.345 | 16.39 | 12.49 | 0.88 | 0.34 | 2.44 | 0.138 |
| HR | 0.946 | 0.348 | 6.87 | 12.69 | 6.12 | 0.59 | 2.41 | 0.246 |
| HR random | 0.942 ± 0.010 | 0.341 ± 0.005 | 6.87 | 12.69 | 5.53 ± 0.07 | 0.25 ± 0.01 | 2.33 ± 0.01 | 0.108 ± 0.003 |
| CE random | 0.942 ± 0.011 | 0.344 ± 0.005 | 16.39 | 12.49 | 0.74 ± 0.03 | 0.14 ± 0.00 | 2.27 ± 0.01 | 0.062 ± 0.002 |
| TW | 0.940 ± 0.012 | 0.344 ± 0.005 | 4.75 ± 0.15 | 1.83 ± 0.09 | 0.18 ± 0.02 | 0.24 ± 0.02 | 6.51 ± 0.18 | 0.037 ± 0.003 |
| PG | 0.855 | 0.376 | 2.67 | 1.79 | 0.74 | 0.08 | 18.99 | 0.004 |
| PG random | 0.845 ± 0.010 | 0.377 ± 0.005 | 2.67 | 1.79 | 0.65 ± 0.01 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 8.71 ± 0.03 | 0.000 ± 0.000 |
| I2 random | 0.649 ± 0.007 | 0.460 ± 0.005 | 2.08 | 3.06 | 6.07 ± 0.23 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 5.63 ± 0.26 | 0.000 ± 0.000 |
| I2 | 0.639 | 0.464 | 2.08 | 3.06 | 7.38 | 0.00 | 8.26 | 0.000 |
Networks are sorted by robustness.
Figure 2Comparing fixation probability in the neutral and non-neutral case with (a,b) variance of the degree distribution and, (c,d) heat heterogeneity10.
Robustness and fixation probabilities compared with Q-modularity, I-modularity and fractal dimension, on average for asymptotically uniform samples of 103 networks in random networks.
|
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BA | 0.954 ± 0.010 | 0.005 ± 0.001 | 0.339 ± 0.005 | 0.17 ± 0.00 | 7.41 ± 0.01 | 6.22 ± 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.962 | 6.22 |
| CE | 0.948 | 0.004 | 0.345 | 0.40 | 7.49 | 4.26 | 0.18 | 0.995 | 4.26 |
| HR | 0.946 | 0.004 | 0.348 | 0.61 | 5.65 | 4.08 | 1.40 | 0.810 | 4.08 |
| HR random | 0.942 ± 0.010 | 0.004 ± 0.000 | 0.341 ± 0.005 | 0.31 ± 0.01 | 7.26 ± 0.02 | 4.95 ± 0.13 | 0.02 | 0.945 | 4.92 |
| CE random | 0.942 ± 0.011 | 0.004 ± 0.001 | 0.344 ± 0.005 | 0.20 ± 0.00 | 7.81 ± 0.00 | 5.20 ± 0.15 | 0.01 | 0.984 | 5.18 |
| TW | 0.940 ± 0.012 | 0.004 ± 0.001 | 0.344 ± 0.005 | 0.73 ± 0.01 | 5.40 ± 0.07 | 2.03 ± 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.979 | 2.02 |
| PG | 0.855 | 0.000 | 0.376 | 0.94 | 4.74 | 2.69 | 0.06 | 0.978 | 2.69 |
| PG random | 0.845 ± 0.010 | 0.000 ± 0.000 | 0.377 ± 0.005 | 0.75 ± 0.00 | 6.74 ± 0.01 | 3.21 ± 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.910 | 3.21 |
| I2 random | 0.649 ± 0.007 | 0.003 ± 0.001 | 0.460 ± 0.005 | 0.85 ± 0.00 | 3.60 ± 0.02 | 2.63 ± 0.15 | 0.00 | 0.976 | 2.58 |
| I2 | 0.639 | 0.003 | 0.464 | 0.86 | 3.58 | 2.14 | 0.09 | 0.970 | 2.14 |
For fractal dimension we include the coefficient of determination R in the fit of the power law (7). For each random or randomised network, all the networks in the sample are considered at once, fitting the whole data set by a single regression line of slope D′. Differences between fractal dimension on average and exponent in a global fit are less than 0.05.
Kendall’s rank correlation coefficient for robustness and fixation probability in the neutral and non-neutral cases (r = 1 and r = 1.5) with respect some statistics sorted by their absolute values with respect to the robustness.
|
| 0.86 | 0.83 | 0.69 | −0.64 | 0.60 | 0.60 | −0.56 | −0.49 | −0.49 | −0.47 |
| Φ(1) | 0.44 | 0.46 | 0.51 | −0.56 | 0.24 | 0.51 | 0.29 | −0.91 | −0.91 | −0.64 |
| Φ(1.5) | −0.77 | −0.74 | −0.42 | 0.73 | −0.60 | −0.33 | −0.64 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.56 |
Figure 3Comparing fixation probability in the neutral and non neutral cases with (a,b) -modularity, (c,d) -modularity and, (e,f) fractal dimension.
Figure 4Comparing Kendall’s correlation coefficients.
Figure 5Hierarchical network of level constructed by Ravasz et al.20.