Article

Clustering drives assortativity and community structure in ensembles of networks.

Complexity Science Group, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada T2N 1N4.
Physical Review E (Impact Factor: 2.31). 12/2011; 84(6 Pt 2):066117. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.84.066117
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Clustering, assortativity, and communities are key features of complex networks. We probe dependencies between these features and find that ensembles of networks with high clustering display both high assortativity by degree and prominent community structure, while ensembles with high assortativity show much less enhancement of the clustering or community structure. Further, clustering can amplify a small homophilic bias for trait assortativity in network ensembles. This marked asymmetry suggests that transitivity could play a larger role than homophily in determining the structure of many complex networks.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
131 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An increasing number of today's social interactions occurs using online social media as communication channels. Some online social networks have become extremely popular in the last decade. They differ among themselves in the character of the service they provide to online users. For instance, Facebook can be seen mainly as a platform for keeping in touch with close friends and relatives, Twitter is used to propagate and receive news, LinkedIn facilitates the maintenance of professional contacts, Flickr gathers amateurs and professionals of photography, etc. Albeit different, all these online platforms share an ingredient that pervades all their applications. There exists an underlying social network that allows their users to keep in touch with each other and helps to engage them in common activities or interactions leading to a better fulfillment of the service's purposes. This is the reason why these platforms share a good number of functionalities, e.g., personal communication channels, broadcasted status updates, easy one-step information sharing, news feeds exposing broadcasted content, etc. As a result, online social networks are an interesting field to study an online social behavior that seems to be generic among the different online services. Since at the bottom of these services lays a network of declared relations and the basic interactions in these platforms tend to be pairwise, a natural methodology for studying these systems is provided by network science. In this chapter we describe some of the results of research studies on the structure, dynamics and social activity in online social networks. We present them in the interdisciplinary context of network science, sociological studies and computer science.
    10/2012;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: THE ASSUMPTION THAT A NAME UNIQUELY IDENTIFIES AN ENTITY INTRODUCES TWO TYPES OF ERRORS: splitting treats one entity as two or more (because of name variants); lumping treats multiple entities as if they were one (because of shared names). Here we investigate the extent to which splitting and lumping affect commonly-used measures of large-scale named-entity networks within two disambiguated bibliographic datasets: one for co-author names in biomedicine (PubMed, 2003-2007); the other for co-inventor names in U.S. patents (USPTO, 2003-2007). In both cases, we find that splitting has relatively little effect, whereas lumping has a dramatic effect on network measures. For example, in the biomedical co-authorship network, lumping (based on last name and both initials) drives several measures down: the global clustering coefficient by a factor of 4 (from 0.265 to 0.066); degree assortativity by a factor of ∼13 (from 0.763 to 0.06); and average shortest path by a factor of 1.3 (from 5.9 to 4.5). These results can be explained in part by the fact that lumping artificially creates many intransitive relationships and high-degree vertices. This effect of lumping is much less dramatic but persists with measures that give less weight to high-degree vertices, such as the mean local clustering coefficient and log-based degree assortativity. Furthermore, the log-log distribution of collaborator counts follows a much straighter line (power law) with splitting and lumping errors than without, particularly at the low and the high counts. This suggests that part of the power law often observed for collaborator counts in science and technology reflects an artifact: name ambiguity.
    PLoS ONE 01/2013; 8(7):e70299. · 3.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We uncover the global organization of clustering in real complex networks. To this end, we ask whether triangles in real networks organize as in maximally random graphs with given degree and clustering distributions, or as in maximally ordered graph models where triangles are forced into modules. The answer comes by way of exploring m-core landscapes, where the m-core is defined, akin to the k-core, as the maximal subgraph with edges participating in at least m triangles. This property defines a set of nested subgraphs that, contrarily to k-cores, is able to distinguish between hierarchical and modular architectures. We find that the clustering organization in real networks is neither completely random nor ordered although, surprisingly, it is more random than modular. This supports the idea that the structure of real networks may in fact be the outcome of self-organized processes based on local optimization rules, in contrast to global optimization principles.
    Scientific Reports 08/2013; 3:2517. · 5.08 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
47 Downloads
Available from
May 16, 2014