# DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NORMAL AND SHUFFLED TEXTS: STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF WEIGHTED NETWORKS

**ABSTRACT** In this paper we deal with the structural properties of weighted networks. Starting from an empirical analysis of a linguistic network, we analyze the differences between the statistical properties of a real and a shuffled network. We show that the scale-free degree distribution and the scale-free weight distribution are induced by the scale-free strength distribution, that is Zipf's law. We test the result on a scientific collaboration network, that is a social network, and we define a measure – the vertex selectivity – that can distinguish a real network from a shuffled network. We prove, via an ad hoc stochastic growing network with second order correlations, that this measure can effectively capture the correlations within the topology of the network.

**0**Bookmarks

**·**

**7**Views

- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]

**ABSTRACT:**In this paper we analyse the street network of London both in its primary and dual representation. To understand its properties, we consider three idealised models based on a grid, a static random planar graph and a growing random planar graph. Comparing the models and the street network, we find that the streets of London form a self-organising system whose growth is characterised by a strict interaction between the metrical and informational space. In particular, a principle of least effort appears to create a balance between the physical and the mental effort required to navigate the city.Physics of Condensed Matter 03/2009; · 1.28 Impact Factor - SourceAvailable from: Madhav Krishna[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]

**ABSTRACT:**This paper studies the effect of linguistic constraints on the large scale organization of language. It describes the properties of linguistic networks built using texts of written language with the words randomized. These properties are compared to those obtained for a network built over the text in natural order. It is observed that the "random" networks too exhibit small-world and scale-free characteristics. They also show a high degree of clustering. This is indeed a surprising result - one that has not been addressed adequately in the literature. We hypothesize that many of the network statistics reported here studied are in fact functions of the distribution of the underlying data from which the network is built and may not be indicative of the nature of the concerned network.Computing Research Repository - CORR. 02/2011;

Page 1

arXiv:0802.2798v2 [physics.data-an] 27 Jun 2008

Differences between normal and shuffled texts: structural properties of weighted

networks

A. P. Masucci and G. J. Rodgers

Department of Mathematical Sciences, Brunel University,

Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH, United Kingdom

(Dated: June 27, 2008)

In this paper we deal with the structural properties of weighted networks. Starting from an

empirical analysis of a linguistic network, we analyse the differences between the statistical properties

of a real and a shuffled network and we show that the scale free degree distribution and the scale free

weight distribution are induced by the scale free strength distribution, that is Zipf’s law. We test

the result on a scientific collaboration network, that is a social network, and we define a measure,

the vertex selectivity, that can easily distinguish a real network from a shuffled network. We prove,

via an ad-hoc stochastic growing network with second order correlations, that this measure can

effectively capture the correlations within the topology of the network.

PACS numbers: 89.75.-k, 89.20.Hh, 05.65.+b

I. INTRODUCTION.

Following the seminal work of Barabasi et al. [3], the scientific community has put a lot of effort into the study of

network theory. A network is a collection of vertices connected by edges. Often vertices represent natural elements

or events and the edges relations by which those elements or events are connected. As it is a simple framework,

network theory can be applied to a wide variety of natural phenomena, including social sciences [18], biology, genetics

[6], geology [1] and linguistics [8, 31]. The extraordinary similarities that such different phenomena display when

represented by network theory provide us with the opportunity of finding common principles for the organisation of

many elements in nature.

We begin this work with the empirical study of a linguistic network built from the novel of Herman Melville, Moby

Dick [19]. This is a multi-directed Eulerian network [17], based on the relation of adjacency, where the tokens of the

novel, words and punctuation, are the vertices, and two vertices are linked if the tokens they represent are adjacent

in the text. We then analyse a scientific collaboration network, that is a network in which vertices are the authors of

scientific published papers related to network theory [32], and two vertices are connected if the authors they represent

coauthored the same paper.

These networks are suitable for analysis as weighted network [5], that is they are networks in which pairs of vertices

represent events that are related more than once in the phenomenon. This multiple relation can be expressed by a

weight on their mutual link, the weight representing the number of times the relation is repeated. To completely

describe the network, we introduce the weighted adjacency matrix W = {wij}, that is a matrix whose elements

wij represent the number of links connecting vertex i to vertex j. In the case of an undirected network, such as

the scientific collaboration network, this matrix is symmetric, and there is no difference between out and in vertices

properties. In the case of a directed network, such as the language network, the matrix is not symmetric, and the out

and in vertices properties are generally different. We define the out-degree and in-degree kout/in

number of its out and in nearest neighbours and we have kout/in

function. We define the out-strength and the in-strength sout/in

incoming links, that is sout/in

i

≡?

To understand the properties of complex system, it is common to consider random systems as a null hypothesis.

We apply this concept to our networks by considering the classical measures (weight, strength, degree, clustering

coefficient, nearest neighbours degree) applied to the real networks, and then again after shuffling the vertices of the

network. In the case of the linguistic network the strength of a vertex is equivalent to the frequency of the token the

vertex represents. The shuffling operation, in this case, consists of shuffling the tokens of the novel. This operation

doesn’t alter the frequency of the tokens and so the strength distribution remains unchanged. In particular, if we

call f(s), the frequency of a token with strength s and r the rank of a word in the definition given by Zipf [30],

we have that r =?sMax

s=1f(s), that is a direct relation between the rank and the strength of a token. Hence, as is

already well known, the shuffling operation doesn’t alter Zipf’s law. In the same way, in the case of the scientific

collaboration network, the strength of a vertex represents the number of papers an author published. The shuffling

operation preserves this number and hence the strength distribution remains unchanged.

In this paper we will show that, in both our networks, the degree distribution is not altered by the shuffling process,

i

of vertex i as the

i

≡?

jΘ(wij/ji−1

of the vertex i as the number of its outgoing and

2), where Θ(x) is the Heaviside

i

jwij/ji.

Page 2

2

and seems to be determined by the strength distribution. We then introduce a new measure, the vertex selectivity,

that reflects the correlations of the networks and is greatly changed in the shuffling process. We test this measure

with an ad-hoc stochastic network characterised by short range correlations.

II.ANALYSIS OF MOBY DICK

Moby Dick is a text that is large enough to be suitable for a statistical analysis and, since it is considered by the

critics and by the people a very well written text, we are confident that the statistical empirical laws arising from

it are characteristic of laws of language [2]. After shuffling the tokens of the novel, we will compare some empirical

measures between the shuffled and the original text.

Moby Dick has a vocabulary V of 17169 tokens, with a total size N of 264978 tokens. Since the network is Eulerian

[17] we have that sout

i

= sin

< kout>≈ 6.54.

i =si

2, for every vertex i. The average strength is < s >≈ 30.87, the average out-degree is

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

FIG. 1: Top panels: the out and in-degree distributions of Moby Dick compared to the distributions obtained after shuffling

the tokens of the novel, preserving the strength of the vertices. The result implies that the scale free degree distribution is

determined by the scale free strength distribution. Bottom panels: the out and in-strength distributions of Moby Dick compared

to the distributions obtained after shuffling the links between the tokens of the novel, preserving the degree of the vertices. The

result implies that the scale free strength distribution is not determined by the scale free degree distribution.

From the top of Fig.1 we can see that the distribution of the degree of the vertices is not significantly altered in

the shuffling process. This result implies that the scale free degree distribution is induced by the scale free strength

Page 3

3

?

?

?

?

?

FIG. 2: Strength of the vertices averaged on the out-degree versus the out-degree for Moby Dick compared to the same measure

obtained after shuffling the tokens of the novel, preserving the strength of the vertices.

?

?

?

?

???

?

??

?

FIG. 3: Left panel: the weight distribution of Moby Dick compared to the distribution obtained after shuffling the tokens of

the novel, preserving the strength of the vertices. The result suggests that the scale free weight distribution is determined by

the scale free strength distribution. Right panel: comparison between the out-strength distributions obtained from the real

network and from the network obtained by shuffling the adjacency matrix preserving the weight distribution of the network.

The result implies that the scale free strength distribution is not determined by the scale free weight distribution.

distribution. In fact the shuffling operation redistributes the numbers that occupy the rows of the weighted adjacency

matrix in an uncorrelated way. This operation preserves the strength of the vertices, but changes their degree.

However, as we can see, the average degree distribution is statistically preserved. This is an important result in

network theory. In fact the distribution of the degree of a vertex, that is the distribution for the number of its nearest

neighbours, is supposed to give a great deal of information about the system. In this case we can see that this measure

cannot distinguish between a masterpiece and a meaningless collection of words.

To prove that the reverse doesn’t hold, that is the scale free degree distribution doesn’t induce a scale free strength

distribution, we shuffle the network preserving the degree of the vertices. This operation consists in randomly redis-

Page 4

4

tributing the weights of the links between all the existing links. In reality it would consist in rewriting Moby Dick

with the same vocabulary, the same total number of tokens, but changing the relative frequency of the tokens. We

show the resulting strength distribution in the bottom of Fig.1 compared to the one obtained from the real network.

It is evident that the distributions obtained with the shuffling operation are peaked and well distinguishable from the

ones obtained from the real network. The tails of these distributions are still power laws, but with a slope different

from the one for the original network. We derived the exponents for the tails of the distributions for s ≥ 10 with the

method of maximum likelihood proposed by Newman in [23] and we calculated the error on the exponent with the

bootstrap method [11], with 2000 replicas for the normal network and 4000 replicas for the shuffled network. In this

way we found that the real network strength distribution displays a power law tail with exponent −1.98±0.02, while

the shuffled network strength distribution displays a power law tail with exponent −2.19 ± 0.01 for the in-strength

and −2.17 ± 0.01 for the out-strength distribution.

The straight connection between strength distribution and degree distribution can be explained by the power law

relation between strength and degree. In Fig.2 we show the empirical data for < s(kout) > before and after the

shuffling process. In both the cases we observe a relation of the type < s(k) >∝ kδ. Since P(s) ∝ s−γ, then

P(k) ∝ kδ(1−γ)−1. This power law relation holds only in average though. In fact, as we’ll discuss at the end of this

section, the relation between strength and degree is more complex and deep.

The weight distribution P(wij) for linguistic networks, such as that for other scale free weighted networks, is a

power law. From the left panel of Fig.3 we can see that if we shuffle the text the resulting weight distribution doesn’t

vary significantly. The only difference that can be appreciated between the distributions of Fig.3 is in their tails.

In fact the range of values for the weight in the normal text is larger than that in the shuffled text. If we shuffled

the entries of the adjacency matrix without preserving the strength of the vertices, the weight distribution would

dramatically change in a uniform distribution. Again we can argue that the power law distribution for the weight of

the vertices is induced by the scale free strength distribution.

To prove that the strength distribution is not implied by the weight distribution we shuffle the network preserving

its weight distribution. This is done by randomly shuffling the cells of the adjacency matrix, preserving the weights

of the shuffled cells. In the right panel of Fig.3 we show the results of this experiment. For the shuffled network the

resulting strength distribution is peaked. Nevertheless it displays a power law behaviour for many decades, but with

a slope much steeper than that of the real network. Again we derived the exponents for the tails of the distributions

for s ≥ 10 with the method of maximum likelihood and we calculated the error on the exponent with the bootstrap

method using 5000 replicas for the shuffled network. In this way we found that the shuffled network out-strength

distribution displays a power law tail with exponent −2.59±0.02, compared to the exponent of the tail of the original

distribution, that is −1.98 ± 0.02. Moreover the fat tail is much shorter than that one for the real network.

A measure that is interesting to study in a weighted network is the distribution of the weights of the links of a

single token, that is P(wij|j). In Fig.4 we show the distributions of P(wij|j) arising from the normal and the shuffled

text for four very frequent tokens. Even in this case no real differences emerge.

A measure that is always considered to characterise the topology of a network is the clustering coefficient c(k), that

measures the number of nearest neighbours of a vertex with degree k that are interconnected, divided by the maximum

allowed number of such interconnections. In a directed network the classical formula for c(ki) [3], for vertex i with

degree ki, has to be changed in c(ki) ≡

the nearest neighbours of vertex i. In the left panel of Fig.5 we show the measured < c(kout) > for the normal and

the shuffled text. No big differences emerge. In both cases the highest average clustering coefficients are associated

with vertices with small degree and in both the cases we have a double slope power law decay. Nevertheless we have

to mention that, as already noted in [16], when we decrease the size of the bins, the real text data shows a more

structured texture than the smoothed data of the shuffled text. The smoothed curve is a signature of a stochastic

process,while the complexity of language allows for more complicated behaviour, creativity for instance, that is not

stochastic.

To study second order correlations we have to deal with the nearest neighbour average degree knn. In the right

panel of Fig.5 we show the average nearest neighbour out-degree as a function of the out-degree for the normal and

the shuffled text. Even in this case no striking differences emerge, the disassortative feature of the network remains

unchanged in both cases. As for the clustering coefficient, if we decrease the size of the bins, the real text data shows

a more structured texture than the smoothed data of the shuffled text [16]. This sort of behaviour has been found

recently in other information networks [7].

Considering the average number of out and in-links per connection each node has, we finally find a measure that

can distinguish the shuffled text from the real one. We then define for the vertex i the out and in − selectivity as

di

ki(ki−1)[16], with ki> 1, where diis the number of directed links between

eout/in

i

≡sout/in

kout/in

i

i

=

si

2kout/in

i

,

(1)

Page 5

5

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

FIG. 4: Distribution of the weights of the links of a single token P(wij|j) in Moby Dick compared to the distribution obtained

after shuffling the tokens of the novel, preserving the strength of the vertices for the tokens comma, the, whale and he.

the last equality holding for Eulerian networks, so that e ≥ 1. The selectivity is a measure that can capture the

effective distribution of numbers in the weighted adjacency matrix. To understand its meaning we can consider that

the token with biggest out-selectivity in Moby Dick is “Mr”, with eout

followed by the token “dot”. Then, in descending order, we find “Moby”, “didn”, “won”, “instead”, etc... that are

all tokens very selective in the choice of their out-neighbourhood and that form the so called morphologic structures

of the language [27]. Most of the tokens with small out-selectivity are tokens that appear just a few times in the

text (core lexicon[9]), but there are also tokens that appear many times in the text and that are characterised by

small values of the out-selectivity. These are the tokens that connect with a different token each time, that is they

are not selective in the choice of their neighbourhood. For this latter case words like “really”, “strangely”, “grow”,

“real”, “terrible”,etc...have out-selectivity eout= 1. The in-selectivity has the same meaning as the out selectivity,

but probing at the in-neighbourhood. The token with biggest in-selectivity in Moby Dick is “s”, with ein

that is almost preceded by the token “′”. Then we have “ll”, “em”, “Dick”, etc...

In Fig.6 we show the distribution P(eout/in) for the out and the in-selectivity of the vertices compared to the same

distributions obtained for the shuffled text. An important aspect for the vertex selectivity measure is its range. For

the normal text the range for the vertex selectivity is much larger than the one for the shuffled text, and, in the case

of the in-selectivity, this difference is of one order of magnitude. This comes from the fact that in the real text the

tokens are selective in choosing their neighbours and form very specialised local structures. The lack of those local

structures determines the small values for the selectivity in the shuffled text and so the big difference of the selectivity

distributions between the shuffled and the real text. Another important point to notice in Fig.6 is that in the case of

the real text the distribution of the selectivity appears to follow a power law for many decades of the selectivity.

Mr= 63, that is the token “Mr” is always

s = 360.4,

Page 6

6

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

FIG. 5: In the left panel: average clustering coefficient < c(kout) > of Moby Dick compared to the one obtained after shuffling

the tokens of the novel, preserving the strength of the vertices. In the right panel: out-nearest neighbour degree distribution of

Moby Dick compared to the distribution obtained after shuffling the tokens of the novel, preserving the strength of the vertices.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

FIG. 6: The out and in-selectivity distributions of Moby Dick compared to the distributions obtained after shuffling the tokens

of the novel, preserving the strength of the vertices. It is shown that this measure can effectively distinguish the shuffled text

from the real one.

A question one could raise is about the robustness of selectivity, that is if its regularities are present in other

linguistic networks. To answer this question we consider the same analysis on two other novels, “Nineteen Eighty-

four” by George Orwell [24], and “On the road” by Jack Kerouac [12]. In Fig.7 we show the out-selectivity distribution

for the two novels compared to the ones obtained after shuffling the networks, preserving the strength of the vertices.

We find the same behaviour found in Moby Dick. The distributions appear to follow a power law decay with exponent

around −3.6 for many decades of the out-selectivity eout. The range of the out-selectivity for the real texts is much

larger then the one found in the shuffled texts. Moreover in the case of Moby Dick and Nineteen Eighty-four the

out-selectivity distribution is unresolved for large values of the out-selectivity, maybe because of finite size effects. In

the case of On the road (right panel of Fig.7) the distribution tail for large values of out-selectivity is cleaner and is

very well fitted by a power law with exponent −1. It is important to notice that just the 0.001% of the very frequent

tokens of the novel generates this second tail.

We believe that, since the vertex selectivity is related to the morphologic structures of language, its behaviour is

strictly related to the style of the writer. Anyway striking similarities are evident in its global statistical behaviour

in the three novels considered.

Page 7

7

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

FIG. 7: Out-selectivity distributions of Nineteen Eighty-four on the left and On the road on the right compared to the

distributions obtained after shuffling the tokens of the novel, preserving the strength of the vertices.

III.SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION NETWORK

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

FIG. 8: In the left panel the degree distribution for the scientific collaboration network compared to the distribution obtained

after shuffling the tokens of the network, preserving the strength of the vertices. In the right panel the selectivity distribution

of the scientific collaboration network compared to the distribution obtained after the shuffling process.

To test our results and to understand if they are suitable for the study of other types of networks that can be

analysed in a weighted framework, we consider a scientific collaboration network. This kind of network, showing

scale-free properties, has been analysed by a number of authors [4, 22]. We consider the scientific papers published

between the 2000 and 2007 containing the word network or networks in the title. We define the vertices of the

network to be the different authors of the paper and two vertices to be connected if they represent coauthors of the

same paper. The weights of the links are defined as the number of times two authors coauthored. In this case, since

the relation of coauthorship is reflexive, the network is undirected and the weighted adjacency matrix symmetric.

The selectivity for vertex i is then defined as ei≡si

vertices and 26966 undirected links with an average strength < s >≈ 5.67, average degree < k >≈ 4.57 and average

selectivity < e >≈ 1.18.

We then shuffled the vertices of the network and considered the resulting network. Since the strength for a vertex

ki≥ 1. The resulting network, obtained by 5335 papers, has 9503

Page 8

8

represents the number of papers an author wrote, the shuffling operation, as in the previous case, doesn’t alter the

strength distribution of the network. In the left panel of Fig.8 we show the comparison of the degree distributions

between the shuffled and the real network. We don’t have to be alarmed by the fact the scale free behaviour in this

case is not as straight as in the language network, since this is a characteristic of this peculiar network (for instance

see analysis in [4]). The important aspect of the analysis is that it is very difficult to infer which of the networks is

the shuffled one by looking at its degree distribution. It is possible to observe that in the shuffled case the range of

values for the degree is larger. This is implied by the lack of topological correlations of the shuffled system, so that

the vertices tend to link to a larger number of different vertices. Nevertheless this difference is so slight that it is not

possible to consider it as a way of discriminating between the two different networks. In particular, in the case of the

linguistic network, the maximum degree of the real network is larger then the one found in the shuffled network, even

if the average degree is smaller. Then we can say again that the scale free degree distribution is implied by the scale

free strength distribution.

On the right panel of the same figure we show a comparison between the distributions of the selectivity for the two

networks. This time the difference is striking, the normal network displaying a power law distribution with exponent

around -4.5, the shuffled network displaying an ill-defined distribution. In this case large values of the selectivity

characterise authors that have exclusive relations with a few other authors. So, for instance, an author having a

great affinity with another author, that is an author who had written all or almost all his/her papers with the same

coauthor will be characterised by a large value of selectivity. Authors who have published just one paper or who have

published all their papers with different coauthors will be characterised by selectivity equal to 1.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

FIG. 9: In the left panel the average clustering coefficient distribution < c(k) > of the scientific collaboration network compared

to the distribution obtained after shuffling the tokens of the network, preserving the strength of the vertices. In the right panel

the average nearest neighbour degree distribution < knn(k) > of the scientific collaboration network compared to the distribution

obtained after shuffling the tokens of the network, preserving the strength of the vertices.

Interestingly, the clustering coefficient and the nearest neighbour degree distributions for the coauthorship network

show a very different behaviour from their shuffled counterparts. In the left panel of fig.9 we show the comparison

of the average clustering coefficient < c(k) >, averaged for each degree k, for the normal and the shuffled network.

For the normal network we can observe a highly clustered structure, especially for vertices with small degree. This

behaviour is due to the fact that all the papers written by more then two authors form clustered structures. In the

shuffled version of the network those triangular structures completely disintegrate. In the right panel of fig.9 we show

the comparison of the average nearest neighbour degree < knn(k) >, averaged for each degree k, for the normal and

the shuffled network. In the case of the real network, an assortative behaviour is evident for small values of the degree,

after that the behaviour appears to fluctuate around an average. In the case of the shuffled network the assortative

behaviour completely disappears and the vertices don’t show any preference in the way they connect. We conclude

that those measures catch the distinctive trait of the network, but at the same time we have to ask ourselves to which

networks these measures can be applied to.

Page 9

9

IV.A STOCHASTIC MODEL

In this section we want to show that the selectivity measure can detect the local structures of weighted networks.

For this reason we introduce an ad-hoc growing network, whose growth is based on both global (hereafter GPA) and

local preferential attachment (hereafter LPA). We want to reproduce the topological behaviour of the coauthorship

network investigated in the previous section. In fact the LPA [16] enforces the existing network edges, creating

preferential and differential local structures, and enhancing second order correlations.

We start with a network of 50 pairs of connected vertices. Then, at each time step, we introduce a new vertex in

the network and we connect it to an old vertex via GPA, that is with probability Π proportional to the strength of

the old vertices, Π =

?

will connect to vertices i and j chosen via GPA, that is with probability proportional to the product of the strengths

of the two vertices, Π =

?

vertices via LPA, that is with probability proportional to the weight of the old edges, Π =

si

jsj. We then add m = 2 new edges in the network. With probability p one of the new edges

sisj

k,lsksl. With probability 1 − p one of the new edges will connect two already connected

wij

i,jwij.

?

The 50 initial pairs of connected vertices represent 50 pairs of authors writing about a new scientific topic. The

new incoming vertex, connected via GPA, represents a new scientist joining the community and attracted to coauthor

with authors who have already written many papers on the topic. The new edges introduced with probability p via

GPA represent the mixing inside the scientific community, encouraged by the popularity of the authors. The new

edges introduced with probability 1 − p via LPA represent coauthors that carry on writing together. The value of m

is chosen to obtain an average strength of 6. The simulation was run to obtain a network of 10000 vertices and 30000

edges.

In the top panel of Fig.10 we show the analysis of the resulting network for different values of p. In particular we

compare the results for the network obtained with p = 1, that is a total GPA, and the one obtained with p = 0.35, in

which the LPA is the dominant growth process. The scale free degree distribution for the two resulting networks has

the same power law exponent, as shown in the left panel of Fig.10. From the right panel we can see that, while a full

GPA attachment rule produces a distribution for the selectivity similar to the one measured in the shuffled networks

of the previous sections, the mixed GPA and LPA attachment produces a selectivity distribution that fits with the

empirical behavior of Fig.8.

To check if the behaviour of the model is stable for larger networks, we show in the bottom panels of Fig.10 the

same simulation for a network of 105vertices and 106edges. The values considered for p are p = 1 and p = 0.4.

Again we can see from the left panel that the scale-free degree distribution is not altered by the local attachment

processes. In the right panel we can observe that for the network grown by LPA the selectivity distribution follows

approximatively a power law with exponent -5, while for the network grown without LPA the selectivity distribution

is ill defined.

V. CONCLUSIONS

Many real networks in nature are weighted networks. These networks, for instance food webs, ecological networks,

linguistic networks, social and urban networks deserve special attention, as their study will improve our knowledge

of their organisation and allow us to understand the way to act on them. In this paper we have tried to address

the question of the dependence between different properties of weighted networks. The complexity of such large real

systems seldom allows an analytical approach to the problem. This is the reason we applied an algorithmic procedure

that, even if not as strong as the analytical one, is strong enough to yield conclusions, and is reproducible. In the

light of this, we considered the standard measures on networks and, after shuffling the networks conserving each time

a peculiar symmetry of the system, we compared the new measures to understand which properties of the networks

were preserved.

For this study we first considered a linguistic network. The reason for this choice is that a novel is a closed system

that can be analysed in the framework of network theory without ambiguity and from many points of view, such as

time series analysis and information theory analysis. Moreover the availability of data sets in linguistics is huge, data

sets can be as large as desired and we know exactly the formal rules of the composition, that is the syntax. The reason

to choose novels instead of other kinds of literary networks such as journals, dictionaries or other linguistic standards

such as the British National Corpus [10], is because we believe that the process of writing a piece of art is in itself a

trial to make the structure of the text more similar to the surrounding environment. It is probably the reason why

well written novels display cleaner statistical behaviour. Moreover a novel can be considered as a “closed” system in

the sense that it contains all the information to understand it, for instance no references are needed. In this sense we

believe a novel to be the best sample to consider in order to study the properties of language.

Page 10

10

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

FIG. 10: Top panels: in the left panel the degree distributions of the stochastic network for different percentages (1 − p) of

LPA during the growth process. No relevant differences exist between the distributions. In the right panel the selectivity

distributions of the same networks. Significant differences emerge. We find the same slope for the power law found in the

empirical behaviour of Fig.8 for p = 0.35. Bottom panels: the previous simulation for a network of 105vertices and 106links

for different values of p. Again no relevant differences emerge for the degree distribution (left panel), while the selectivity

distribution (right panel) is highly affected by the artificial correlations induced by the LPA.

The affinity of a system like a novel to systems such as food webs, or social systems, as we saw in this paper,

can be surprising, but it has already been considered in philosophy. In fact, many philosophers consider social and

linguistic systems to be characterized by a strict analogy. In both systems, internal elements or identities are linked

by differential relations and can be articulated - that is related - so as to become moments of a specific articulated

totality. This entails that the very process of articulation will modify their previous identity [14].

With this in mind, we algorithmically demonstrated that the scale free degree distribution and the scale free weight

distribution of the analysed weighted networks are implied by the scale free strength distribution and that the reverse

doesn’t hold. We also noticed that in a network such as the linguistic one, that is not highly clustered, the behaviour

of the average clustering coefficient and of the average nearest neighbour distribution doesn’t change in the shuffling

process. It’s not the same in the case of the scientific collaboration network, where the clustering is an important

growth fingerprint. In this case both the high average clustering coefficient and the assortative nearest neighbour

degree behaviour are lost in the shuffling operation. This means that those properties are very important for the

description of some specific networks, but not for all of them.

We then introduced the selectivity measure, defined as the average weight distributed on the links of a single vertex.

We showed that this measure is able to statistically catch the local structures of networks and so to easily distinguish

Page 11

11

a real network from a shuffled network. In the case of language large values for the selectivity indicate tokens that

have an exclusive relation with other tokens and that form morphological structures. In the case of the scientific

collaboration network large values of the selectivity indicate authors that have exclusive relations with a few other

authors. Via an ad-hoc stochastic network we showed that the selectivity of the vertices is very sensitive to the

correlations in the system.

The fact that novels, investigated at the level of tokens, have long range fractal correlations is already well known

[20]. Nevertheless vertex selectivity is not a measure of first order correlations. The normalised weight of the links

between tokens, or at least its deviation from the average weight, should be the best candidate for measuring such

topological correlations. The problem is that the scale-free distribution for the frequency of the tokens implies the

invariance of the scale-free behaviour for the weight distribution so that it is very difficult to determine if the system

is highly correlated or not (see left panel of Fig.3). In this sense vertex selectivity is not related to any of the classical

correlation measures, it’s just a measure that characterises the quality of the differential relations between pairs of

elements in the system. Moreover it is worth mentioning that the measure of the selectivity is not really clean. That is

quite evident from the figures in which, even with a large logarithmic binning, data don’t align very well. In order to

better understand the data and the finite size effects it would be interesting to carry out further research to examine

the data using some of the more recent techniques for finite sample statistics [25].

We would like to stress that if the mean field approach is well defined for the calculation of the degree distribution

in the Barabasi-Albert model, that is an unweighed tree network, then it is not applicable to weighted networks

without considering the correlations naturally arising in the adjacency matrix. The usual approach tends to conflate

the strength and the degree [10] and the analytical results hold for the straight connection between the two measures.

The fact that in the analysed networks the degree distributions for real and shuffled networks are indistinguishable

implies that in our empirical studies the degree distribution is implied by the strength distribution. The strength

distribution represents the number of times an event appears or interacts in the system. This number has been

considered in information theory and analysed via the Shannon entropy [26], the degenerate Shannon entropy [21]

and the Kolmogorov or algorithmic entropy [13]. The entropic approach to language requires one to maximise the

amount of information of a system by minimising opportune quantities, usually via Lagrange multipliers, such as

the receiver effort. It has been demonstrated that this goal can be achieved if the distribution of the number of

elements in the system is a power law [15]. In particular, through the degenerate entropy approach, that considers

all the elements in the system with the same frequency as equivalent, it is possible to reproduce the exponential

cutoff for small values of the strength in the strength distribution, evident in Fig.8 and in many other networks [3].

Nevertheless, since the Shannon entropy is defined through the relative frequency of the elements of the system, this

measure doesn’t account of the peculiar arrangements of the elements, that is if we shuffle the elements of the system,

the resulting Shannon entropy or degenerate Shannon entropy doesn’t change. A more sophisticated approach via

information theory is suggested by the work of scientists dealing with food webs [28]. In fact they define entropy

based on the actual fluxes between trophic species, that is based on the weights of a weighted adjacency matrix. This

type of approach takes into account the differential relations between the different elements of the system. Such an

approach was recently considered in network theory in [29]. Unfortunately, despite promising results, the analytical

development of the approach is difficult.

Acknowledgments

We thank the European Union Marie Curie Program NET-ACE (contract number MEST-CT-2004-006724) for

financial support. We would also like to thank Andrea Mura for many useful suggestions.

[1] S. Abe, N. Suzuki, Small-world structure of earthquake network, Physica A 337, 357 (2004).

[2] L. Antiqueira, M. das Gracas V. Nunes, O. N. Oliveira, L. da F. Costa, Strong correlations between text quality and

complex networks features, Physica A 373, 811 (2007).

[3] A.L. Barabasi, R. Albert, H. Jeong, Mean-field theory for scale-free random networks, Physica A 272, 173 (1999).

[4] A.L. Barabasi, H. Jeong, Z. Neda, et al., Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations, Physica A 311, (2002).

[5] A. Barrat, M. Barthelemy, R. Pastor-Satorras, et al., The architecture of complex weighted networks, Proc. Natl. Acad.

Sci. USA 101, 3747 (2004).

[6] I. Bose, B. Ghosh, R. Karmakar, Motifs in gene transcription regulatory networks, Physica A 346, 49 (2005).

[7] C. Cattuto, C. Schmitz, A. Baldassarri, et al., Network properties of folksonomies, AI Communications 20, 245 (2007).

[8] R.F. i Cancho, R. Sole’, R. V. , The small world of human language, Proceed. of the Royal Society of London Series B

268, 2261 (2001).

Page 12

12

[9] R.F. i Cancho, R.V. Sole’, Two regimes in the frequency of words and the origins of complex lexicons: Zipf’s Law Revisited,

Journ. of Quant. Ling. 8, 165 (2001).

[10] S.N. Dorogovtsev, J.F.F. Mendes, Evolution of networks, Advances in Physics 51, 1079 (2002).

[11] B. Efron, R.J. Tibshirani, An Introduction to the Bootstrap, Chapman and Hall, New York (1993).

[12] J. Kerouac, On the road, Penguin Classics (2002).

[13] A.N. Kolmogorov, Combinatorial foundations of information-theory and the calculus of probabilities, Russian Math.

Surveys 38, 29 (1983).

[14] E. Laclau, C. Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, (London and New York, Verso 1985).

[15] B. Mandelbrot, Information theory and psycholinguistics: a theory of word frequencies, Reading in Math. Soc. Sciences,

The M.I.T. Press, 350 (1966).

[16] A.P. Masucci, G.J. Rodgers, Network properties of written human language, Phys.Rev.E 74, 026102 (2006).

[17] A.P. Masucci, G.J. Rodgers, Multi-directed Eulerian growing networks, Physica A 386, 557 (2007).

[18] A.P. Masucci, G.J. Rodgers, The network of commuters in London, accepted for publication by Physica A, preprint at

http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.1960 (2007).

[19] H. Melville, Moby Dick: or, the whale, (Penguin Popular Classics, 1994).

[20] M.A. Montemurro, P.A. Pury, Long-range fractal correlations in literary corpora, Fractals 10, 451 (2002).

[21] S. Naranan, V.K. Balasubrahmanyan, Information theoretic models in statistical linguistics 1. A model for word frequencies,

Current Science 63, 261 (1992).

[22] M.E.J. Newman, The structure of scientific collaboration networks, Proceed. of the Nat. Acad. of Scien. of the Un. St. of

Am. 98, 404 (2001).

[23] M.E.J Newman, Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipfs law, Contemporary Physics 46, 323 (2005).

[24] G. Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-four, Penguin Books Ltd Paperback, (1990).

[25] T. P¨ oschel, W. Ebeling, C. Fr¨ ommel, R. Ram´ yrez, Correction algorithm for finite sample statistics, Eur. Phys. J. E 12,

531 (2003).

[26] C. Shannon, W. Weaver, A mathematical theory of communication, (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1949).

[27] A. Spencer, Morphological theory: an introduction to word structure in generative grammar, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991).

[28] R.E. Ulanowicz, W.F. Wolff, Ecosystem flow networks - loaded dice, Math. Biosci. 103, 45 (1991).

[29] T. Wilhelm, J. Hollunder, Information theoretic description of networks, Physica A 385, 385 (2007).

[30] G.K. Zipf, Human behaviour and the principle of least effort, (Addison-Wesley Press, 1949).

[31] A collectionof papers dedicated tonetwork theory

http://www.lsi.upc.edu∼rferrericancho/linguistic and cognitive networks.html .

[32] Web of Science, http://portal.isiknowledge.com/ .

applied tohumanlanguagecan be foundat

Page 13

arXiv:0802.2798v2 [physics.data-an] 27 Jun 2008

Differences between normal and shuffled texts: structural properties of weighted

networks

A. P. Masucci and G. J. Rodgers

Department of Mathematical Sciences, Brunel University,

Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH, United Kingdom

(Dated: June 27, 2008)

In this paper we deal with the structural properties of weighted networks. Starting from an

empirical analysis of a linguistic network, we analyse the differences between the statistical properties

of a real and a shuffled network and we show that the scale free degree distribution and the scale free

weight distribution are induced by the scale free strength distribution, that is Zipf’s law. We test

the result on a scientific collaboration network, that is a social network, and we define a measure,

the vertex selectivity, that can easily distinguish a real network from a shuffled network. We prove,

via an ad-hoc stochastic growing network with second order correlations, that this measure can

effectively capture the correlations within the topology of the network.

PACS numbers: 89.75.-k, 89.20.Hh, 05.65.+b

I.INTRODUCTION.

Following the seminal work of Barabasi et al.[3], the scientific community has put a great effort into the study of

network theory. A network is a collection of vertices connected by edges. Often vertices represent natural elements or

events and the edges relations by which those elements or events are connected. As it is a simple framework, network

theory can be applied to a wide variety of natural phenomena, including social sciences[16], biology, genetics[6],

geology[1] and linguistic[8, 25]. The extraordinary similarities that such different phenomena display when represented

by network theory present the opportunity of finding common principles for the organisation of many elements in

nature.

We begin this work with the empirical study of a linguistic network built from the novel of Herman Melville,

MobyDick[17]. This is a multi-directed Eulerian network[15], based on the relation of adjacency, where the tokens

of the novel, words and punctuation, are the vertices, and two vertices are linked if the tokens they represent are

adjacent in the text. We then analyse a scientific collaboration network, that is a network in which vertices are the

authors of scientific published papers related to network theory[26], and two vertices are connected if the authors they

represent coauthored the same paper.

These networks are suitable for analysis as weighted network [5], that is they are networks in which pairs of vertices

represent events that are related more than once in the phenomenon. This multiple relation can be expressed by a

weight on their mutual link, the weight representing the number of times the relation is repeated. To completely

describe the network, we introduce the weighted adjacency matrix W = {wij}, that is a matrix whose elements

wij represent the number of links connecting vertex i to vertex j. In the case of an undirected network, such as

the scientific collaboration network, this matrix is symmetric, and there is no difference between out and in vertices

properties. In the case of a directed network, such as the language network, the matrix is not symmetric, and the out

and in vertices properties are generally different. We define the out-degree and in-degree kout/in

number of its out and in nearest neighbours and we have kout/in

function. We define the out-strength and the in-strength sout/in

incoming links, that is sout/in

i

≡?

To understand the properties of complex system, it is common to consider random systems as a null hypothesis.

We apply this concept to our networks by considering the classical measures (weight, strength, degree, clustering

coefficient, nearest neighbours degree) applied to the real networks, and then again after shuffling the vertices of the

network. In the case of the linguistic network the strength of a vertex is equivalent to the frequency of the token the

vertex represents. The shuffling operation, in this case, consists of shuffling the tokens of the novel. This operation

doesn’t alter the frequency of the tokens and so the strength distribution remains unchanged. In particular, if we call

f(s), the frequency of a token with strength s and r the rank of a word in the definition given by Zipf[24], we have

that r =?sMax

s=1f(s), that is a direct relation between the rank and the strength of a token. Hence, as is already well

known, the shuffling operation doesn’t alter Zipf’s law. In the same way, in the case of the scientific collaboration

network, the strength of a vertex represents the number of papers an author published. The shuffling operation

preserves this number and hence the strength distribution remains unchanged.

In this paper we will show that, in both our networks, the degree distribution is not altered by the shuffling process,

i

of vertex i as the

i

≡?

jΘ(wij/ji−1

of the vertex i as the number of its outgoing and

2), where Θ(x) is the Heaviside

i

jwij/ji.

Page 14

2

and seems to be determined by the strength distribution. We then introduce a new measure, the vertex selectivity,

that reflects the correlations of the networks and is greatly changed in the shuffling process. We test this measure

with an ad-hoc stochastic network characterised by short range correlations.

II.MOBY DICK ANALYSIS

Moby Dick is a text that is large enough to be suitable for a statistical analysis and, since it is considered by the

critics and by the people a very well written text, we are confident that the statistical empirical laws arising from

it are characteristic of laws of language[2]. After shuffling the tokens of the novel, we will compare some empirical

measures between the shuffled and the original text.

Moby Dick has a vocabulary V of 17169 tokens, with a total size N of 264978 tokens. Since the network is

Eulerian[15] we have that sout

i

= sin

i

=

out-degree is < kout>≈ 6.54.

si

2, for every vertex i. The average strength is < s >≈ 30.87, the average

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

FIG. 1: Top panels: the out and in-degree distributions of Moby Dick compared to the distributions obtained after shuffling

the tokens of the novel, preserving the strength of the vertices. The result implies that the scale free degree distribution is

determined by the scale free strength distribution. Bottom panels: the out and in-strength distributions of Moby Dick compared

to the distributions obtained after shuffling the links between the tokens of the novel, preserving the degree of the vertices. The

result implies that the scale free strength distribution is not determined by the scale free degree distribution.

From the top of Fig.1 we can see that the distribution of the degree of the vertices is not significantly altered in

the shuffling process. This result implies that the scale free degree distribution is induced by the scale free strength

distribution. In fact the shuffling operation redistributes the numbers that occupy the rows of the weighted adjacency

Page 15

3

?

?

?

?

???

?

??

?

FIG. 2: Left panel: the weight distribution of Moby Dick compared to the distribution obtained after shuffling the tokens of

the novel, preserving the strength of the vertices. The result suggests that the scale free weight distribution is determined by

the scale free strength distribution. Right panel: comparison between the out-strength distributions obtained from the real

network and from the network obtained by shuffling the adjacency matrix preserving the weight distribution of the network.

The result implies that the scale free strength distribution is not determined by the scale free weight distribution.

matrix in an uncorrelated way. This operation preserves the strength of the vertices, but changes their degree.

However, as we can see, the average degree distribution is statistically preserved. This is an important result in

network theory. In fact the distribution of the degree of a vertex, that is the distribution for the number of its

nearest neighbours, is supposed to give a great deal of information about the system. In this case we can see that this

measure cannot distinguish between a masterpiece and a meaningless collection of words. To prove that the reverse

doesn’t hold, that is the scale free degree distribution doesn’t induce a scale free strength distribution, we shuffle the

network preserving the degree of the vertices. This operation consists in randomly redistributing the weights of the

links between all the existing links. In reality it would consist in rewriting Moby Dick with the same vocabulary,

the same total number of tokens, but changing the relative frequency of the tokens. We show the resulting strength

distribution in the bottom of Fig.1 compared to the one obtained from the real network. It is evident that the

distributions obtained with the shuffling operation are peaked and well distinguishable from the ones obtained from

the real network.

The weight distribution P(wij) for linguistic networks, such as for other scale free weighted networks, is a power

law. From the left panel of Fig.2 we can see that if we shuffle the text the resulting weight distribution doesn’t vary

significantly. The only difference that can be appreciated between the distributions of Fig.2 is in their tails. In fact

the range of values for the weight in the normal text is larger than that in the shuffled text. If we shuffled the entries

of the adjacency matrix without preserving the strength of the vertices, the weight distribution would dramatically

change in a uniform distribution. Again we can argue that the power law distribution for the weight of the vertices is

induced by the scale free strength distribution. To prove that the strength distribution is not implied by the weight

distribution we shuffle the network preserving its weight distribution. This is done by randomly shuffling the cells

of the adjacency matrix, preserving the weights of the shuffled cells. In the right panel of Fig.2 we show the results

of this experiment. For the shuffled network the resulting strength distribution is peaked. Nevertheless it displays a

power law behaviour for many decades, but with a slope much steeper than that of the real network. Moreover the

fat tail is much shorter then that one of the real network.

A measure that is interesting to study in a weighted network is the distribution of the weights of the links of a

single token, that is P(wij|j). In Fig.3 we show the distributions of P(wij|j) arising from the normal and the shuffled

text for four very frequent tokens. Even in this case no surprising differences emerge.

A measure that is always considered to characterise the topology of a network is the clustering coefficient c(k),

that measures the number of nearest neighbours of a vertex with degree k that are interconnected, divided by the

maximum allowed number of such interconnections. In a directed network the classical formula for c(ki)[3], for vertex

i with degree ki, has to be changed in c(ki) =

neighbours of the vertex i that are connected. In the left panel of Fig.4 we show the measured < c(kout) > for the

normal and the shuffled text. No big differences emerge. In both cases the highest average clustering coefficients are

associated with vertices with small degree and in both the cases we have a double slope power law decay. Nevertheless

di

ki(ki−1)[14], with ki> 1, where di is the number of pairs of nearest