ArticlePDF Available

Starants: A New Model for Human Networks

Authors:
  • IICSE University

Abstract

In this paper, we will explain the relevance of the starant graphs, graphs created by us in the year of 2002. They were basically circulant graphs with a star graph that connects to all the vertices of the circulant graphs from inside of them, but they did not exist as a separate object of study in the year of 2002, as for all we knew. We now know that they can be used to model even social networking interactions, and they do that job better than any other graph we could be trying to use there. With the development of our mathematical tools, lots of conclusions will be made much more believable and therefore will become much more likely to get support from the relevant industries when attached to new queries.
Applied Mathematics, 2016, 7, 267-271
Published Online February 2016 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/am
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/am.2016.73024
How to cite this paper: Pinheiro, M. (2016) Starants: A New Model for Human Networks. Applied Mathematics, 7, 267-271.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/am.2016.73024
Starants: A New Model for Human Networks
Marcia Pinheiro
IICSE University, Wilmington, DE, USA
Received 12 January 2016; accepted 26 February 2016; published 29 February 2016
Copyright © 2016 by author and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract
In this paper, we will explain the relevance of the starant graphs, graphs created by us in the year
of 2002. They were basically circulant graphs with a star graph that connects to all the vertices of
the circulant graphs from inside of them, but they did not exist as a separate object of study in the
year of 2002, as for all we knew. We now know that they can be used to model even social net-
working interactions, and they do that job better than any other graph we could be trying to use
there. With the development of our mathematical tools, lots of conclusions will be made much
more believable and therefore will become much more likely to get support from the relevant in-
dustries when attached to new queries.
Keywords
Circulant, Starant, Star, Graph, Network, Human, Modelling, Modelling, Comellas, Watts
1. Introduction
A Basic Circulant Graph is a polygon or a piece of line with numbered vertices, and maybe some missing edges,
so that
1
2
3
5
4
is a Circulant Graph [1]. This is C5,2.
Our source, [1], does not seem to state that we must have numbered vertices, but, if we do not number them,
M. Pinheiro
we have a polygon and there is no reason to call it Circulant. For us to have a Circulant, some sense of permuta-
tion must be passed. We then need at least the numbers there, we reckon.
A Star Graph is [2] a tree with a central node that has degree (n 1) and (n 1) nodes that have degree 1. The
graph below is called S10.
4
3
2
10
9
8
7
6
5
1
A Starant Graph is a Circulant Graph of the type polygon with a star in the middle, so that
4
3
2
10
9
8
7
6
5
1
is a Starant Graph. This is SC10,2 [3] because it has 10 nodes and 2 degrees on the circulant graph. Since a person
we choose, say x, is always going to know their acquaintances, and the vertex that appears on its own in the cen-
tre of the graph would be representing this person, x, we know that the central vertex will connect to each one of
the vertices of the circulant, like invariably, so that we don’t need any notation for the links between the centre
and the vertices that form the circulant.
2. Development
Deterministic Small-world Communication Networks is an expression that was introduced in the scientific lit-
erature by Comellas et al. [4] as a consequence of Comellas et al. being a precursor group in terms of dealing
with static pictures of selected possibilities of configuration of the communication networks. Before they do that,
communication networks were seen under the light of Statistics.
As a result of playing with their results and extending them, we suggested two little refinements in their the-
ory (what they had up to 2002), and those refinements are found in [5].
One of those refinements was the limitation of the variable δ, which represented degrees in their work. Basi-
cally, we found a counter-example to their theory (C9,8 with nodes 1 and 2, for instance, and C9,6 with nodes 1
and 4) and we then had to impose a limitation on the degrees (δ ≤ 2n/3).
We also did not like the name small worlds for circulant graphs of more than 64 vertices. We don’t think that
Milgram [6] associated the term with a network that could be perfectly described by a circulant of 296 vertices,
but that he used the term to describe 64 subnetworks formed from that initial network of 297 vertices. We also
think that these 64 subnetworks had very few vertices, something like less than ten (5.2 plus 2).
Notwithstanding, the initial assumption was actually that each vertex would connect exclusively to Milgram,
never to any other vertex. The assumption was then that it was a Star Graph, not a Circulant Graph. The cluster-
ing would also be really low in this case, not high. We are here talking about the departure point.
M. Pinheiro
Before the experiment begins, that is the picture. After it runs, we understand that at least 64 people connected
to the others, and it is assumed that these people they connected to were unknown to them initially, in a quick
way. That is 64 people out of 296, and, even so, they do not necessarily connect through someone in the initial
Star Graph. That basically means that, from starters, a small world network should be something of at most 64
vertices.
Because we understand that the intentions of Comellas et al. were to mathematicise the Small World Theory,
which initially belonged to Milgram, and therefore to Psychology, and we totally embrace this aim, our defini-
tions should be exclusively mathematical.
If they are mathematical definitions, we should have a rigid limit for both the number of vertices and the
amount of clustering.
Small World Networks should be networks of at most 64 nodes or should be defined in terms of ratio (64 to
296) and subnetworks, so that we respect the work of Milgram (1969).
The definitions we see online ([7], for instance) seem to be to the side of the proportion.
Comellas et al. define them as being something introduced by Watts and Strogatz [7]. We do observe that
Milgram perhaps talked about Small World Phenomenon and Watts and Strogatz could then have talked about
something different, Small World Networks.
There could be a psychological meaning to the term and it all could just imply a small group of people in our
so large race, for instance.
Comellas et al. mentions the network of actors and disease spread [7]. Disease spread is a very broad topic.
We could have disease spread that happens in communities that do not practice sexual disloyalty or in commu-
nities that are completely faithful to their official partners: Whilst a flu could pass quickly from one member to
another, a sexual disease could die on the couple that brought it from travelling somewhere and sleeping where
it was dirty. In this case, we have an isolated point, which is the couple, in a society that is likely to be formed of
isolated points, which are each one of the couples, if nobody can catch the disease from anything else apart from
fabric that has been in the sexual parts of another that has the disease. Clustering is really low and the number of
vertices might be anything. If we talk about flu, however, everyone connects to everyone else, more than likely,
so that we are now talking about a complete Starant Graph, more than likely.
If Watts and Strogratz had, as Comellas et al. seem to be suggesting, referred to both disease spread and net-
work of actors as Small World Networks, then we would not know what to do from any of the two possible se-
lected perspectives, it seems.
If Watts and Strogatz had, however, done the same as Milgram and worried about how two randomly chosen
actors connect in terms of working together or how one disease goes from subject X to subject Y, both men-
tioned by the name, then we would know that his small world networks coincided with those of Milgram. In this
case, they did not introduce the small world networks to us, Milgram did. We do believe that Watts and Strogatz
did the same as Milgram.
Upon reading the work of Watts and Strogatz [7], we felt like applying all to disease spread.
Their model did not seem to be good enough to describe human networks in the case of disease spread be-
cause circulant graphs usually did not have a central or main node, but we felt that diseases were spread from
one individual to everyone else that formed their acquaintanceship or contact circle, so that each individual who
is classified as a vector would have to be the main or central point in the social network where we study the
spread.
To translate this idea into a graph, we needed to create our Starant Graph. This happened in [5] (work done in
2002).
We now could call the center Asha instead of 1 and each one of the vertices the name of a person Asha would
have contact with during her day instead of 2, , 10.
Advantages of this model over the previous model when it comes to describing human networks for the pur-
poses of analysing disease spread:
1) There are no doubts that all that matters in disease spread is isolating the vectors, so that they are the main
concern. The dot in the middle will then always, invariably, represent the vector of the disease. Because this al-
ways happens in disease spread, we’d better make our graphs be permanently like that.
2) The vector will always connect to all those they have contact with for the purposes of disease spread in a
direct way, so that there is always at least and at most one edge between them and the star does the job of show-
ing that graphically, so that the star will also always appear in the description of the network cell in the case of
M. Pinheiro
disease spread.
3) It is possible that the vertices, taking away the root, do not connect to each other, since it is possible that
Asha sees Peter every day, say Peter is her husband and lives with her, and etc., but Peter never sees Paul, who
is her boss. In fact, it is possible that he has never met him. In this case, the edges that connect the Circulant
Graph could be missing. We now have a Star Graph or an SC5,0:
Alex
Peter
Paul
Marcel
Asha
Jack
It is possible, however, that each person Asha meets during her day connects to all the others, so that the
graph describing her disease spread network could look like the graph below. This is an SC5,4.
Alex
Marcel
Peter
Paul
Asha
Jack
With the previous model, we would have to say that we had a Star Graph and a Complete Circulant Graph and
our symbols would then be S5 and C5,4. We would then have to say that we have a C5,4 together with S5, so that
we cannot even refer to the object properly. Our name and symbols save us time and make things much clearer.
4) Calculations will also be made much easier with our model, since we now will not have to analyse case by
case: We can have previously calculated results for each type of Starant. That can save us a lot of time and space
in the disk.
5) When we amplify the model and think about the acquaintances of Paul, for instance, we can clearly iden-
tify a repetition of patterns, but, in the past, because there was no special place for the vector, we could have to
start from scratch, new calculations, different reasoning, so that our model simplifies the calculations also in the
case of networks of networks, what has to save enormous amount of time and disk space.
6) It falls perfectly well inside of the idea of Milgram, Travers, Watts, and Strogatz: short characteristic path
length and high clustering. With this, it is also a more adequate representation of the idea of them all, small
worlds.
3. Conclusions
We conclude that the Starant Graph, a mix between a Criculant Graph and a Star Graph, is the best cell model
for a human network in the case of the study of disease spread: it describes the network better, saves us time, is
closer to the vision of the previous researchers in terms of the concept of Small World than the Circulant Graph
is, and allows us to finally have adequate notation, suitable to scientific writing, when working with disease
spread.
The symbols used to describe such a graph seem to be the best.
The work done by us should not have any intersection with the work done by Comellas et al. due to the objec-
tives and models involved.
Small World Networks should be networks of at most 64 nodes or should be defined in terms of ratio (64 to
296) and subnetworks, so that we respect the work of Milgram (1969).
The definitions we see online ([8], for instance) seem to be to the side of the proportion.
Small World Networks were introduced by Milgram in 1969 [6], not by Watts and Strogratz [7].
M. Pinheiro
References
[1] Weisstein, E.W. (2015) Circulant Graph. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CirculantGraph.html
[2] Weisstein, E.W. (2015) Star Graph. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StarGraph.html
[3] Pinheiro, M.R. (2012) Starants II. Asian Journal of Current Engineering, 1, 259-265.
[4] Comellas, F., Peters, J.G. and Ozon, J. (2000) Deterministic Small-World Communication Networks. Information
Processing Letters, 76, 83-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0190(00)00118-6
[5] Pinheiro, M.R. (2007) Medium World Theories I. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 188, 1061-1070.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2006.05.213
[6] Milgram, S. and Travers, J. (1969) An Experimental Study of the Small World Problem. Sociometry, 32, 425-443.
[7] Strogatz, S.H. and Watts, D.J. (1998) Collective Dynamics of Small World Networks. Nature, 393, 440-442.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/30918
[8] Telesford, Q.K., Joyce, K.E., Hayasaka, S., Burdette, J.H. and Laurienti, P.J. (2011) The Ubiquity of Small-World
Networks. Brain Connect, 1, 367-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/brain.2011.0038
... Hubs are sets of Starant Graphs (Pinheiro, 2012) because the criminals gather around a command point, a core. The lowest graph presented by Broadhurst et al (2014) makes us have doubts, and it is like that particular graph is not a Starant Graph: ...
... In this case, hubs are not yet sets of starant graphs: The nodes that are not the central node have a degree that varies from one to three and the central node does not yet have degree n (Pinheiro, 2012). If the idea of hierarchy, rather than source or core, is essential to explain the system, we can always put the middle node a bit higher in height, so that a bit of geometric manipulation of the graphical display attained in this way should give us optimal results. ...
Article
Full-text available
In this note, we introduce some concepts from Graph Theory in the description of the geometry of cybercriminal groups, and we use the work of Broadhurst et al, a piece from 2014, as a foundation of reasoning. We are also worried about suggesting or even creating, if necessary, mathematical jargon, so that also mathematicians, and those who have similar thinking processes, can connect to Broadhurst et al's work, and create even more ways to deal with cybercrime data. This is a light note, with the sole intent of suggesting ways to go to Broadhurst et al, so that there is even more intersection between their work and ours. What happens with the creation of bridges between Cyber Crime and Mathematics is that we can speak more objectively about things, and, through Mathematics, perhaps optimize the efforts of the computer scientists, or even of the systems analysts, who try to create perfect tools for those who work in such a niche.
Article
Full-text available
Small-world networks, according to Watts and Strogatz, are a class of networks that are "highly clustered, like regular lattices, yet have small characteristic path lengths, like random graphs." These characteristics result in networks with unique properties of regional specialization with efficient information transfer. Social networks are intuitive examples of this organization, in which cliques or clusters of friends being interconnected but each person is really only five or six people away from anyone else. Although this qualitative definition has prevailed in network science theory, in application, the standard quantitative application is to compare path length (a surrogate measure of distributed processing) and clustering (a surrogate measure of regional specialization) to an equivalent random network. It is demonstrated here that comparing network clustering to that of a random network can result in aberrant findings and that networks once thought to exhibit small-world properties may not. We propose a new small-world metric, ω (omega), which compares network clustering to an equivalent lattice network and path length to a random network, as Watts and Strogatz originally described. Example networks are presented that would be interpreted as small-world when clustering is compared to a random network but are not small-world according to ω. These findings have important implications in network science because small-world networks have unique topological properties, and it is critical to accurately distinguish them from networks without simultaneous high clustering and short path length.
Article
Full-text available
Refining the results from the work of Comellas et al. regarding deterministic small-world networks, and intending to apply results deduced from theirs into traffic networks, we introduce new constraints, extend their work to networks of circulants, criticize the choice of the name ‘small worlds’ for large circulants, with a number greater than 64 for their vertices and, as a side result, we introduce a new form of graph: starants as a replacement of the circulants for the case of disease spread and social networks. In order to reach our goals we make use of standard combinatorial tools, graph analysis, and general algebraic procedures.
Article
Many real life networks, including the World Wide Web, electric power grids, and social networks, are small-world networks. The two distinguishing characteristics of small-world networks are strong local clustering (nodes have many mutual neighbors), and small average distance between two nodes. Small-world networks are promising candidates for communication networks since typical data-flow patterns in communication networks show a large amount of clustering with a small number of “long-distance” communications that need to be completed quickly.Most previous research on small-world networks has used simulations, probabilistic techniques, and random replacements of edges to study the limiting behaviour of these networks. In this paper, we initiate the study of small-world networks as communication networks using graph-theoretic methods to obtain exact results. We construct networks with strong local clustering and small diameter (instead of average distance). Our networks have the additional property that they are regular.
Article
Arbitrarily selected individuals (N=296) in Nebraska and Boston are asked to generate acquaintance chains to a target person in Massachusetts, employing "the small world method" (Milgram, 1967). Sixty-four chains reach, the target person. Within this group the mean number of intermediaries between starters and targets is 5.2. Boston starting chains reach the target person with fewer intermediaries than those starting in Nebraska; subpopulations in the Nebraska group do not differ among themselves. The funneling of chains through sociometric "stars" is noted, with 48 per cent of the chains passing through three persons before reaching the target. Applications of the method to studies of large scale social structure are discussed.
Article
Networks of coupled dynamical systems have been used to model biological oscillators, Josephson junction arrays, excitable media, neural networks, spatial games, genetic control networks and many other self-organizing systems. Ordinarily, the connection topology is assumed to be either completely regular or completely random. But many biological, technological and social networks lie somewhere between these two extremes. Here we explore simple models of networks that can be tuned through this middle ground: regular networks 'rewired' to introduce increasing amounts of disorder. We find that these systems can be highly clustered, like regular lattices, yet have small characteristic path lengths, like random graphs. We call them 'small-world' networks, by analogy with the small-world phenomenon (popularly known as six degrees of separation. The neural network of the worm Caenorhabditis elegans, the power grid of the western United States, and the collaboration graph of film actors are shown to be small-world networks. Models of dynamical systems with small-world coupling display enhanced signal-propagation speed, computational power, and synchronizability. In particular, infectious diseases spread more easily in small-world networks than in regular lattices.
  • M R Pinheiro
Pinheiro, M.R. (2012) Starants II. Asian Journal of Current Engineering, 1, 259-265.
Deterministic Small-World Communication Networks
  • F Comellas
  • J G Peters
  • J Ozon
Comellas, F., Peters, J.G. and Ozon, J. (2000) Deterministic Small-World Communication Networks. Information Processing Letters, 76, 83-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0190(00)00118-6