2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2008.10.024
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dynamics-driven evolution to structural heterogeneity in complex networks

Abstract: The mutual influence of dynamics and structure is a central issue in complex systems. In this paper we study by simulation slow evolution of network under the feedback of a local-majority-rule opinion process. If performance-enhancing local mutations have higher chances of getting integrated into its structure, the system can evolve into a highly heterogeneous small-world with a global hub (whose connectivity is proportional to the network size), strong local connection correlations and power law-like degree d… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
7
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…A deeper understanding of this mutual relation between structure and dynamics can be achieved either by studying empirical systems directly, in a biological context for instance physiological networks [7], food webs [8], or protein interaction networks [9], or by modeling of network evolution towards a desired dynamical performance and in this way gain new insight into many empirical networks. Concerning the latter, the evolution of dynamical networks was previously applied in the contexts of modularity in changing environments [10], Boolean (threshold) dynamics [11][12][13][14][15][16], and synchronization of oscillatory systems [17][18][19][20][21]. It is known that the dynamical behavior is closely related to the network's spectral properties [22], which was exploited in studies in which the Laplacian eigenratio [23] was maximized by network evolution [17][18][19][20].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A deeper understanding of this mutual relation between structure and dynamics can be achieved either by studying empirical systems directly, in a biological context for instance physiological networks [7], food webs [8], or protein interaction networks [9], or by modeling of network evolution towards a desired dynamical performance and in this way gain new insight into many empirical networks. Concerning the latter, the evolution of dynamical networks was previously applied in the contexts of modularity in changing environments [10], Boolean (threshold) dynamics [11][12][13][14][15][16], and synchronization of oscillatory systems [17][18][19][20][21]. It is known that the dynamical behavior is closely related to the network's spectral properties [22], which was exploited in studies in which the Laplacian eigenratio [23] was maximized by network evolution [17][18][19][20].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…here ∂i means the vertices which are connected with vertex i directly. As described in [18], we start a LMR dynamical process from a strongly disordered configuration σ(0) ≡ {σ 1 (0), σ 2 (0), . .…”
Section: A Local-majority-rule Dynamicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Obviously, this compositional difference indicates an apparent optimization achieved by evaluation-driven evolution. Thus, if we take the dynamics-driven evolution as particles jumping among a series of structural heterogeneity levels, it could be easily derived from above analysis that the optimal structure could be approached only when the timescale of mutations is much longer than that of dynamical processes [18].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The emerging global effects of protocols based on local interactions are studied in the distributed algorithms field. For instance, the interplay between the election/consensus problems and the protocols based on majority rules has been extensively studied in several works such as [22] [26], [33], [6], [32] and [16]. In fact, social behaviors often provide useful insights in determining the way problems are solved in computer science.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%