Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:17:15.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dynamical fitness models: evidence of universality classes for preferential attachment graphs

Part of: Distribution theory - Probability Graph theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2022

Alessandra Cipriani Open the ORCID record for Alessandra Cipriani [Opens in a new window]  and
Andrea Fontanari
Alessandra Cipriani*
Affiliation:
TU Delft
Andrea Fontanari*
Affiliation:
CWI, TU Delft
*
*Postal address: TU Delft (DIAM), Building 28, van Mourik Broekmanweg 6, 2628 XE, Delft, The Netherlands.
*Postal address: TU Delft (DIAM), Building 28, van Mourik Broekmanweg 6, 2628 XE, Delft, The Netherlands.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we define a family of preferential attachment models for random graphs with fitness in the following way: independently for each node, at each time step a random fitness is drawn according to the position of a moving average process with positive increments. We will define two regimes in which our graph reproduces some features of two well-known preferential attachment models: the Bianconi–Barabási and Barabási–Albert models. We will discuss a few conjectures on these models, including the convergence of the degree sequence and the appearance of Bose–Einstein condensation in the network when the drift of the fitness process has order comparable to the graph size.

Keywords

Preferential attachment with fitnessBarabási–Albert modelBianconi–Barabási modelmajorizationorderingsBose–Einstein condensation

MSC classification

Primary: 05C80: Random graphs
Secondary: 60E15: Inequalities; stochastic orderings
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Applied Probability , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , September 2022 , pp. 609 - 630
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Applied Probability Trust

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnold, B. C. (2007). Majorization: Here, there and everywhere. Statist. Sci. 22, 407–413.10.1214/0883423060000000097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aspembitova, A., Feng, L., Melnikov, V. and Chew, L. Y. (2019). Fitness preferential attachment as a driving mechanism in bitcoin transaction network. PLoS One 14, 1–20.10.1371/journal.pone.0219346CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Athreya, K. B. and Karlin, S. (1968). Embedding of urn schemes into continuous time Markov branching processes and related limit theorems. Ann. Math. Statist. 39, 1801–1817.10.1214/aoms/1177698013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabási, A.-L. and Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286, 509–512.10.1126/science.286.5439.509CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barabási, A.-L. et al. (2016). Network Science. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bhamidi, S. (2007). Universal techniques to analyze preferential attachment trees: global and local analysis. Preprint available at https://www.academia.edu/2847304/Universal_techniques_to_analyze_preferential_ attachment_trees_Global_and_local_analysis.Google Scholar
Bianconi, G. and Barabási, A.-L. (2001). Competition and multiscaling in evolving networks. Europhys. Lett. 54, 436–442.10.1209/epl/i2001-00260-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgs, C., Chayes, J., Daskalakis, C. and Roch, S. (2007). First to market is not everything: an analysis of preferential attachment with fitness. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 135–144. ACM.10.1145/1250790.1250812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cirillo, P. (2013). Are your data really Pareto distributed? Physica A 392, 5947–5962.10.1016/j.physa.2013.07.061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dereich, S. (2016). Preferential attachment with fitness: unfolding the condensate. Electron. J. Prob. 21, 1–38.10.1214/16-EJP3801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dereich, S. and Ortgiese, M. (2014). Robust analysis of preferential attachment models with fitness. Combinatorics Prob. Comput. 23, 386–411.10.1017/S0963548314000157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dereich, S., Mailler, C. and Mörters, P. (2017). Nonextensive condensation in reinforced branching processes. Ann. Appl. Prob. 27, 2539–2568.10.1214/16-AAP1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embrechts, P., Klüppelberg, C. and Mikosch, T. (2013). Modelling Extremal Events: For Insurance and Finance (Stochastic Modelling and Applied Probability 33). Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Freeman, N. and Jordan, J. (2018). Extensive condensation in a model of preferential attachment with fitnesses. Available at arXiv:1812.06946.Google Scholar
Garavaglia, A. (2019). Preferential attachment models for dynamic networks. Doctoral thesis, TU Eindhoven. Available at https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/115157348/20190129_Garavaglia1.pdf.Google Scholar
Garavaglia, A., van der Hofstad, R. and Woeginger, G. (2017). The dynamics of power laws: fitness and aging in preferential attachment trees. J. Statist. Phys. 168, 1137–1179.10.1007/s10955-017-1841-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, G., Littlewood, J. and Pólya, G. (1929). Some simple inequalities satisfied by convex functions. Messenger Math. 58, 145–152.Google Scholar
Hardy, G., Littlewood, J. and Pólya, G. (1952). Inequalities (Cambridge Mathematical Library). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haslegrave, J. and Jordan, J. (2016). Preferential attachment with choice. Random Structures Algorithms 48, 751–766.10.1002/rsa.20616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslegrave, J., Jordan, J. and Yarrow, M. (2020). Condensation in preferential attachment models with location-based choice. Random Structures Algorithms 56, 775–795.10.1002/rsa.20889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janson, S. (2004). Functional limit theorems for multitype branching processes and generalized Pólya urns. Stoch. Process. Appl. 110, 177–245.10.1016/j.spa.2003.12.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mailler, C., Mörters, P. and Senkevich, A. (2021). Competing growth processes with random growth rates and random birth times. Stoch. Process. Appl. 135, 183–226.10.1016/j.spa.2021.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, A. W., Olkin, I. and Arnold, B. C. (1979). Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and its Applications (Mathematics in Science and Engineering 143). Springer.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1955). On a class of skew distribution functions. Biometrika 42, 425–440.10.1093/biomet/42.3-4.425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Hofstad, R. (2016). Random Graphs and Complex Networks, vol. 1. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316779422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yule, G. U. (1925). II. A mathematical theory of evolution, based on the conclusions of Dr. J. C. Willis, F.R.S. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London 213, 21–87.Google Scholar