Abstract

The structure of many biological, social and technological systems can usefully be described in terms of complex networks. Although often portrayed as fixed in time, such networks are inherently dynamic, as the edges that join nodes are cut and rewired, and nodes themselves update their states. Understanding the structure of these networks requires us to understand the dynamic processes that create, maintain and modify them. Here, we build upon existing models of coevolving networks to characterize how dynamic behaviour at the level of individual nodes generates stable aggregate behaviours. We focus particularly on the dynamics of groups of nodes formed endogenously by nodes that share similar properties (represented as node state) and demonstrate that, under certain conditions, network modularity based on state compares well with network modularity based on topology. We show that if nodes rewire their edges based on fixed node states, the network modularity reaches a stable equilibrium which we quantify analytically. Furthermore, if node state is not fixed, but can be adopted from neighbouring nodes, the distribution of group sizes reaches a dynamic equilibrium, which remains stable even as the composition and identity of the groups change. These results show that dynamic networks can maintain the stable community structure that has been observed in many social and biological systems.

Highlights

  • Many scenarios exist in nature and society where individuals or entities bias their interactions to a limited subset of a population

  • We have presented a model of dynamic networks in which, over a range of parameters, stable and connected community structure emerges

  • We have found the presence of such stable community structure to depend largely on the relative frequencies of random to homophilous rewiring

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Many scenarios exist in nature and society where individuals or entities bias their interactions to a limited subset of a population. In human and animal societies this means that they consist of partially independent groups, cliques and tribes [1 – 3], which can be important for studying epidemic spread [4]. This notion can be extended to more abstract representations of interactions in natural systems, such as in genetic, protein – protein and metabolic interaction networks that are structured into dynamic and functionally, spatially or temporally separated modules [5 – 7]; or in neural networks where neurons tend to cluster into groups based on activity patterns [8]. Recently has an increasing number of studies concentrated on the dynamical properties of networks [14], as well as their relevance to the spread of infectious diseases [15,16,17,18,19]

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call