The fastest spreader in SIS epidemics on networks

Abstract Identifying the fastest spreaders in epidemics on a network helps to ensure an efficient spreading. By ranking the average spreading time for different spreaders, we show that the fastest spreader may change with the effective infection rate of a SIS epidemic process, which means that the time-dependent influence of a node is usually strongly coupled to the dynamic process and the underlying network. With increasing effective infection rate, we illustrate that the fastest spreader changes from the node with the largest degree to the node with the shortest flooding time. (The flooding time is the minimum time needed to reach all other nodes if the process is reduced to a flooding process.) Furthermore, by taking the local topology around the spreader and the average flooding time into account, we propose the spreading efficiency as a metric to quantify the efficiency of a spreader and identify the fastest spreader, which is adaptive to different infection rates in general networks.

[1]  F. Ball,et al.  Branching Process Approximation of Epidemic Models , 1993 .

[2]  Qiang Guo,et al.  Locating influential nodes via dynamics-sensitive centrality , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[3]  P. V. Mieghem,et al.  Non-Markovian Infection Spread Dramatically Alters the Susceptible-Infected-Susceptible Epidemic Threshold in Networks , 2013 .

[4]  Claudio Castellano,et al.  Thresholds for epidemic spreading in networks , 2010, Physical review letters.

[5]  Piet Van Mieghem,et al.  The Flooding Time in Random Graphs , 2002 .

[6]  Lev Muchnik,et al.  Identifying influential spreaders in complex networks , 2010, 1001.5285.

[7]  Donald E. Knuth,et al.  The Stanford GraphBase - a platform for combinatorial computing , 1993 .

[8]  P. V. Mieghem,et al.  Performance Analysis of Complex Networks and Systems , 2014 .

[9]  M. Newman,et al.  Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[10]  P. Van Mieghem,et al.  Virus Spread in Networks , 2009, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[11]  Qiang Guo,et al.  Ranking the spreading influence in complex networks , 2013, ArXiv.

[12]  Petter Holme,et al.  Three faces of node importance in network epidemiology: Exact results for small graphs , 2017, Physical review. E.

[13]  Piet Van Mieghem,et al.  Epidemic processes in complex networks , 2014, ArXiv.

[14]  Timothy M. Chan.  More Algorithms for All-Pairs Shortest Paths in Weighted Graphs , 2010, SIAM J. Comput..

[15]  Mile Šikić,et al.  Epidemic centrality — is there an underestimated epidemic impact of network peripheral nodes? , 2011, 1110.2558.

[16]  Guanrong Chen,et al.  Behaviors of susceptible-infected epidemics on scale-free networks with identical infectivity. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[17]  Xiao Zhang,et al.  Localization and centrality in networks , 2014, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[18]  Hernán A. Makse,et al.  Influence maximization in complex networks through optimal percolation , 2015, Nature.

[19]  P. Van Mieghem,et al.  Ranking of Nodal Infection Probability in Susceptible-Infected-Susceptible Epidemic , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[20]  An Zeng,et al.  Ranking spreaders by decomposing complex networks , 2012, ArXiv.

[21]  Yamir Moreno,et al.  Theory of Rumour Spreading in Complex Social Networks , 2007, ArXiv.

[22]  Duanbing Chen,et al.  Vital nodes identification in complex networks , 2016, ArXiv.

[23]  Piet Van Mieghem,et al.  The spreading time in SIS epidemics on networks , 2018 .

[24]  P Van Mieghem,et al.  Pseudoinverse of the Laplacian and best spreader node in a network. , 2017, Physical review. E.