How networks split when rival leaders emerge

Abstract In a model social network, two hubs are appointed as leaders. Consecutive cutting of links on a shortest path between them splits the network in two. Next, the network is growing again till the initial size. Both processes are cyclically repeated. We investigate the size of a cluster containing the largest hub, the degree, the clustering coefficient, the closeness centrality and the betweenness centrality of the largest hub, as dependent on the number of cycles. The results are interpreted in terms of the leader’s benefits from conflicts.

[1]  Cohen,et al.  Resilience of the internet to random breakdowns , 2000, Physical review letters.

[2]  Leonard M. Freeman,et al.  A set of measures of centrality based upon betweenness , 1977 .

[3]  N. Ménard,et al.  Modelling the influence of demographic parameters on group structure in social species with dispersal asymmetry and group fission , 2003, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[4]  Memory effect in growing trees , 2005 .

[5]  Beom Jun Kim,et al.  Attack vulnerability of complex networks. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[6]  Mark Van Vugt,et al.  From Fault Line to Group Fission: Understanding Membership Changes in Small Groups , 2006, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[7]  S. Fortunato,et al.  Statistical physics of social dynamics , 2007, 0710.3256.

[8]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[9]  Niloy Ganguly,et al.  Attack tolerance of correlated time-varying social networks with well-defined communities , 2015 .

[10]  M E J Newman,et al.  Community structure in social and biological networks , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  P. Thiran,et al.  Error and attack tolerance of layered complex networks. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[12]  Beom Jun Kim,et al.  Growing scale-free networks with tunable clustering. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[13]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  Friendship networks and social status , 2012, Network Science.

[14]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Group size, grooming and fission in primates: a modeling approach based on group structure. , 2011, Journal of theoretical biology.

[15]  V. Latora,et al.  Efficiency of scale-free networks: error and attack tolerance , 2002, cond-mat/0205601.

[16]  S. Meier,et al.  The Impact of Group Membership on Cooperation and Norm Enforcement: Evidence Using Random Assignment to Real Social Groups , 2006, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[17]  Gourab Ghoshal,et al.  Bicomponents and the robustness of networks to failure. , 2007, Physical review letters.

[18]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Error and attack tolerance of complex networks , 2000, Nature.

[19]  S Scellato,et al.  Error and attack vulnerability of temporal networks. , 2012, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[20]  C. Sueur,et al.  Modelling Animal Group Fission Using Social Network Dynamics , 2014, PloS one.

[21]  Krzysztof Kulakowski,et al.  Consecutive partitions of social networks between rivaling leaders , 2016, ArXiv.

[22]  M. Newman,et al.  Why social networks are different from other types of networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[23]  Clive Gamble,et al.  The ecology of social transitions in human evolution , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[24]  B. Geys,et al.  Measuring the ‘Bridging’ versus ‘Bonding’ Nature of Social Networks: A Proposal for Integrating Existing Measures , 2010 .