Identifying influential spreaders in interconnected networks

Identifying the most influential spreaders in spreading dynamics is of the utmost importance for various purposes for understanding or controlling these processes. The existing relevant works are limited to a single network. Most real networks are actually not isolated, but typically coupled and affected by others. The properties of epidemic spreading have recently been found to have some significant differences in interconnected networks from those in a single network. In this paper, we focus on identifying the influential spreaders in interconnected networks. We find that the well-known k-shell index loses effectiveness; some insignificant spreaders in a single network become the influential spreaders in the whole interconnected networks while some influential spreaders become no longer important. The simulation results show that the spreading capabilities of the nodes not only depend on their influence for the network topology, but also are dramatically influenced by the spreading rate. Based on this perception, a novel index is proposed for measuring the influential spreaders in interconnected networks. We then support the efficiency of this index with numerical simulations.

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

[2]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Robustness of a Network of Networks , 2010, Physical review letters.

[3]  Noah E. Friedkin,et al.  Theoretical Foundations for Centrality Measures , 1991, American Journal of Sociology.

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

[5]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Epidemic spreading in scale-free networks. , 2000, Physical review letters.

[6]  Sergey V. Buldyrev,et al.  Critical effect of dependency groups on the function of networks , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  S. Havlin,et al.  Breakdown of the internet under intentional attack. , 2000, Physical review letters.

[8]  S. Buldyrev,et al.  Interdependent networks with identical degrees of mutually dependent nodes. , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[9]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Robustness of interdependent networks under targeted attack , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[10]  A Díaz-Guilera,et al.  Self-similar community structure in a network of human interactions. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[11]  Marián Boguñá,et al.  Epidemic spreading on interconnected networks , 2012, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[12]  Sergey N. Dorogovtsev,et al.  Evolution of Networks: From Biological Nets to the Internet and WWW (Physics) , 2003 .

[13]  Cesar Ducruet,et al.  Inter-similarity between coupled networks , 2010, ArXiv.

[14]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Statistical mechanics of complex networks , 2001, ArXiv.

[15]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Epidemics on Interconnected Networks , 2012, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[16]  S. Havlin,et al.  Interdependent networks: reducing the coupling strength leads to a change from a first to second order percolation transition. , 2010, Physical review letters.

[17]  N. Ling.  The Mathematical Theory of Infectious Diseases and its applications , 1978 .

[18]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[19]  H. Stanley,et al.  Networks formed from interdependent networks , 2011, Nature Physics.

[20]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Catastrophic cascade of failures in interdependent networks , 2009, Nature.