Network transitivity and matrix models

Physical Review E - Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics

Volumn 69, Issue 2 2, 2004, Pages

  Burda, Z ^a   Jurkiewicz, J ^a   Krzywicki, A ^b  

^a JAGIELLONIAN UNIVERSITY   (Poland)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PARIS SUD   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTINUUM MECHANICS; ENTROPY; FREE ENERGY; GRAPH THEORY; HAMILTONIANS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MATRIX ALGEBRA; PERTURBATION TECHNIQUES; POISSON DISTRIBUTION; POLYNOMIALS; PROBABILITY; THERMODYNAMICS;

MATRIX MODELS; NETWORK TRANSIVITY; NONTRIVIAL CLUSTERING; STATIC ENSEMBLES; STRAUSS'S MODEL;

RANDOM PROCESSES;

ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; PHYSICS; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL MODEL; THEORETICAL MODEL;

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); PHYSICS;

EID: 37649029436     PISSN: 1063651X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.69.026106     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. B. Bollobás, Random Graphs, 2nd ed. (Academic Press, New York, 2001).
2. R. Albert and A.-L. Barabasi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 47 (2002).
3. S.N. Dorogovtsev and J.F.F. Mendes, Adv. Phys. 51, 1079 (2002); Evolution of Networks: From Biological Nets to to the Internet and WWW (Oxford Univerity Press, New York, 2003).
4. S.N. Dorogovtsev and J.F.F. Mendes, Adv. Phys. 51, 1079 (2002); Evolution of Networks: From Biological Nets to to the Internet and WWW (Oxford Univerity Press, New York, 2003).
5. M.E.J. Newman, SIAM Rev. 45, 167 (2003).
6. S.N. Dorogovtsev, e-print cond-mat/0308444.
7. M. Boguña and R. Pastor-Satorras, Phys. Rev. E 68, 036112 (2003); S.N. Dorogovtsev, e-print cond-mat/0308336.
8. M. Boguña and R. Pastor-Satorras, Phys. Rev. E 68, 036112 (2003); S.N. Dorogovtsev, e-print cond-mat/0308336.
9. M.E.J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E 68, 026121 (2003).
10. J. Berg and M. Lässig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 228701 (2002).
11. D. Strauss, SIAM Rev. 28, 513 (1986), and references therein; in particular, see P.W. Holland and S. Leinhardt, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 76, 33 (1981).
12. D. Strauss, SIAM Rev. 28, 513 (1986), and references therein; in particular, see P.W. Holland and S. Leinhardt, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 76, 33 (1981).
13. N. G. van Kampen, Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1992).
14. G. 't Hooft, Nucl. Phys. 72, 461 (1974).
15. M. Bauer and O. Golinelli, J. Stat. Phys. 103, 301 (2001).
16. n). One determines k and m by counting distinct indices and links. The acceptance of this algorithm drops rapidly with n, one can hardly go beyond n = 10.
17. http://functions.wolfram.com/HypergeometricFunctions/ HypergeometricPFQRegularized/06/02/04/
18. k= 0 for k>N, so that for fixed N the proliferation of diagrams does not continue indefinitely.
19. S.H. Strogatz and D.J. Watts, Nature (London) 393, 440 (1998).
20. Z. Burda, J.D. Correia, and A. Krzywicki, Phys. Rev. E 64, 046118 (2001).
21. Z. Burda and A. Krzywicki, Phys. Rev. E 67, 046118 (2003). The distinctive trait of this paper, compared to other publications on the subject, is that it deals with simple graphs, without self- and multiple connections between nodes and contains a discussion of important finite N effects, absent in pseudographs.
22. S. Coulomb and M. Bauer, e-print cond-mat/0310170.