1
ORIGINS
The ânew science of networksââan emerging field of study that we abbreviate as network science, is really quite old, having roots as far back as 1736. Essentially the application of mathematical graph theory to problems in a variety of fields, network science reemerged in the late 1990s as a ânew science.â But graph theory has been applied to practical problems since its inception in 1736, when Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler solved the very real-world problem of how best to circumnavigate the Bridges of KĂśnigsberg, using graph theory.
Graph theorists spent the next 200 years in the backwaters of arcane mathematics. But it is difficult to keep a good idea down for long. The mathematics of graphs appeared again in the 1950s when the Hungarian and nomadic mathematician Paul Erdos (1913â1996) reestablished graph theory (and created the branch known as discrete mathematics) with papers on random graphs. Erdosâ colorful description of mathematics as a machine for turning coffee into theorems preferred extended visits with other mathematicians to owning his own home. Today, we use the ErdosâRenyi (ER) random graph as a kind of benchmarkâto compare with nonrandom graphs. The ER generative procedure for constructing a random graph marked a second historical milestone in 1959â60 (see Table 1.1).
In the late 1960s and 1970s graph theory was used by social scientists to model social networks and study the behavior of humans in groups. Stanley Milgram is credited with introducing the notion of a small-world network to the social science communityâigniting interest in studies of how network topology might influence human behaviorâand the reverse. The âsmall-world dilemmaâ was the subject of vigorous study throughout this period. Why is it, social scientists asked, that humans are able to connect to one another through an extremely small number of intermediaries, even as the size of a population grows?
TABLE 1.1 Historical Timeline of Significant Events
| 1736 | Euler | Bridges of KĂśnigsberg |
| 1925 | G. Yule | Preferential attachment, YuleâSimon distribution |
| 1927 | Kermack, McKendrick | First epidemic model |
| 1951 | Solomonoff, Rappaport | Spread of infection in random networks |
| 1955 | Simon | Power law observed in word analysis |
| 1959 | Gilbert | First generative procedure for random graph |
| 1960 | Erdos, Renyi | Random graphs |
| 1967 | Milgram | Small-world experiment |
| 1969 | Bass | Diffusion of innovation in populationsânonnetwork model |
| 1971 | Fisher, Pry | Diffusion by product substitutionânonnetwork model |
| 1972 | Bollobas | Complex graphs |
| 1972 | Bonacich | Idea of influence in social networks leading to influence diagrams |
| 1973 | Granovetter | Job-seeking networks formed clusters with âweak linksâ between them |
| 1978 | Pool, Kochen | First theoretical examination of small worlds |
| 1984 | Kuramoto | Synchronization of linear systems |
| 1985 | Bollobas | Publishes book on ârandom graphsâ |
| 1988 | Waxman | First graph model of the Internet |
| 1989 | Bristor, Ryan | âBuying networksâ = application of network science to model economic system |
| 1990 | Guare | Coined phrase, âsix degrees of separationâ = name of his Broadway play |
| 1995 | Molloy, Reed | Generation of networks with arbitrary degree sequence distribution |
| 1996 | Kretschmar, Morris | Early application of network science to spread of infectious disease = contagion driven by largest connected component |
| 1998 | Holland | Introduction of emergence in complex adaptive systems |
| 1998 | Watts, Strogatz, Faloutsos, Faloutsos | Renewed interest in Milgramâs original work on small worlds, examples of clustering; first generative procedure for small world |
| 1999 | Faloutsos | Power law observed in Internet |
| 1999 | Albert, Jeong, Barabasi | Power law observed in WWW |
| 1999 | Dorogovtsev, Mendes | Small-world properties |
| 1999 | Barabasi, Albert, | Scale-free network model |
| 1999 | Dorogovtsev, Mendes, Samukhim, Krapivsky Redner | Exact solution to scale-free network degree sequence |
| 1999 | Watts | Explanation of âsmall-world dilemmaâ: high clustering, low path length |
| 1999 | Adamic | Distance between .edu sites shown to be small-world |
| 1999 | Kleinberg, Kumar, Raghavan, Rajagopalan Tomkins | Formalized model of WWW as âWebgraphâ |
| 1999 | Walsh | Difficulty of search in small worlds using local properties |
| 2000 | Marchiori, Latora, | Harmonic distance replaces path length: works for disconnected networks |
| 2000 | Broder, Kumar, Maghoul, Raghavan, Rajagopalan Stata, Tomkins, Wiener | Full Webgraph map of the WWW |
| 2000 | Kleinberg | Shows O(n) search in small world using âManhattan distanceâ |
| 2000 | Albert, Jeong, Barabasi | Scale-free networks are resilient if hubs are protected (Internetâs âAchilles heelâ) |
| 2001 | Yung | Taxonomy of applications of small-world theory to: SNA, collaboration, Internet, business, life sciences |
| 2001 | Pastor-Satorras, Vespignani | Claim no epidemic threshold in scale-free networks; Internet susceptible to SIS viruses |
| 2001 | Tadic, Adamic | Use of local information can speed search on scale- free networks |
| 2002 | Levene, Fenner, Loizou, Wheeldon | Enhanced Webgraph model concluded structure of the WWW couldnât be explained by preferential attachment alone |
| 2002 | Kleinfeld, | Claims Milgram experiments not well founded: small- world social network is an âurban mythâ |
| 2002 | Wang, Chen, Barahona, Pecora, Liu, Hong, Choi Kim, Jost, Joy | Sync in small worlds equivalent to stability in coupled system |
| 2003 | Wang, Chakrabarti, Wang, Faloutsos | Showed spread of epidemics determined by networkâs spectral radius, largest eigenvalue of connection matrix |
| 2003 | Virtanen | Complete survey of network science results up to 2003 |
| 2003 | Strogatz | Synchronization of crickets, heartbeats |
| 2005 | NRC | Definition of network science |
| 2006 | Atay | Synchronization in networks with degree sequence distributionâapplication to networks |
| 2007 | Gabbay | Consensus in influence networksâlinear and nonlinear models |
Milgramâs famous âsix degrees of separationâ experiment suggested that the distance between two people selected at random from the entire population of the United States is approximately six intermediaries. In Milgramâs experiment, volunteers in Kansas and Nebraska were asked to forward a letter to an unfamiliar target living in Cambridge and Boston, Massachusetts. Not knowing the target person, recipients forwarded the letter to an acquaintance closer to the target than themselves. Many of the letters were lost, but of the ones that eventually reached their target addresses, the number of hops along the chain of intermediaries ranged from 2 to 10, with an average of 5.2. Hence the notion of a small world and six degrees of separation was born.
Network science took its third, and current step toward becoming a scientific discipline of its own in the late 1990s when a number of scientists in other fields began to use networks as models of physical and biological phenomena. In particular, the pioneering work of Duncan Watts, Steven Strogatz, and Albert-Laszlo Barabasi stimulated renewed interest in mathematical analysis of networks as applied to the physical world. Watts equated the structure of very sparse networks with small diameter (small worlds) with a diverse number of phenomena such as phase transitions in materials, functionality of biological organisms, and behavior of electrical power grids. How could a simple graph model explain such diversity of real-world behaviors?
Strogatz studied the impact of network structure on complex adaptive systems in physics as well as explaining why hearts beat in a regular synchronized pattern in mammals, and why a certain species of firefly rhythmically chirps in unison without centralized control. It appeared that living organisms tend to synchronize their behavior without global knowledge. In this book, we show that a deep understanding of how and why network synchronization occurs in physical and biological systems also explains the conditions for arriving at a consensus by a group of people, how best to conduct product marketing campaigns, and how corporations rise to become a monopoly. Synchronization is a byproduct of the structure of âliving networks.â
Barabasi and students created another line of investigation with the invention of scale-free networksânonrandom networks with hubs. In a number of studies of the structure of the Internet and WWW, Barabasi et al. discovered an emergent property of the decentralized Internetâthat it had emerged without central planning into a structure consisting of a small number of extremely popular sites called hubs, and a large number of âunpopularâ sites with few links. Instead of being random, like an ER (ErdosâRenyi) network, the Internet topology was very nonrandom. In fact, the probability that a site has k links obeys a power law, which drops off quickly for large k. Furthermore, they speculated that this was the result of a microrule called preferential attachmentâthat the probability a site will obtain a new link is directly proportional to the number of links it already has. Thus, the more links a site has, the more it getsâthe so-called ârich get richerâ phenomenon.
Scale-free networks are extremely nonrandom. This discovery set the stage for a plethora of publications in a diverse number of disciplines ranging from political science to sociology, biology, and physics. Why do so many natural phenomena obey the power law instead of the normal distribution or perhaps the exponential distribution? Once again, the stage was set for deep inquiry into the structure of organizations, organisms, and physical matter to explain the questions raised by the power law.
The current state of network science can best be described as âstill evolving.â In its modern form, it is approximately a decade old. Discoveries continue to be made on a monthly basis, which means that this book will soon be out of date! Therefore, the author has attempted to focus on the fundamentalsâresults that hopefully will endure for decadesârather than delve into interesting but distracting diversions.
The purpose of this chapter is to define the emerging discipline called network science and develop a historical timeline of key events leading up to the current state of the field. We survey that past 270 years leading up to the current state of the art, and end with a loose collection of ârulesâ for networks. We study the following in detail:
1. Network science can be defined in many ways. We loosely define it as the study of the theoretical foundations of network structure/dynamic behavior and its application to many subfields. Network science is both theory and application.
2. The history of network science is divided into three periods: (1) early pre- network period (1736â1966), when network science was really the mathematics of graphs; (2) a mesoânetwork period (1967â1998), when network science was not yet called âthe new science of networks,â but in fact applications of networks were emerging from the research literature; and (3) the modern period (1998âpresent), when the pioneers of the current definition of network science set forth the fundamentals and showed that the fundamentals had meaning in the real world.
3. The key concepts or principles of network science are (at least) structure, dynamism, bottomâup evolution, autonomy, topology, power, stability, and emergence. Each of these are explained in detail in this chapter.
4. We give a new perspective on network science that links emergence of network s...