The emergence of order in natural systems is a constant source of inspiration for both physical and biological sciences. While the spatial order characterizing for example the crystals has been the basis of many advances in contemporary physics, most complex systems in nature do not offer such high degree of order. Many of these systems form complex networks whose nodes are the elements of the system and edges represent the interactions between them. 
Traditionally complex networks have been described by the random graph theory founded in 1959 by Paul Erdohs and Alfred Renyi. One of the defining features of random graphs is that they are statistically homogeneous, and their degree distribution (characterizing the spread in the number of edges starting from a node) is a Poisson distribution. In contrast, recent empirical studies, including the work of our group, indicate that the topology of real networks is much richer than that of random graphs. In particular, the degree distribution of real networks is a power-law, indicating a heterogeneous topology in which the majority of the nodes have a small degree, but there is a significant fraction of highly connected nodes that play an important role in the connectivity of the network. 
The scale-free topology of real networks has very important consequences on their functioning. For example, we have discovered that scale-free networks are extremely resilient to the random disruption of their nodes. On the other hand, the selective removal of the nodes with highest degree induces a rapid breakdown of the network to isolated subparts that cannot communicate with each other. 
The non-trivial scaling of the degree distribution of real networks is also an indication of their assembly and evolution. Indeed, our modeling studies have shown us that there are general principles governing the evolution of networks. Most networks start from a small seed and grow by the addition of new nodes which attach to the nodes already in the system. This process obeys preferential attachment: the new nodes are more likely to connect to nodes with already high degree. We have proposed a simple model based on these two principles wich was able to reproduce the power-law degree distribution of real networks. Perhaps even more importantly, this model paved the way to a new paradigm of network modeling, trying to capture the evolution of networks, not just their static topology.

/pdf/statistical-mechanics-of-complex-networks-1zfjpvxipu.pdf

Statistical mechanics of complex networks

Inspired by empirical studies of networked systems such as the Internet, social networks, and biological networks, researchers have in recent years developed a variety of techniques and models to help us understand or predict the behavior of these systems. Here we review developments in this field, including such concepts as the small-world effect, degree distributions, clustering, network correlations, random graph models, models of network growth and preferential attachment, and dynamical processes taking place on networks.

/pdf/the-structure-and-function-of-complex-networks-34deompc9l.pdf

The Structure and Function of Complex Networks

A number of recent studies have focused on the statistical properties of networked systems such as social networks and the Worldwide Web. Researchers have concentrated particularly on a few properties that seem to be common to many networks: the small-world property, power-law degree distributions, and network transitivity. In this article, we highlight another property that is found in many networks, the property of community structure, in which network nodes are joined together in tightly knit groups, between which there are only looser connections. We propose a method for detecting such communities, built around the idea of using centrality indices to find community boundaries. We test our method on computer-generated and real-world graphs whose community structure is already known and find that the method detects this known structure with high sensitivity and reliability. We also apply the method to two networks whose community structure is not well known—a collaboration network and a food web—and find that it detects significant and informative community divisions in both cases.

/pdf/community-structure-in-social-and-biological-networks-1jamu4rcfv.pdf

Community structure in social and biological networks

Machine Learning is the study of methods for programming computers to learn. Computers are applied to a wide range of tasks, and for most of these it is relatively easy for programmers to design and implement the necessary software. However, there are many tasks for which this is difficult or impossible. These can be divided into four general categories. First, there are problems for which there exist no human experts. For example, in modern automated manufacturing facilities, there is a need to predict machine failures before they occur by analyzing sensor readings. Because the machines are new, there are no human experts who can be interviewed by a programmer to provide the knowledge necessary to build a computer system. A machine learning system can study recorded data and subsequent machine failures and learn prediction rules. Second, there are problems where human experts exist, but where they are unable to explain their expertise. This is the case in many perceptual tasks, such as speech recognition, hand-writing recognition, and natural language understanding. Virtually all humans exhibit expert-level abilities on these tasks, but none of them can describe the detailed steps that they follow as they perform them. Fortunately, humans can provide machines with examples of the inputs and correct outputs for these tasks, so machine learning algorithms can learn to map the inputs to the outputs. Third, there are problems where phenomena are changing rapidly. In finance, for example, people would like to predict the future behavior of the stock market, of consumer purchases, or of exchange rates. These behaviors change frequently, so that even if a programmer could construct a good predictive computer program, it would need to be rewritten frequently. A learning program can relieve the programmer of this burden by constantly modifying and tuning a set of learned prediction rules. Fourth, there are applications that need to be customized for each computer user separately. Consider, for example, a program to filter unwanted electronic mail messages. Different users will need different filters. It is unreasonable to expect each user to program his or her own rules, and it is infeasible to provide every user with a software engineer to keep the rules up-to-date. A machine learning system can learn which mail messages the user rejects and maintain the filtering rules automatically. Machine learning addresses many of the same research questions as the fields of statistics, data mining, and psychology, but with differences of emphasis. Statistics focuses on understanding the phenomena that have generated the data, often with the goal of testing different hypotheses about those phenomena. Data mining seeks to find patterns in the data that are understandable by people. Psychological studies of human learning aspire to understand the mechanisms underlying the various learning behaviors exhibited by people (concept learning, skill acquisition, strategy change, etc.).

Machine learning

We propose and study a set of algorithms for discovering community structure in networks-natural divisions of network nodes into densely connected subgroups. Our algorithms all share two definitive features: first, they involve iterative removal of edges from the network to split it into communities, the edges removed being identified using any one of a number of possible "betweenness" measures, and second, these measures are, crucially, recalculated after each removal. We also propose a measure for the strength of the community structure found by our algorithms, which gives us an objective metric for choosing the number of communities into which a network should be divided. We demonstrate that our algorithms are highly effective at discovering community structure in both computer-generated and real-world network data, and show how they can be used to shed light on the sometimes dauntingly complex structure of networked systems.

/pdf/finding-and-evaluating-community-structure-in-networks-1o9f6y8pyr.pdf

Finding and evaluating community structure in networks.

Two previous studies, one done at Stanford in 1997 based on data collected by the Google search engine, and one done at Digital in 1996 based on AltaVista data, revealed that almost a third of the Web consists of duplicate pages. Both studies identified mirroring, that is, the systematic replication of content over a pair of hosts, as the principal cause of duplication, but did not further investigate this phenomenon. The main aim of this paper is to present a clearer picture of mirroring on the Web. As input we used a set of 179 million URLs found during a Web crawl done in the summer of 1998. We looked at all hosts with more than 100 URLs in our input (about 238,000), and discovered that about 10% were mirrored to varying degrees. The paper presents data about the prevalence of mirroring based on a mirroring classification scheme that we define. There are numerous reasons for mirroring: technical (e.g., to improve access time), commercial (e.g., different intermediaries offering the same products), cultural (e.g., same content in two languages), social (e.g., sharing of research data), and so forth. Although we have not done a exhaustive study of the causes of replication, we discuss and provide examples for several representative cases. Our technique for detecting mirrored hosts from large sets of collected URLs depends mostly on the syntactic analysis of URL strings, and requires retrieval and content analysis only for a small number of pages. We are able to detect both partial and total mirroring, and handle cases where the content is not byte-wise identical. Furthermore, our technique is computationally very efficient and does not assume that the initial set of URLs gathered from each host is comprehensive. Hence, this approach has practical uses beyond our study, and can be applied in other settings. For instance, for Web crawlers and caching proxies, detecting mirrors can be valuable to avoid redundant fetching, and knowledge of mirroring can be used to compensate for broken links.

/pdf/mirror-mirror-on-the-web-a-study-of-host-pairs-with-4u0ugfut4z.pdf

Mirror, mirror on the Web: a study of host pairs with replicated content

Expanders have many applications in Computer Science. It is known that random d-regular graphs are very efficient expanders, almost surely. However, checking whether a particular graph is a good expander is co-NP-complete. We show that the second eigenvalue of d-regular graphs, λ2, is concentrated in an interval of width O(√d) around its mean, and that its mean is O(d3/4). The result holds under various models for random d-regular graphs. As a consequence a random d-regular graph on n vertices, is, with high probability a certifiable efficient expander for n sufficiently large. The bound on the width of the interval is derived from martingale theory and the bound on E(λ2) is obtained by exploring the properties of random walks in random graphs.

On the second eigenvalue of random regular graphs

Consider a particle that moves on a connected, undirected graphG withn vertices. At each step the particle goes from the current vertex to one of its neighbors, chosen uniformly at random. Tocover time is the first time when the particle has visited all the vertices in the graph starting from a given vertex. In this paper, we present upper and lower bounds that relate the expected cover time for a graph to the eigenvalues of the Markov chain that describes the random walk above. An interesting consequence is that regular expander graphs have expected cover time Θ(n logn).

Bounds on the cover time

The setup for the authors' problem consists of n servers that must complete a set of tasks. Each task can be handled only by a subset of the servers, requires a different level of service, and once assigned can not be re-assigned. They make the natural assumption that the level of service is known at arrival time, but that the duration of service is not. The on-line load balancing problem is to assign each task to an appropriate server in such a way that the maximum load on the servers is minimized. The authors derive matching upper and lower bounds for the competitive ratio of the on-line greedy algorithm for this problem, namely /sup (3n)2/3///sub 2/(1+o(1)), and derive a lower bound, Omega ( square root n), for any other deterministic or randomized on-line algorithm. >

On-line load balancing

Suppose that we sequentially place n balls into n boxes by putting each ball into a randomly chosen box. It is well known that when we are done, the fullest box has with high probability lnn/lnlnn(1 + o(1)) balls in it. Suppose instead, that for each ball we choose two boxes at random and place the ball into the one which is less full at the time of placement. We show that with high probability, the fullest box contains only lnlnn/ln2 + O(1) balls - exponentially less than before. Furthermore, we show that a similar gap exists in the infinite process, where at each step one ball, chosen uniformly at random, is deleted, and one ball is added in the manner above. We discuss consequences of this and related theorems for dynamic resource allocation, hashing, and on-line load balancing.

Andrei Z. Broder

Papers

Mirror, mirror on the Web: a study of host pairs with replicated content

On the second eigenvalue of random regular graphs

Bounds on the cover time

On-line load balancing

Balanced allocations (extended abstract)