"Neural networks conserve the complexity of the systems they model because they have complex structures themselves. Neural networks encode information about their environment in a distributed form. […] Neural networks have the capacity to self-organise their internal structure." (Paul Cilliers, "Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems", 1998)
"In networks belonging to the second category, the winner takes all, meaning that the fittest node grabs all links, leaving very little for the rest of the nodes. Such networks develop a star topology, in which all nodes are connected to a central hub. In such a hub-and-spokes network there is a huge gap between the lonely hub and everybody else in the system. Thus a winner-takes-all network is very different from the scale-free networks we encountered earlier, where there is a hierarchy of hubs whose size distribution follows a power law. A winner-takes-all network is not scale-free. Instead there is a single hub and many tiny nodes. This is a very important distinction." (Albert-László Barabási, "Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life", 2002)
"The first category includes all networks in which, despite the fierce competition for links, the scale-free topology survives. These networks display a fit-get-rich behavior, meaning that the fittest node will inevitably grow to become the biggest hub. The winner's lead is never significant, however. The largest hub is closely followed by a smaller one, which acquires almost as many links as the fittest node. At any moment we have a hierarchy of nodes whose degree distribution follows a power law. In most complex networks, the power law and the fight for links thus are not antagonistic but can coexist peacefully."(Albert-László Barabási, "Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life", 2002)
"At an anatomical level - the level of pure, abstract connectivity - we seem to have stumbled upon a universal pattern of complexity. Disparate networks show the same three tendencies: short chains, high clustering, and scale-free link distributions. The coincidences are eerie, and baffling to interpret."
"The power law distributions transcend networks as such. The quantities that are so distributed include the number of genes in a family, the number of pseudogenes per gene, the number of people per city, the number of published papers per scientist, the number of citations per paper, and much, much more. In fact, the first distributions where power laws have been noticed are the distribution of people in a society by wealth (the Pareto law^^) and the distributions of words in a text by frequency (Zipf law)." (Eugene V Koonin et al, "The Genomic Revolution, Systems Biology, Power Laws, and Scale-Free Networks", 2006)
"We investigate structure in the network by characterizing motifs that represent order. A simple motif is the existence of a triangle, three vertices connected one to the next. The ratio of the number of observed to expected triangles is synonymous with the standard definition of the clustering coefficient for a small world network. This statistic is sensitive to organization over short length scales. To investigate organization over longer length scales, we investigate the distribution of longer cycles. This distribution may be measured for an empirical network We introduce a simple mathematical model for a network organized to have one level of clustering and show that this model is sufficient to explain the observed cycle distribution. Thus, there is no need to invoke a continuous distribution of length scales. Moreover, the one-level model immediately yields a characteristic, testable scaling length for the network, which again stands in contrast to scale-free behavior." (J S Bader, "The Drosophila Protein Interaction Network May Be neither Power-Law nor Scale-Free", 2006)
No comments:
Post a Comment