The non-bipartite integral graphs with spectral radius three

In this paper, we classify the connected non-bipartite integral graphs with spectral radius three.Comment: 18 pages, 5 figures, 2 table

The Evolution of Beliefs over Signed Social Networks

We study the evolution of opinions (or beliefs) over a social network modeled as a signed graph. The sign attached to an edge in this graph characterizes whether the corresponding individuals or end nodes are friends (positive links) or enemies (negative links). Pairs of nodes are randomly selected to interact over time, and when two nodes interact, each of them updates its opinion based on the opinion of the other node and the sign of the corresponding link. This model generalizes DeGroot model to account for negative links: when two enemies interact, their opinions go in opposite directions. We provide conditions for convergence and divergence in expectation, in mean-square, and in almost sure sense, and exhibit phase transition phenomena for these notions of convergence depending on the parameters of the opinion update model and on the structure of the underlying graph. We establish a {\it no-survivor} theorem, stating that the difference in opinions of any two nodes diverges whenever opinions in the network diverge as a whole. We also prove a {\it live-or-die} lemma, indicating that almost surely, the opinions either converge to an agreement or diverge. Finally, we extend our analysis to cases where opinions have hard lower and upper limits. In these cases, we study when and how opinions may become asymptotically clustered to the belief boundaries, and highlight the crucial influence of (strong or weak) structural balance of the underlying network on this clustering phenomenon

"Clumpiness" Mixing in Complex Networks

Three measures of clumpiness of complex networks are introduced. The measures quantify how most central nodes of a network are clumped together. The assortativity coefficient defined in a previous study measures a similar characteristic, but accounts only for the clumpiness of the central nodes that are directly connected to each other. The clumpiness coefficient defined in the present paper also takes into account the cases where central nodes are separated by a few links. The definition is based on the node degrees and the distances between pairs of nodes. The clumpiness coefficient together with the assortativity coefficient can define four classes of network. Numerical calculations demonstrate that the classification scheme successfully categorizes 30 real-world networks into the four classes: clumped assortative, clumped disassortative, loose assortative and loose disassortative networks. The clumpiness coefficient also differentiates the Erdos-Renyi model from the Barabasi-Albert model, which the assortativity coefficient could not differentiate. In addition, the bounds of the clumpiness coefficient as well as the relationships between the three measures of clumpiness are discussed.Comment: 47 pages, 11 figure

"Clumpiness" Mixing in Complex Networks

Three measures of clumpiness of complex networks are introduced. The measures quantify how most central nodes of a network are clumped together. The assortativity coefficient defined in a previous study measures a similar characteristic, but accounts only for the clumpiness of the central nodes that are directly connected to each other. The clumpiness coefficient defined in the present paper also takes into account the cases where central nodes are separated by a few links. The definition is based on the node degrees and the distances between pairs of nodes. The clumpiness coefficient together with the assortativity coefficient can define four classes of network. Numerical calculations demonstrate that the classification scheme successfully categorizes 30 real-world networks into the four classes: clumped assortative, clumped disassortative, loose assortative and loose disassortative networks. The clumpiness coefficient also differentiates the Erdos-Renyi model from the Barabasi-Albert model, which the assortativity coefficient could not differentiate. In addition, the bounds of the clumpiness coefficient as well as the relationships between the three measures of clumpiness are discussed.Comment: 47 pages, 11 figure

The spread of generalized reciprocal distance matrix

The generalized reciprocal distance matrix $RD_{\alpha}(G)$ was defined as $RD_{\alpha}(G)=\alpha RT(G)+(1-\alpha)RD(G),\quad 0\leq \alpha \leq 1.$ Let $\lambda_{1}(RD_{\alpha}(G))\geq \lambda_{2}(RD_{\alpha}(G))\geq \cdots \geq \lambda_{n}(RD_{\alpha}(G))$ be the eigenvalues of $RD_{\alpha}$ matrix of graphs $G$. Then the $RD_{\alpha}$-spread of graph $G$ can be defined as $S_{RD_{\alpha}}(G)=\lambda_{1}(RD_{\alpha}(G))-\lambda_{n}(RD_{\alpha}(G))$. In this paper, we first obtain some sharp lower and upper bounds for the $RD_{\alpha}$-spread of graphs. Then we determine the lower bounds for the $RD_{\alpha}$-spread of bipartite graphs and graphs with given clique number. At last, we give the $RD_{\alpha}$-spread of double star graphs. Our results generalize the related results of the reciprocal distance matrix and reciprocal distance signless Laplacian matrix.Comment: 14 page