5 CONCLUSIONS
Recent simulation results have shown out that al-
though the underlying networks have the same size
and density the topologies of networks have a huge
influence on spreading processes. In this work the ap-
plied networks were chosen from different classes of
topologies to figure out that the characteristic proper-
ties of the spreading process depend on both the aver-
age path length and the average clustering coefficient.
Although Barab´asi-Albert network and its clustered
variant are quite similar scale-free networks in the for-
mer one the speed of information spreading is much
faster. Naturally, the long distances of the planar tri-
angular lattice are the reason of the slow spreading
compared to the also regular spatial cubic network.
Usually longer paths and clustered communities lead
to slower spreading. It was also found that the de-
gree distribution of the network has only a small ef-
fect on the spreading. The random network and the
BA network behave in a similar way qualitatively and
quantitatively from several points of view, however
their degree distributions are completely different. As
it was mentioned both scale-free networks have the
same degree distribution exponent, but spreading on
them vary a lot.
Sometimes the network topology is much more
important than the parameters of the given spreading
model of competing channels, as it was demonstrated
by the analysis of size distribution of islands of in-
formed agents. It must be taken into account, when
we study real complex systems, where spreading is
important. From the application point of view micro-
scopic and macroscopic topological network proper-
ties must be considered in the planning stage. For ex-
ample to create an effective advertising strategy first
the topological features of the underlying (online) so-
cial network must be studied. As several kinds of so-
cial research have highlighted the interaction network
of individuals can be described by clustered scale-free
network. Thus the application of regular structures
or simple preferential attachment without clustering
can result in a false prediction about the success of
the advertising campaign. Results of the recent study
point out some advantages and disadvantages of the
structural properties of several network topologies in
spreading processes.
REFERENCES
Albert, R. and Barab´asi, A.-L. (2002). Statistical mechanics
of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics,
74:47–97.
Barab´asi, A.-L. and Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scal-
ing in random networks. Science, 286(5439):509–
512.
Buzna, L., Peters, K., and Helbing, D. (2006). Modelling
the dynamics of disaster spreading in networks. Phys-
ica A, 363(1):132–140.
Domenico, M. D., Lima, A., Mougel, P., and Musolesi, M.
(2013). The anatomy of a scientific rumor. Scientific
Reports, 3:2980.
Eames, K. T. (2007). Modelling disease spread through
random and regular contacts in clustered populations.
Theoretical Population Biology, 73:104–111.
Erd˝os, P. and R´enyi, A. (1959). On random graphs. i. Pub-
licationes Mathematicae, 6:290–297.
Ganesh, A., Massouli, L., and Towsley, D. (2005). The
effect of network topology on the spread of epidemics.
In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, volume 2, pages
1455–1466.
Karsai, M., Kivel¨a, M., Pan, R. K., Kaski, K., Kert´esz, J.,
Barab´asi, A.-L., and Saram¨aki, J. (2011). Small but
slow world: How network topology and burstiness
slow down spreading. Physical Review E, 83:025102.
Kocsis, G. and Kun, F. (2011). Competition of information
channels in the spreading of innovations. Physical Re-
view E, 84:026111.
Kun, F., Kocsis, G., and Farkas, J. (2007). Cellular automata
for the spreading of technologies in socio-economic
systems. Physica A, 383(2):660–670.
Lind, P. G., da Silva, L. R., Andrade, J. S., and Herrmann,
H. J. (2013). Spreading gossip in social networks.
Physical Review E, 76:036117.
Newman, M. E. J. (2010). Networks - An Introduction. Ox-
ford University Press. 17-99.
Pastor-Satorras, R., Castellano, C., Mieghem, P. V., and
Vespignani, A. (2015). Epidemic processes in com-
plex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 87:925.
Pastor-Satorras, R. and Vespignani, A. (2001). Epidemic
spreading in scale-free networks. Physical Review
Letters, 86:3200.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press,
5th edition.
Shirley, M. D. F. and Rushton, S. P. (2005). The impact
of network topology on disease spread. Ecological
complexity, 2(3):287–299.
Varga, I. (2015). Scale-free network topologies with cluster-
ing similar to online social. In Proceedings of the In-
ternational Conference on Social Modeling and Sim-
ulation & Econophysics Colloquium, Proceedings in
Complexity, pages 323–333, Kobe, Japan. Springer.
Wang, Y., Chakrabarti, D., Wang, C., and Faloutsos, C.
(2003). Epidemic spreading in real networks: an
eigenvalue viewpoint. In IEEE Proceedings of 22nd
International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Sys-
tems, pages 25–34.
Watts, D. J. and Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics
of ’small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684):440–
442.