Dynamical evolution of clustering in complex network of eart(3)

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]S. Abe and N. Suzuki, Physica A 332, 533 (2004).S. Abe and N. Suzuki, J. Geophys. Res. 108 (B2), 2113 (2003).S. Abe and N. Suzuki, Physica A 350, 588 (2005).D. W. Steeples and D. D. Steeples, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 86, 921 (1996).S. Abe and N. Suzuki, Europhys. Lett. 65, 581 (2004).S. Abe and N. Suzuki, Physica A 337, 357 (2004); S. Abe and N. Suzuki,

Nonlin. Processes Geophys. 13, 145 (2006).

[9]

[10]S. Abe and N. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. E 74, 026113 (2006).S. Abe and N. Suzuki, Eur. Phys. J. B 44, 115 (2005).

The network approach plays a distinguished role in contemporary science of complex systems/phenomena. Such an approach has been introduced into seismology in a recent work [S. Abe and N. Suzuki, Europhys. Lett. 65, 581 (2004)]. Here, we discuss the dynamic

[11]

[12]M. Baiesi and M. Paczuski, Nonlin. Processes Geophys. 12, 1 (2005).R. Pastor-Satorras and A. Vespignani, Evolution and Structure of the Internet:

A Statistical Physics Approach (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004).

[13]

[14]

[15]T. P. Peixoto and C. P. C. Prado, Phys. Rev. E 74, 016126 (2006).D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, Nature (London) 393, 440 (1998).R. J. Wilson, Introduction to Graph Theory, 4th edition

(Prentice Hall, London, 1996).

[16]A. Vázquez, R. Pastor-Satorras, and A. Vespignani,

Phys. Rev. E 65, 066130 (2002).

The network approach plays a distinguished role in contemporary science of complex systems/phenomena. Such an approach has been introduced into seismology in a recent work [S. Abe and N. Suzuki, Europhys. Lett. 65, 581 (2004)]. Here, we discuss the dynamic

Figure and Table Captions

FIG. 1Schematic descriptions of an earthquake network. (a) A full directed network.

The vertices with high values of connectivity, A, B, and C, correspond to mainshocks. (b) The simple undirected graph reduced from the full network in (a).FIG. 2Evolution of the (dimensionless) clustering coefficient during each 240 hours.

The origins are adjusted to the moments of the main shocks, that is,

(a) the Joshua Tree Earthquake, (b) the Landers Earthquake, and

(c) the Hector Mine Earthquake.

FIG. 3Evolution of the (dimensionless) cumulative clustering coefficient defined in

Eq. (4) during each 24 hours. The solid curves are due to the model in Eq. (4)with the form in Eq. (5). (a, b, c-1) and (a, b, c-2) are the results for the cell

sizes, 5km×5km×5km and 10km×10km×10km, respectively,

for (a) the Joshua Tree Earthquake, (b) the Landers Earthquake, and

(c) the Hector Mine Earthquake. The values of the parameters in Eqs. (5) aregiven in Table I.

TABLE IThe values of the parameters in Eq. (5) used in Fig. 3.