↓ Skip to main content

Distress Propagation in Complex Networks: The Case of Non-Linear DebtRank

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Distress Propagation in Complex Networks: The Case of Non-Linear DebtRank
Published in
PLoS ONE, October 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0163825
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Bardoscia, Fabio Caccioli, Juan Ignacio Perotti, Gianna Vivaldo, Guido Caldarelli

Abstract

We consider a dynamical model of distress propagation on complex networks, which we apply to the study of financial contagion in networks of banks connected to each other by direct exposures. The model that we consider is an extension of the DebtRank algorithm, recently introduced in the literature. The mechanics of distress propagation is very simple: When a bank suffers a loss, distress propagates to its creditors, who in turn suffer losses, and so on. The original DebtRank assumes that losses are propagated linearly between connected banks. Here we relax this assumption and introduce a one-parameter family of non-linear propagation functions. As a case study, we apply this algorithm to a data-set of 183 European banks, and we study how the stability of the system depends on the non-linearity parameter under different stress-test scenarios. We find that the system is characterized by a transition between a regime where small shocks can be amplified and a regime where shocks do not propagate, and that the overall stability of the system increases between 2008 and 2013.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Italy 1 3%
Switzerland 1 3%
Unknown 32 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 37%
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Professor 3 9%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 15 43%
Computer Science 5 14%
Mathematics 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Physics and Astronomy 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 4 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2016.
All research outputs
#2,748,592
of 14,710,606 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#37,472
of 151,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,601
of 266,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#1,170
of 4,081 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,710,606 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 151,365 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,985 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,081 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.