↓ Skip to main content

Default Cascades in Complex Networks: Topology and Systemic Risk

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
34 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
Title
Default Cascades in Complex Networks: Topology and Systemic Risk
Published in
Scientific Reports, September 2013
DOI 10.1038/srep02759
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tarik Roukny, Hugues Bersini, Hugues Pirotte, Guido Caldarelli, Stefano Battiston

Abstract

The recent crisis has brought to the fore a crucial question that remains still open: what would be the optimal architecture of financial systems? We investigate the stability of several benchmark topologies in a simple default cascading dynamics in bank networks. We analyze the interplay of several crucial drivers, i.e., network topology, banks' capital ratios, market illiquidity, and random vs targeted shocks. We find that, in general, topology matters only--but substantially--when the market is illiquid. No single topology is always superior to others. In particular, scale-free networks can be both more robust and more fragile than homogeneous architectures. This finding has important policy implications. We also apply our methodology to a comprehensive dataset of an interbank market from 1999 to 2011.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unknown 106 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 30 November 2015.
All research outputs
#522,952
of 12,675,061 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#5,530
of 59,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,168
of 161,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,675,061 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 59,185 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 161,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them