> Nice piece of work. The role of influencers in this study is akin to that of hubs in scale-free network. Diffusion on scale-free and small-world network have been studied extensively in physics community. It will be interesting to compare the results from this paper with work on scale-free networks. Also, context is everything. A social graph is not a flat structure. This work, for instance, https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.03826, shows that how consensus is formed and spreads across an agent population depends heavily on how different network types overlap. I also remembered this work on how rare scale-free networks are rare in the wild: https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03400
Scale-free networks are rare
Anna D. Broido, Aaron Clauset
2018 · arXiv
- HN score
- 0
- Mentions
- 4
- Readers
- 4
- Months
- 3
From the abstract
A central claim in modern network science is that real-world networks are typically "scale free," meaning that the fraction of nodes with degree $k$ follows a power law, decaying like $k^{-α}$, often with $2 < α< 3$. However, empirical evidence for this belief derives from a relatively small number of real-world networks. We test the universality of scale-free structure by applying state-of-the-art statistical tools to a large corpus of nearly 1000 network data sets drawn from social, biological, technological, and informational sources. We fit the power-law model to each degree distribution, test its statistical plausibility, and compare it via a likelihood ratio test to alternative, non-scale-free models, e.g., the log-normal. Across domains, we find that scale-free networks are rare, with only 4% exhibiting the strongest-possible evidence of scale-free structure and 52% exhibiting the weakest-possible evidence. Furthermore, evidence of scale-free structure is not uniformly distributed across sources: social networks are at best weakly scale free, while a handful of technological and biological networks can be called strongly scale free. These results undermine the universality of scale-free networks and reveal that real-world networks exhibit a rich structural diversity that will likely require new ideas and mechanisms to explain.
Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.
In the conversation
Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels
4 selected excerpts · 4 total mentions
Here's a recent follow-up paper [1] testing exactly that on many diverse datasets, positing that scale-free (power-law distributed) networks are actually not that common in the real world. Quanta has a nice article about it [2]. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03400 [2] https://www.quantamagazine.org/scant-evidence-of-power-laws-...
Power laws and scale-free networks are discussed in https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03400 with HN comments at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16144867. Both this and the cited paper are worthwhile reads for power law users.
A central claim in modern network science is that real-world networks are typically "scale free," meaning that the fraction of nodes with degree k follows a power law, decaying like k−α, often with 2<α<3. However, empirical evidence for this belief derives from a relatively small number of real-world networks. We test the universality of scale-free structure by applying state-of-the-art statistical tools to a large corpus of nearly 1000 network data sets drawn from social, biological, technological, and informational sources. We fit the power-law model to each degree distribution, test its statistical plausibility, and compare it via a likelihood ratio test to…
Read the full comment
alternative, non-scale-free models, e.g., the log-normal. Across domains, we find that scale-free networks are rare, with only 4% exhibiting the strongest-possible evidence of scale-free structure and 52% exhibiting the weakest-possible evidence. Furthermore, evidence of scale-free structure is not uniformly distributed across sources: social networks are at best weakly scale free, while a handful of technological and biological networks can be called strongly scale free. These results undermine the universality of scale-free networks and reveal that real-world networks exhibit a rich structural diversity that will likely require new ideas and mechanisms to explain. Paper referred: https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03400
Keep following the thread.
More in Statistics & probabilityMore from the same topics.
A Critique of the CAP Theorem
Martin Kleppmann
The CAP Theorem is a frequently cited impossibility result in distributed systems, especially among NoSQL distributed databases.
Dissolving the Fermi Paradox
Anders Sandberg, Eric Drexler, Toby Ord
The Fermi paradox is the conflict between an expectation of a high {\em ex ante} probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and the apparently lifeless universe we in fact observe.
Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization
Chiyuan Zhang, Samy Bengio, Moritz Hardt +2
Despite their massive size, successful deep artificial neural networks can exhibit a remarkably small difference between training and test performance.
The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine
Scott Aaronson
In honor of Alan Turing's hundredth birthday, I unwisely set out some thoughts about one of Turing's obsessions throughout his life, the question of physics and free will.