Skip to content
Back to the collection

Scale-free networks are rare

Anna D. Broido, Aaron Clauset

2018 · arXiv

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
4
Readers
4
Months
3
What’s in a score?

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

davex32
Neutral mention · rule
> 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
transcranial
Neutral mention · rule
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-...
yarapavan
Neutral mention · rule
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 & probability

More from the same topics.