The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The phase transition in inhomogeneous random graphs
Open accessAbstract
The “classical” random graph models, in particular G(n,p), are “homogeneous,” in the sense that the degrees (for example) tend to be concentrated around a typical value. Many graphs arising in the real world do not have this property, having, for example, power‐law degree distributions. Thus there has been a lot of recent interest in defining and studying “inhomogeneous” random graph models. One of the most studied properties of these new models is their “robustness”, or, equivalently, the “phase transition” as an edge density parameter is varied. For G(n,p), p = c/n, the phase transition at c = 1 has been a central topic in the study of random graphs for well over 40 years. Many of the new inhomogeneous models are rather complicated; although there are exceptions, in most cases precise questions such as determining exactly the critical point of the phase transition are approachable only when there is independence between the edges. Fortunately, some models studied have this property already, and others can be approximated by models with independence. Here we introduce a very general model of an inhomogeneous random graph with (conditional) independence between the edges, which scales so that the number of edges is linear in the number of vertices. This scaling corresponds to the p = c/n scaling for G(n,p) used to study the phase transition; also, it seems to be a property of many large real‐world graphs. Our model includes as special cases many models previously studied. We show that, under one very weak assumption (that the expected number of edges is “what it should be”), many properties of the model can be determined, in particular the critical point of the phase transition, and the size of the giant component above the transition. We do this by relating our random graphs to branching processes, which are much easier to analyze. We also consider other properties of the model, showing, for example, that when there is a giant component, it is “stable”: for a typical random graph, no matter how we add or delete o(n) edges, the size of the giant component does not change by more than o(n). © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Random Struct. Alg., 31, 3–122, 2007
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509 · Cited by 36,135
Error and attack tolerance of complex networks
Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabási, A.-L. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35019019 · Cited by 7,534
Bollobás, B. (2001) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511814068 · Cited by 2,639
Self-citationOne dimensional 1/|j ? i| S percolation models: The existence of a transition forS?2
Newman, C. M., & Schulman, L. S. (1986) · Communications in Mathematical Physics · doi:10.1007/bf01211064 · Cited by 120
Cited by
A Survey of Statistical Network Models
Goldenberg, A., Zheng, A. X., Fienberg, S. E., & Airoldi, E. M. (2010) · Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning · doi:10.1561/2200000005 · Cited by 819
Spectral redemption in clustering sparse networks
Krzakala, F., Moore, C., Mossel, E., Neeman, J., Sly, A., Zdeborová, L., & Zhang, P. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1312486110 · Cited by 638
Reconstruction and estimation in the planted partition model
Mossel, E., Neeman, J., & Sly, A. (2015) · Probability Theory and Related Fields · doi:10.1007/s00440-014-0576-6 · Cited by 301
Metadata
- Authors
- Bollobás, B., Janson, S., & Riordan, O.
- Venue
- Random Structures & Algorithms
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-06
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-122
- ISSN
- 1042-9832 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2418
- OpenAlex
- W2950850272
- Cited by
- 545
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 20.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.