The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ranking in evolving complex networks
Open accessAbstract
Complex networks have emerged as a simple yet powerful framework to represent and analyze a wide range of complex systems. The problem of ranking the nodes and the edges in complex networks is critical for a broad range of real-world problems because it affects how we access online information and products, how success and talent are evaluated in human activities, and how scarce resources are allocated by companies and policymakers, among others. This calls for a deep understanding of how existing ranking algorithms perform, and which are their possible biases that may impair their effectiveness. Well-established ranking algorithms (such as the popular Google's PageRank) are static in nature and, as a consequence, they exhibit important shortcomings when applied to real networks that rapidly evolve in time. The recent advances in the understanding and modeling of evolving networks have enabled the development of a wide and diverse range of ranking algorithms that take the temporal dimension into account. The aim of this review is to survey the existing ranking algorithms, both static and time-aware, and their applications to evolving networks. We emphasize both the impact of network evolution on well-established static algorithms and the benefits from including the temporal dimension for tasks such as prediction of real network traffic, prediction of future links, and identification of highly-significant nodes.
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
Breiman, L. (1996) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00058655 · Cited by 16,325
The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine
Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998) · Computer Networks and ISDN Systems · doi:10.1016/s0169-7552(98)00110-x · Cited by 16,004
Fortunato, S. (2010) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.11.002 · Cited by 11,293
Determining Lyapunov exponents from a time series
Wolf, A., Swift, J. B., Swinney, H. L., & Vastano, J. A. (1985) · Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena · doi:10.1016/0167-2789(85)90011-9 · Cited by 9,499
A survey on concept drift adaptation
Gama, J., Žliobaitė, I., Bifet, A., Pechenizkiy, M., & Bouchachia, A. (2014) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/2523813 · Cited by 3,735
A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection
Arlot, S., & Celisse, A. (2010) · Statistics Surveys · doi:10.1214/09-ss054 · Cited by 3,522
Borgatti, S. P. (2005) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.008 · Cited by 3,191
The structure and dynamics of multilayer networks
Boccaletti, S., Bianconi, G., Criado, R., del Genio, C. I., Gómez-Gardeñes, J., Romance, M., Sendiña-Nadal, I., Wang, Z., & Zanin, M. (2014) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.07.001 · Cited by 3,125
Measuring user influence in twitter: The million follower fallacy
Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., & Gummadi, K. (2010) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v4i1.14033 · Cited by 3,022
Holme, P., & Saramäki, J. (2012) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.03.001 · Cited by 2,736 · cited 3×
“Hence, the two alternatives to generalize the notion of the shortest path to temporal networks correspond to choosing the time-respecting pathswith the smallest topological length [211] or thosewith the smallest temporal duration [196,208], respectively.”
BackgroundMethodThe spreading of misinformation online
Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H. E., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1517441113 · Cited by 2,407
Resnick, P., Kuwabara, K., Zeckhauser, R., & Friedman, E. (2000) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/355112.355122 · Cited by 2,190 · cited 1×
“Ratings by little reputed users are then assumed to have potentially adverse affect on the final results, and they are thus given correspondingly lowweights which helps to limit their impact on the system [144,145,151].”
BackgroundCommunity detection in networks: a user guide
Fortunato, S., & Hric, D. (2016) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.09.002 · Cited by 2,086
What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. (2008) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/00220410810844150 · Cited by 1,607 · cited 1×
“2 This assumption neglects themulti-faceted nature of the scientific citation process [92], and the fact that citations can be both positive and negative – a citation can be considered as ‘‘negative’’ if the citing paper points out flaws of the cited paper, for example [93].”
BackgroundA review of the literature on citation impact indicators
Waltman, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007 · Cited by 1,356
The Hidden Geometry of Complex, Network-Driven Contagion Phenomena
Brockmann, D., & Helbing, D. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1245200 · Cited by 1,253
Clustering in weighted networks
Opsahl, T., & Panzarasa, P. (2009) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2009.02.002 · Cited by 1,037
DebtRank: Too Central to Fail? Financial Networks, the FED and Systemic Risk
Battiston, S., Puliga, M., Kaushik, R., Tasca, P., & Caldarelli, G. (2012) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep00541 · Cited by 919
Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact
Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., & Castellano, C. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0806977105 · Cited by 828
In Google We Trust: Users’ Decisions on Rank, Position, and Relevance
Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G., & Granka, L. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00351.x · Cited by 715
Popularity versus similarity in growing networks
Papadopoulos, F., Kitsak, M., Serrano, M. Á., Boguñá, M., & Krioukov, D. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11459 · Cited by 634
The Metric Tide: Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management
Wilsdon, J. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781473978782 · Cited by 610
van Raan, A. F. J. (2004) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1023/b:scie.0000018543.82441.f1 · Cited by 579
Echo Chambers: Emotional Contagion and Group Polarization on Facebook
Del Vicario, M., Vivaldo, G., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep37825 · Cited by 576
Bianchini, M., Gori, M., & Scarselli, F. (2005) · ACM Transactions on Internet Technology · doi:10.1145/1052934.1052938 · Cited by 539
Ranking in interconnected multilayer networks reveals versatile nodes
De Domenico, M., Solé-Ribalta, A., Omodei, E., Gómez, S., & Arenas, A. (2015) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms7868 · Cited by 459
Prediction and explanation in social systems
Hofman, J. M., Sharma, A., & Watts, D. J. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aal3856 · Cited by 429
Citation Statistics from 110 Years of Physical Review
Redner, S. (2005) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.1996475 · Cited by 426
Editors, T. P. M. (2006) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291 · Cited by 373
Acuna, D. E., Allesina, S., & Kording, K. P. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/489201a · Cited by 249
Detecting spammers and content promoters in online video social networks
Benevenuto, F., Rodrigues, T., Almeida, V., Almeida, J., & Gonçalves, M. (2009) · Proceedings of the 32nd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval · doi:10.1145/1571941.1572047 · Cited by 220
Cited by
Random walks and diffusion on networks
Masuda, N., Porter, M. A., & Lambiotte, R. (2017) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.07.007 · Cited by 657
Metadata
- Authors
- Liao, H., Mariani, M. S., Medo, M., Zhang, Y.-C., & Zhou, M.-Y.
- Venue
- Physics Reports
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-05
- Volume
- 689
- Pages
- 1-54
- ISSN
- 0370-1573 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2609596385
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 31
- FWCI
- 13.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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.
