Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 448

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Are randomly grown graphs really random?

Open access
Callaway, Duncan S., Hopcroft, John E., Kleinberg, Jon M., Newman, M. E. J., Strogatz, Steven H.·2001·Physical Review E

Abstract

We analyze a minimal model of a growing network. At each time step, a new vertex is added; then, with probability delta, two vertices are chosen uniformly at random and joined by an undirected edge. This process is repeated for t time steps. In the limit of large t, the resulting graph displays surprisingly rich characteristics. In particular, a giant component emerges in an infinite-order phase transition at delta=1/8. At the transition, the average component size jumps discontinuously but remains finite. In contrast, a static random graph with the same degree distribution exhibits a second-order phase transition at delta=1/4, and the average component size diverges there. These dramatic differences between grown and static random graphs stem from a positive correlation between the degrees of connected vertices in the grown graph-older vertices tend to have higher degree, and to link with other high-degree vertices, merely by virtue of their age. We conclude that grown graphs, however randomly they are constructed, are fundamentally different from their static random graph counterparts.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physreve.64.041902

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Callaway, D. S., Hopcroft, J. E., Kleinberg, J. M., Newman, M. E. J., & Strogatz, S. H.
Venue
Physical Review E
Published
2001-09-20
Volume
64
Issue
4
Pages
041902-041902
ISSN
  • 1063-651X (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-3787
OpenAlex
W2059480311
Cited by
448
References
2
FWCI
12.77
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.