Cited by 2,281Complex Network Analysis TechniquesGraph Theory and AlgorithmsGraph theory and applications

Graphs over time: densification laws, shrinking diameters and possible explanations

Leskovec, Jure, Kleinberg, Jon, Faloutsos, Christos·2005·Proceedings of the eleventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery in data mining

Abstract

How do real graphs evolve over time? What are "normal" growth patterns in social, technological, and information networks? Many studies have discovered patterns in static graphs, identifying properties in a single snapshot of a large network, or in a very small number of snapshots; these include heavy tails for in- and out-degree distributions, communities, small-world phenomena, and others. However, given the lack of information about network evolution over long periods, it has been hard to convert these findings into statements about trends over time.Here we study a wide range of real graphs, and we observe some surprising phenomena. First, most of these graphs densify over time, with the number of edges growing super-linearly in the number of nodes. Second, the average distance between nodes often shrinks over time, in contrast to the conventional wisdom that such distance parameters should increase slowly as a function of the number of nodes (like O(log n) or O(log(log n)).Existing graph generation models do not exhibit these types of behavior, even at a qualitative level. We provide a new graph generator, based on a "forest fire" spreading process, that has a simple, intuitive justification, requires very few parameters (like the "flammability" of nodes), and produces graphs exhibiting the full range of properties observed both in prior work and in the present study.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/1081870.1081893

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leskovec, J., Kleinberg, J., & Faloutsos, C.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the eleventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery in data mining
Publisher
ACM
Published
2005-08-21
Pages
177-187
OpenAlex
W2111708605
Cited by
2,281
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 88 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 85 · 2021: 135 · 2020: 118 · 2019: 128 · 2018: 146 · 2017: 127 · 2016: 157 · 2015: 164 · 2014: 166 · 2013: 168 · 2012: 155
FWCI
77.15
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Graph Theory and Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Graph theory and applications
Keywords
graph evolution, network densification, superlinear growth, forest fire model, social networks, technological networks, information networks, small-world effect, degree distribution, community structure

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