The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sampling from large graphs
Abstract
Given a huge real graph, how can we derive a representative sample? There are many known algorithms to compute interesting measures (shortest paths, centrality, betweenness, etc.), but several of them become impractical for large graphs. Thus graph sampling is essential.The natural questions to ask are (a) which sampling method to use, (b) how small can the sample size be, and (c) how to scale up the measurements of the sample (e.g., the diameter), to get estimates for the large graph. The deeper, underlying question is subtle: how do we measure success?.We answer the above questions, and test our answers by thorough experiments on several, diverse datasets, spanning thousands nodes and edges. We consider several sampling methods, propose novel methods to check the goodness of sampling, and develop a set of scaling laws that describe relations between the properties of the original and the sample.In addition to the theoretical contributions, the practical conclusions from our work are: Sampling strategies based on edge selection do not perform well; simple uniform random node selection performs surprisingly well. Overall, best performing methods are the ones based on random-walks and "forest fire"; they match very accurately both static as well as evolutionary graph patterns, with sample sizes down to about 15% of the original graph.
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
Graphs over time: densification laws, shrinking diameters and possible explanations
Leskovec, J., Kleinberg, J., & Faloutsos, C. (2005) · Proceedings of the eleventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery in data mining · doi:10.1145/1081870.1081893 · Cited by 2,281
Self-citation
Cited by
Opinion Leadership and Social Contagion in New Product Diffusion
Iyengar, R., Van den Bulte, C., & Valente, T. W. (2011) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.1100.0566 · Cited by 996
Is the Sample Good Enough? Comparing Data from Twitter's Streaming API with Twitter's Firehose
Morstatter, F., Pfeffer, J., Liu, H., & Carley, K. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v7i1.14401 · Cited by 863
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
Community detection in Social Media: Performance and application considerations
Papadopoulos, S., Kompatsiaris, Y., Vakali, A., & Spyridonos, P. (2012) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1007/s10618-011-0224-z · Cited by 615
Detecting and Tracking Political Abuse in Social Media
Ratkiewicz, J., Conover, M., Meiss, M., Goncalves, B., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14127 · Cited by 579
Metadata
- Authors
- Leskovec, J., & Faloutsos, C.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2006-08-20
- Pages
- 631-636
- OpenAlex
- W2146008005
- Cited by
- 1,170
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.59
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sampling from large graphs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1150402.1150479
- The paper
- Leskovec, J., & Faloutsos, C. (2006). Sampling from large graphs. Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. https://doi.org/10.1145/1150402.1150479
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.