CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 15Complex Network Analysis TechniquesWeb visibility and informetricsComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis

Preferential Attachment in Online Networks: Measurement and Explanations

Open access
Kunegis, Jérôme, Blattner, Marcel, Moser, Christine·2013·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1303.6271arXiv 1303.6271
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We perform an empirical study of the preferential attachment phenomenon in temporal networks and show that on the Web, networks follow a nonlinear preferential attachment model in which the exponent depends on the type of network considered. The classical preferential attachment model for networks by Barabási and Albert (1999) assumes a linear relationship between the number of neighbors of a node in a network and the probability of attachment. Although this assumption is widely made in Web Science and related fields, the underlying linearity is rarely measured. To fill this gap, this paper performs an empirical longitudinal (time-based) study on forty-seven diverse Web network datasets from seven network categories and including directed, undirected and bipartite networks. We show that contrary to the usual assumption, preferential attachment is nonlinear in the networks under consideration. Furthermore, we observe that the deviation from linearity is dependent on the type of network, giving sublinear attachment in certain types of networks, and superlinear attachment in others. Thus, we introduce the preferential attachment exponent $β$ as a novel numerical network measure that can be used to discriminate different types of networks. We propose explanations for the behavior of that network measure, based on the mechanisms that underly the growth of the network in question.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1303.6271

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • This kind of 'preferential attachment' can have large impacts on network structures, which could include AI systems assuming a more critical and central role than intended, or leading to an unequal distribution of resources or power.

    “This kind of 'preferential attachment' can have large impacts on network structures (Kunegis et al., 2013; Maoz, 2012), which could include AI systems assuming a more critical and central role than intended, or leading to an unequal distribution of resources or power (see Section 4.3).”

    From Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI (2025) · cites this paper as Kunegis et al., 2013

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [20]20. Erd˝ os, P., and R´ enyi, A. On random graphs I. Publ. Math. Debrecen 6 (1959), 290-297.
  2. [42]42. Moser, C., Groenewegen, P., and Huysman, M. Social norms as governance mechanisms in online professional communities. In Proc. Academy of Management Meeting (2011).
  3. [45]45. Newman, M. E. J. Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf's law. Contemporary Phys. 46 , 5 (2006), 323-351.
  4. [52]52. Rudas, A., T´ oth, B., and Valk´ o, B. Random trees and general branching processes. Random Struct. Algorithms 31 , 2 (2007), 186-202.
  5. [53]53. Said, A., De Luca, E. W., and Albayrak, S. How social relationships affect user similarities. In Proc. IUI Workshop on Social Recommender Systems (2010).
  6. [62]62. Yahoo! Labs. KDD Cup from Yahoo! Labs. http://kddcup.yahoo.com/ , 2011.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kunegis, J., Blattner, M., & Moser, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Koblenz and Landau (DE)
  • Swiss Distance University of Applied Sciences (CH)
ORCID
Blattner, Marcel
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2013
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1303.6271
arXiv
1303.6271
OpenAlex
W2951110461
Cited by
14
References
60
Citations by year
2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Complex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Keywords
preferential attachment, dynamic networks, web networks, network growth mechanisms, directed graphs, bipartite graphs

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