Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Random Hyperbolic Graphs with Arbitrary Mesoscale Structures

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces the Random Hyperbolic Block Model, an $S^1$-based generator with explicit constraints on group-to-group mixing, and shows it is the maximum-entropy ensemble realizing arbitrary block mixing in the thermodynamic limit.

desk verdict A clean max-entropy block extension of S^1 with a real but fixable finite-size gap in its experimental validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02686 v1 pith:P77MIRYQ submitted 2025-06-03 cs.SI physics.app-phphysics.data-an

Stefano Guarino , Davide Torre , Enrico Mastrostefano This is my paper
classification cs.SIphysics.app-phphysics.data-an MSC 05C8068R10
keywords randomhyperbolicgraphsblockmodelmaximumentropycommunitystructuremixingmatrixnetworkembeddingD-MercatorS1
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the popularity-similarity geometry behind random hyperbolic graphs cannot realize arbitrary community mixing patterns, and that a small extension of the model can. Its Random Hyperbolic Block Model (RHBM) keeps the $S^1$ edge-probability form — the $S^1$ model being a random geometric graph in which connection probability falls off with angular distance and grows with hidden degrees — but replaces hidden degrees with block-normalized fitnesses and adds a symmetric matrix of latent forces between blocks, giving each community pair its own connection propensity. The RHBM is derived as the maximum-entropy ensemble constrained by total energy, expected link counts per block pair, and expected degree sequence; in the limit of infinitely many nodes that ensemble reproduces the model exactly, making RHBM the least-biased geometric generator for prescribed block mixing. Experiments embed RHBM graphs back into hyperbolic spaces and find that degrees and clustering come back almost perfectly while the block mixing matrix is off by 10–55 percent, supporting the claim that attribute-driven group mixing is essentially non-geometric.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the block-level hidden force $\Phi_{IJ}$ acting together with the block-normalized fitness $\phi_i$: they replace the single hidden degree of $S^1$ and make the edge probability block-dependent through the product $\phi_i\phi_j\Phi_{IJ}$. The maximum-entropy derivation is the mechanism that certifies the model: constraining total energy, per-block-pair edge counts, and the degree sequence yields, in the thermodynamic limit, exactly the model's edge probabilities, making the RHBM the least-biased geometric ensemble for a target mixing matrix. The equivalent decomposition into $\binom{n}{2}$ independent mono/bipartite $S^1$ subgraphs is what makes the model constructive: each block pair is its own $S^1$ graph, while drawing each node's angular coordinate once preserves transitivity and clustering across communities.

What would settle it

Generate RHBM graphs at $N=1000,3000,5000$, measure the empirical block mixing matrix $F_{\mathrm{emp}}$ directly from the adjacency matrix, and compare it with the target $F_{\mathrm{in}}$ before any embedding. If the relative error is already in the 10–55 percent range, the reported embedding errors conflate generator inaccuracy with geometric inability; if generation errors are near zero and embedding errors persist, the paper's conclusion is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a random geometric graph can be given arbitrary mesoscale control without leaving the $S^1$ framework. The Random Hyperbolic Block Model (RHBM) assigns each node a hidden fitness $\phi_i$ and each block pair $(I,J)$ a hidden force $\Phi_{IJ}$, so the edge probability takes the same functional form as in $S^1$, with block-wise hidden degrees replacing the global hidden degree and normalization. The paper derives this model as a maximum-entropy ensemble constrained by expected total energy, expected edge counts $F_{IJ}$ between every block pair, and expected degree sequence; in the limit $N\to\infty$ that ensemble has exactly the RHBM edge probabilities, with $\phi_i=f_i$ and $\Phi_{IJ}=F_{IJ}$. It also shows the RHBM is the union of $\binom{n}{2}$ independent mono/bipartite $S^1$ graphs, one per block pair, provided each node draws its fitness and angular coordinate once and reuses them across subgraphs. The experiments embed RHBM graphs back into $S^D$; degrees and clustering are recovered well, while the block mixing matrix is not, with relative errors from about 10 percent to 55 percent across $N$, $k$, $n$, $\rho$, $q$, $\beta$, and $D=1,\ldots,5$.

Load-bearing premise

The exact match between the RHBM's target mixing matrix and the maximum-entropy model holds only as the number of nodes goes to infinity; the experiments use 1,000 to 5,000 nodes and the finite-size correction the derivation calls for is never described, so the generated graphs may not have precisely the intended block mixing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The RHBM can generate sparse, small-world, clustered networks with heterogeneous degrees and arbitrary symmetric block mixing matrices, including patterns that violate the triangle inequality.
  • For fixed expected degree sequence and block mixing, the RHBM is the least-biased ensemble within the popularity-similarity framework in the thermodynamic limit.
  • Because the model decomposes into independent mono/bipartite $S^1$ subgraphs with shared latent coordinates, it can be generated by reusing existing $S^1$ routines block by block.
  • Hyperbolic embeddings of RHBM graphs recover degrees and clustering but miss the mixing matrix, indicating that purely geometric representations fail to capture this mesoscale structure.
  • The RHBM provides a way to separate attribute-driven mixing from popularity-similarity geometry, which makes it a suitable null model for testing whether observed community structure has a geometric origin.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: Re-running the embedding experiments after applying the finite-size correction to $\phi_i$ and $\Phi_{IJ}$ would separate generator error from geometry error; if the 10–55 percent errors survive, the geometric-impossibility conclusion is robust.
  • Inference: Because block pairs are generated as independent subgraphs that share angular coordinates, the RHBM design maps directly onto scalable community-aware null models for empirical attributed networks, an application the authors list only as future work.
  • Inference: The trend of lower mixing-matrix error at higher embedding dimensions suggests that raising $D$ postpones but does not eliminate the geometric obstruction; testing $D$ well beyond 5 could locate the dimension at which the effect saturates.
  • Inference: RHBM graphs can serve as a benchmark for community-aware embedding algorithms: if some algorithm recovers the mixing matrix, the failure is specific to geometry-only embedding rather than to latent-space inference as a whole.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Random Hyperbolic Block Model (RHBM), a generalization of the S1/H2 geometric network model in which the probability of a link between nodes i in block I and j in block J is modulated by a block-level parameter Phi_IJ in addition to individual fitness phi_i. The central theoretical claim is that, in the thermodynamic limit, the maximum-entropy ensemble constrained by total energy, per-block link counts, and the degree sequence reproduces exactly the RHBM edge probability (Eq. (11)), with phi_i = f_i and Phi_IJ = F_IJ. The authors also present an alternative formulation in which the RHBM is a union of n-choose-2 S1 subgraphs sharing angular coordinates, and they report experiments using D-Mercator to embed RHBM graphs in S^D for D = 1,...,5. The experiments show that D-Mercator reconstructs degrees and clustering well but has 10-55% relative error in recovering the input block mixing matrix, which the authors interpret as evidence that purely geometric models cannot realize arbitrary mesoscale mixing patterns.

Significance. If the technical gaps in the experimental section are resolved, the RHBM is a useful and principled contribution: it provides a maximum-entropy null model that couples the popular S1 geometry with explicit control of the block mixing matrix, and the asymptotic derivation from constraints (4)-(6) to Eq. (11) is internally consistent, with Eqs. (8)-(10) satisfying the block-degree consistency check. The alternative subgraph representation of the model is also a helpful conceptual tool. The negative experimental result about D-Mercator is interesting, but as it stands it is not yet load-bearing evidence for the paper's broader claim that geometry cannot represent such mixing patterns, because the input graphs' realized mixing matrices and the inference heuristic's optimality are not validated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 (after Eq. (11)) and Section 3.1] The paper states that the identification phi_i = f_i and Phi_IJ = F_IJ holds exactly only in the thermodynamic limit and that finite systems require a numerical correction to satisfy (5) and (6), but Section 3.1 describes no such correction and the experiments use N = 1000-5000. The error metric in Figure 1 compares D-Mercator's F_out to the nominal F_in, not to the mixing matrix actually realized by the input graph. If the graphs are generated with phi_i = f_i and Phi_IJ = F_IJ directly, the realized block counts may deviate from F_in, in which case the reported reconstruction errors conflate input-side generation bias with the geometric embedding's inability. Please (i) report the realized block mixing matrix of the generated graphs, (ii) evaluate F_out against the realized matrix rather than, or in addition to, the nominal F_in, and (iii) either implement the finite-size numerical correction or quantify that the input-side deviation is negligible across the tested N, k, and n ranges.
  2. [Section 3.1, parametric mixing matrix F] The formula for F as written is not a valid expected-link-count matrix for the parameters used. Interpreting the first term 'rho + 1/n I' as an all-ones matrix multiplied by rho plus (1/n) times the identity gives diagonal entries rho + 1/n and off-diagonal entries rho + (1-rho) q^{...}/(2 sum); for the reported rho = -0.5 and n = 10 all entries are negative, which is incompatible with F_IJ being expected block edge counts in Eq. (11). In addition, no normalization is described that ties F to the specified average degree k, so the total number of expected edges in the generated network is not determined by the written formula. Please provide an unambiguous, reproducible definition of F, including the intended all-ones matrix if that is the notation, the normalization to total edges, and the valid range of rho for each n.
  3. [Section 3.3 and Section 4 (conclusion)] The conclusion that 'purely geometric representations may not suffice' is stronger than what the experiments establish. The experiments show that D-Mercator, a heuristic approximate inference algorithm, does not recover F_in; they do not show that no S^D model with suitably chosen hidden degrees and angular coordinates can realize the input mixing pattern. The triangle-inequality argument in the Discussion is informal and is not quantified. Please either restrict the claim to the observed behavior of D-Mercator, or add evidence that the limitation is intrinsic to the S^D family, for example by solving the exact maximum-likelihood or moment-matching problem on small graphs and showing a lower bound on the achievable mixing error.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (5)] The parenthetical 'or twice that number if I = J' is ambiguous: please define explicitly whether F_II denotes the expected number of unordered intra-block edges or the expected sum of degrees inside the block, since this affects the normalization in Eq. (6).
  2. [Section 2, after Eq. (13)] The sentence explaining that constraints (5)-(6) imply (13) 'under the maximum entropy principle' because of the 'least restrictive assumption' is obscure; the implication is actually a derived property of the explicit solution (11) in the N -> infinity limit, and the phrase about the least restrictive assumption should be removed or reformulated.
  3. [Section 3.1] The experimental section does not state how many independent graph samples were generated for each parameter configuration or how error bars in Figures 1, 3, and 4 were computed; please specify the number of trials and the dispersion of the reported errors.
  4. [Section 3.2] Please define precisely how F_out is computed from the D-Mercator embedding, including whether the edge probabilities are integrated over the inferred angular coordinates and how the total number of edges is normalized before computing the relative error; otherwise the reported error may depend on an arbitrary rescaling between F_in and F_out.
  5. [Section 2, Eq. (8)] The phrase 'integrating p_ij over theta_j and lambda_j' mixes the uniform angular variable with the Lagrange multiplier lambda_j; please clarify the grand-canonical or hidden-variable interpretation so that the reader understands over which random variables the averages are taken.
  6. [Abstract and throughout] There are occasional grammatical and typographical issues, for example 'the dissimilarity between groups do not obey' in the abstract and the inconsistent spacing in 'S D model'; a careful copy edit would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the maximum-entropy derivation is self-contained, and the self-citation to [15] is not load-bearing for the main result.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation (Section 2, Eqs. 4-11) is not circular. It defines an entropy-maximizing ensemble with independent constraints on total energy, block link counts, and degree sequence (Eqs. 4-6), invokes the external S1 result [5] for the choice ε(x)=ln(x), and solves the Lagrange multiplier problem to obtain Eq. (11). The identification φ_i=f_i and Φ_IJ=F_IJ is the theorem's conclusion—the max-entropy edge probability has the same functional form as the proposed model with parameters equal to the constraint values—rather than an input assumed in advance. The alternative formulation citing [15] (same authors) supports the union-of-S1-graphs interpretation, but the stronger constraints are stated explicitly in the paper and a verification sketch is provided, so the argument does not reduce solely to the self-citation, and it is not load-bearing for the main max-entropy result. The finite-size caveat after Eq. (11), where the paper notes that for finite N the values of φ_i and Φ_IJ satisfying constraints (5)-(6) must be found numerically, is a genuine experimental correctness risk: Section 3.1 does not describe such a correction, so graphs generated at N=1000-5000 may not realize the nominal F_in, and the reported D-Mercator reconstruction errors could conflate generator inaccuracy with geometric inability. This is a validity concern for the empirical evaluation, not a circularity: no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and the model's own reproduction of its mixing matrix is definitional rather than an independent test. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained, and no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central derivation introduces no fitted free parameters: the maximum-entropy Lagrange multipliers are determined by the constraints. The model does introduce block-pair latent forces Phi_IJ as the mechanism for arbitrary mixing, which is a new latent construct with no external falsifiable handle. The strongest auxiliary assumptions are the thermodynamic-limit identification and the asserted clustering preservation from shared angular coordinates.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Thermodynamic limit N -> infinity for the identification phi_i = f_i and Phi_IJ = F_IJ
    Section 2, right after Eq. (11): the equivalence holds only as N -> infinity; finite systems require numerical correction, which the experiments do not describe. All experimental claims about generating graphs with desired F rest on this.
  • domain assumption epsilon(x_ij) = ln(x_ij) is the unique choice suppressing nonstructural degree correlations
    Taken from Boguna et al. [5] and used to go from the maximum-entropy form to Eq. (7). The paper does not rederive it.
  • standard math Uniform distribution of angular coordinates on the circle and the integral approximation (1/X)(pi/(beta sin(pi/beta))) for large X
    Standard S^1 assumptions used to derive Eq. (8); the integral in footnote 2 is standard and the uniformity is part of the S^1 model.
  • ad hoc to paper Maximum entropy implies that (5) plus (6) entails (13), i.e., node popularity does not vary from block to block
    Asserted in the 'Alternative formulation' subsection of Section 2 without proof; this is the bridge that makes the RHBM equivalent to the union of C(n,2) S^1 graphs.
  • ad hoc to paper Sharing theta_i across block-pair subgraphs preserves transitivity and guarantees high clustering of the whole network
    Stated in Section 2 ('Alternative formulation' paragraph) as a guarantee, but no derivation is provided; the experiments indirectly test it via D-Mercator clustering recovery.
invented entities (1)
  • Block-level hidden forces Phi_IJ
    purpose: Control the expected number of edges between each pair of blocks I,J, decoupling mesoscale mixing from pairwise latent distances
    Phi_IJ is a latent parameter introduced by the model; it has no observable signature outside the model itself and is set to equal the desired mixing matrix F_IJ in the thermodynamic limit. It functions as a block-wise rescaling of the S^1 hidden degree, not as an independently falsifiable physical entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Random Hyperbolic Graphs with Arbitrary Mesoscale Structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P77MIRYQ

@misc{pith2026250602686,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Random Hyperbolic Graphs with Arbitrary Mesoscale Structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P77MIRYQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02686}
}
read the original abstract

Real-world networks exhibit universal structural properties such as sparsity, small-worldness, heterogeneous degree distributions, high clustering, and community structures. Geometric network models, particularly Random Hyperbolic Graphs (RHGs), effectively capture many of these features by embedding nodes in a latent similarity space. However, networks are often characterized by specific connectivity patterns between groups of nodes -- i.e. communities -- that are not geometric, in the sense that the dissimilarity between groups do not obey the triangle inequality. Structuring connections only based on the interplay of similarity and popularity thus poses fundamental limitations on the mesoscale structure of the networks that RHGs can generate. To address this limitation, we introduce the Random Hyperbolic Block Model (RHBM), which extends RHGs by incorporating block structures within a maximum-entropy framework. We demonstrate the advantages of the RHBM through synthetic network analyses, highlighting its ability to preserve community structures where purely geometric models fail. Our findings emphasize the importance of latent geometry in network modeling while addressing its limitations in controlling mesoscale mixing patterns.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02686 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Relative error in recovering the mixing matrix for various model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Scatter plot of input vs. reconstructed degree sequences. All points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relative error in global clustering coefficients. D-Mercator preserves [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relative error in average local clustering coefficients. Again, D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    The Hidden- Degree Geometric Block Model

    Stefano Guarino, Enrico Mastrostefano, and Davide Torre. “The Hidden- Degree Geometric Block Model”. In:International Conference on Complex Networks and Their Applications. Springer. 2023, pp. 409–419

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Detecting the ultra low dimensionality of real networks

    Pedro Almagro, Mari´ an Bogu˜ n´ a, and M.´Angeles Serrano. “Detecting the ultra low dimensionality of real networks”. In:Nature Communications 13.1 (Oct. 2022).issn: 2041-1723.doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-33685-z.url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33685-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-33685-z.url: 2022

  3. [2]

    Community detection in complex networks using randomisation

    JS Archana and MR Kaimal. “Community detection in complex networks using randomisation”. In:Proceedings of the 2014 International Confer- ence on Interdisciplinary Advances in Applied Computing. 2014, pp. 1– 5

    work page 2014

  4. [3]

    Emergence of scaling in random networks

    Albert-L´ aszl´ o Barab´ asi and R´ eka Albert. “Emergence of scaling in random networks”. In:science286.5439 (1999), pp. 509–512

    work page 1999

  5. [4]

    Sus- taining the Internet with hyperbolic mapping

    Mari´ an Bogu˜ n´ a, Fragkiskos Papadopoulos, and Dmitri Krioukov. “Sus- taining the Internet with hyperbolic mapping”. In:Nature Communica- tions1.6 (2010). Cited by: 324; All Open Access, Bronze Open Access. doi: 10 . 1038 / ncomms1063.url: https : / / www . scopus . com / inward / record . uri ? eid = 2 - s2 . 0 - 78649958138 & doi = 10 . 1038 % 2fncom...

    work page 2010

  6. [5]

    Small worlds and clustering in spatial networks

    Mari´ an Bogu˜ n´ a et al. “Small worlds and clustering in spatial networks”. In:Phys. Rev. Res.2 (2 Apr. 2020), p. 023040.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch. 2.023040.url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2. 023040

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch 2020

  7. [6]

    Community Detection in the Hyperbolic Space

    Matteo Bruno et al. “Community detection in the hyperbolic space”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.09082(2019)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    Random hyperbolic graphs ind+ 1 dimensions

    Gabriel Budel et al. “Random hyperbolic graphs ind+ 1 dimensions”. In: Phys. Rev. E109 (5 May 2024), p. 054131.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.109. 054131.url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.109.054131

    doi:10.1103/physreve.109 2024

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    Epidemics in a synthetic urban population with multiple levels of mixing

    Alessandro Celestini et al. “Epidemics in a synthetic urban population with multiple levels of mixing”. In:International Conference on Complex Networks and Their Applications. Springer. 2021, pp. 315–326. 12

    2021

  2. [9]

    On community structure in complex networks: chal- lenges and opportunities

    Hocine Cherifi et al. “On community structure in complex networks: chal- lenges and opportunities”. In:Applied Network Science4.1 (2019), pp. 1– 35

    2019

  3. [10]

    All scale-free networks are sparse

    Charo I Del Genio, Thilo Gross, and Kevin E Bassler. “All scale-free networks are sparse”. In:Physical review letters107.17 (2011), p. 178701

    2011

  4. [11]

    Dimension mat- ters when modeling network communities in hyperbolic spaces

    B´ eatrice D´ esy, Patrick Desrosiers, and Antoine Allard. “Dimension mat- ters when modeling network communities in hyperbolic spaces”. In:PNAS Nexus2.5 (Apr. 2023). pgad136.issn: 2752-6542.doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/ pgad136. eprint: https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article- p...

    2023 doi

  5. [12]

    Characterizing the Anal- ogy Between Hyperbolic Embedding and Community Structure of Com- plex Networks

    Ali Faqeeh, Saeed Osat, and Filippo Radicchi. “Characterizing the Anal- ogy Between Hyperbolic Embedding and Community Structure of Com- plex Networks”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (9 Aug. 2018), p. 098301.doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett . 121 . 098301.url: https : / / link . aps . or...

    2018

  6. [13]

    Soft communities in similarity space

    Guillermo Garc ´ ıa-P´ erez, M´Angeles Serrano, and Mari´ an Bogu˜ n´ a. “Soft communities in similarity space”. In:Journal of Statistical Physics173 (2018), pp. 775–782

    2018

  7. [14]

    Community structure in social and biological networks

    Michelle Girvan and Mark EJ Newman. “Community structure in social and biological networks”. In:Proceedings of the national academy of sci- ences99.12 (2002), pp. 7821–7826

    2002

  8. [16]

    The D-Mercator method for the multidimen- sional hyperbolic embedding of real networks

    Robert Jankowski et al. “The D-Mercator method for the multidimen- sional hyperbolic embedding of real networks”. In:Nature Communica- tions14.1 (Nov. 2023), p. 7585.issn: 2041-1723.doi: 10.1038/s41467- 023-43337-5.url: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-43337-5

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Generalised popularity- similarity optimisation model for growing hyperbolic networks beyond two dimensions

    Bianka Kov´ acs, S´ amuel G Balogh, and Gergely Palla. “Generalised popularity- similarity optimisation model for growing hyperbolic networks beyond two dimensions”. In:Scientific Reports12.1 (2022), p. 968

    2022

  10. [18]

    The inherent community structure of hyperbolic networks

    Bianka Kov´ acs and Gergely Palla. “The inherent community structure of hyperbolic networks”. In:Scientific Reports11.1 (Aug. 2021).issn: 2045- 2322.doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-93921-2.url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-021-93921-2

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Clustering Implies Geometry in Networks

    Dmitri Krioukov. “Clustering Implies Geometry in Networks”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.116 (20 May 2016), p. 208302.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116. 208302.url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.208302

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Hyperbolic geometry of complex networks

    Dmitri Krioukov et al. “Hyperbolic geometry of complex networks”. In: Phys. Rev. E82 (3 Sept. 2010), p. 036106.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.82. 036106.url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.82.036106. 13

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    A nonuniform popularity-similarity optimization (nPSO) model to efficiently generate realistic complex networks with communities

    Alessandro Muscoloni and Carlo Vittorio Cannistraci. “A nonuniform popularity-similarity optimization (nPSO) model to efficiently generate realistic complex networks with communities”. In:New Journal of Physics 20.5 (2018), p. 052002

    2018

  14. [22]

    Angular separa- bility of data clusters or network communities in geometrical space and its relevance to hyperbolic embedding

    Alessandro Muscoloni and Carlo Vittorio Cannistraci. “Angular separa- bility of data clusters or network communities in geometrical space and its relevance to hyperbolic embedding”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.00025 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Popularity versus similarity in growing networks

    Fragkiskos Papadopoulos et al. “Popularity versus similarity in growing networks”. In:Nature489.7417 (2012), pp. 537–540

    2012

  16. [24]

    Dynamics and control of diseases in networks with community structure

    Marcel Salath´ e and James H Jones. “Dynamics and control of diseases in networks with community structure”. In:PLoS computational biology6.4 (2010), e1000736

    2010

  17. [25]

    The Shortest Path to Network Geometry: A Practical Guide to Basic Models and Applications, Elements in Structure and Dynamics of Complex Networks

    M Angeles Serrano and Mari´ an Bogun´ a. “The Shortest Path to Network Geometry: A Practical Guide to Basic Models and Applications, Elements in Structure and Dynamics of Complex Networks”. In:Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, England10 (2022), p. 9781108865791

    2022

  18. [26]

    A model for social networks

    Riitta Toivonen et al. “A model for social networks”. In:Physica A: Sta- tistical mechanics and its applications371.2 (2006), pp. 851–860

    2006

  19. [27]

    Hyperbolic mapping of complex networks based on community information

    Zuxi Wang et al. “Hyperbolic mapping of complex networks based on community information”. In:Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Ap- plications455 (2016), pp. 104–119

    2016

  20. [28]

    Collective dynamics of ‘small- world’networks

    Duncan J Watts and Steven H Strogatz. “Collective dynamics of ‘small- world’networks”. In:nature393.6684 (1998), pp. 440–442

    1998

  21. [29]

    High dimensional hyperbolic geometry of complex networks

    Weihua Yang and David Rideout. “High dimensional hyperbolic geometry of complex networks”. In:Mathematics8.11 (2020), p. 1861

    2020

  22. [30]

    Community preserving mapping for network hyper- bolic embedding

    Dongsheng Ye et al. “Community preserving mapping for network hyper- bolic embedding”. In:Knowledge-Based Systems246 (2022), p. 108699. issn: 0950-7051.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2022.108699.url: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950705122003227

    2022

  23. [31]

    Emergence of soft communities from geometric preferential attachment

    Konstantin Zuev et al. “Emergence of soft communities from geometric preferential attachment”. In:Scientific reports5.1 (2015), pp. 1–9. 14

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.