Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Distance-based network measures change systematically when computed with a hypergraph-aware distance instead of clique projection, and real hypergraphs sort into three classes by which interaction orders dominate.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 08:52 UTC pith:GRAKVKMN

load-bearing objection Useful extension of a self-authored hypergraph distance to three centrality measures, but the three-class taxonomy rests on visual inspection with a single non-unique weight function and needs robustness checks before it can be taken as practical guidance. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20962 v1 pith:GRAKVKMN submitted 2026-07-23 physics.soc-ph

Topological measures in weighted hypergraphs

Ekaterina Vasilyeva , Liubov Tupikina , Daniil Musatov , Andrei M. Raigorodskii , Charo. I. del Genio , Stefano Boccaletti This is my paper
classification physics.soc-ph MSC 05C6505C82
keywords hypergraphsdistancecentralityclique projectionhigher-order interactionsmultilayer representationeccentricitybetweenness
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper extends three classical distance-based measures—closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, and eccentricity—to weighted hypergraphs using a recently proposed hypergraph distance that accounts for hyperedge sizes, intersections, and weights. Through small illustrative examples and analyses of ten real-world datasets, it demonstrates that the results differ systematically from those obtained via clique projection, and that these differences reflect genuine higher-order structure rather than noise. Building on a multilayer representation of hypergraphs, the authors introduce a distance vector whose components track how distances change as progressively larger interaction orders are included. This lets them classify hypergraphs into three broad types: those dominated by pairwise interactions, those dominated by intermediate interaction orders, and those where all interaction orders matter. The practical payoff is a principled way to decide how many interaction orders must be retained to analyze a system faithfully, thereby reducing computational complexity without losing the information encoded in higher-order connections.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the definition of distance in a hypergraph is not a neutral choice: replacing clique projection with a hypergraph distance that incorporates hyperedge sizes, intersection sizes, and weights yields systematically different values for closeness, betweenness, and eccentricity, and these differences are traceable to concrete structural features of the hypergraph. Analyzing ten real-world datasets plus scientific preprint metadata, the authors show that hypergraphs fall into three classes according to which interaction orders dominate their metric structure: pairwise interaction dominance, low-order interaction dominance, and high-order interact

What carries the argument

The key object is the hypergraph distance d_w(i,j) defined in Eqs. (1)-(2), which is computed via a weighted line graph of the hypergraph: each hyperedge becomes a node in the line graph, and the weight between two line-graph nodes depends on the sizes of the corresponding hyperedges, the size of their intersection, and the hyperedge weights through a positive function f. With the choice f(x)=1/x, higher-weight hyperedges contribute shorter distances. This distance is then used to define hypergraph versions of closeness centrality, a betweenness centrality that sums inverse intersection sizes along shortest paths, and eccentricity. A second central object is the distance vector (Eq. 7), obta

Load-bearing premise

Every comparison and class assignment in the paper is computed with a single hypergraph distance formula (the one from Ref. [16] with f(x)=1/x), and if that formula is not representative of admissible hypergraph distances, the systematic differences and the three-class taxonomy could change.

What would settle it

Compute the same centrality rankings, distance-vector quantiles, and class assignments on the same ten datasets using another distance that satisfies the same stated properties, for example with f(x)=1 or f(x)=1/x^2; if the three-class structure or the ranking discrepancies qualitatively disappear or substantially reassign datasets, the paper's central claim would be called into question. Alternatively, find a real hypergraph in the claimed pairwise-dominated class where adding higher-order layers nevertheless changes shortest-path routing or centrality rankings under the paper's own distance.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the paper's claim is correct, clique projection is not a safe default for distance-based analysis of hypergraphs: for many real systems it yields different, sometimes anticorrelated, rankings of closeness, betweenness, and eccentricity.
  • The three-class taxonomy gives a practical criterion for deciding how much higher-order structure to retain: for pairwise-dominated hypergraphs, analysis can be restricted to the graph projection with little loss, while high-order-dominated ones require all interaction sizes.
  • The distance vector can be used as a diagnostic tool: the layer at which quantiles of distance distributions stop changing indicates the highest interaction order needed for faithful analysis.
  • Extending these measures to directed hypergraphs is a natural next step, as the current framework only covers undirected structures.
  • The computational cost of exact hypergraph distances (worst-case O(M^3)) motivates scalable approximations for large-scale applications.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The three-class taxonomy is likely sensitive to the specific choice of the weight function f: a different admissible f (e.g., one that downplays edge sizes) could reassign some datasets between classes, since the authors themselves note that their chosen form is not the only one satisfying the stated properties.
  • A testable extension: in systems assigned to the high-order-dominated class, spreading processes or shortest-path-based dynamics should measurably deviate from predictions made on the clique projection; the class assignment could thus be validated dynamically, not just statically.
  • The distance vector could serve as a feature for representation learning on hypergraphs, letting downstream machine-learning tasks choose the filtration depth automatically rather than by a fixed heuristic.
  • Datasets such as plant-pollinator networks and the disease network, which show strong higher-order dominance, may have structurally different effective geometries than contact networks, which could affect any analysis that assumes a graph-like metric.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper generalizes three distance-based topological measures (closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, and node eccentricity) from graphs to weighted hypergraphs using the hypergraph distance of Ref. [16], which accounts for hyperedge sizes, intersections, and weights via a chosen function f. The authors compare these hypergraph measures with their clique-projection counterparts on small illustrative examples and on 10 benchmark hypergraphs plus arXiv tag co-occurrence data. They further introduce a distance-vector representation based on multilayer filtration and use quantile-quantile plots to classify the datasets into three classes: pairwise-interaction dominance, low-order-interaction dominance, and high-order-interaction dominance. The paper concludes that clique projection is often inadequate and that the classification can guide which hyperedge orders to retain.

Significance. If the central claims are robust, the paper provides practical guidance: clique projection can substantially mis-rank nodes in distance-based centralities, and the proposed taxonomy identifies when higher-order layers must be retained. The manuscript is clearly written, the illustrative examples are explicit and tractable, and the source code and data are made available (codeberg), which supports reproducibility. The central limitation is that the entire empirical analysis and taxonomy rest on a single, admittedly arbitrary weight-distance function f(x)=1/x within a non-unique distance definition; this makes the main conclusions conditional until a sensitivity analysis is provided.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1 and §4.2.2] The hypergraph distance in Eqs. (1)–(2) depends on the positive function f, and §2.1 states that the specific form is 'not necessarily the only one' and that the weight dependence is 'completely arbitrary'. The paper fixes f(x)=1/x for all comparisons and for the three-class taxonomy in §4.2.2. Since the central claim is that differences between hypergraph and projected distance are systematic and that hypergraphs fall into structurally meaningful classes, this single choice is load-bearing. A different admissible f (e.g., f(x)=x^{-α} with varying α, or a logarithmic form) could alter distance values, centrality rankings, and the layer at which Q-Q distributions converge, potentially moving datasets between classes. Please provide a sensitivity analysis over admissible f to show that the qualitative conclusions—especially the Class 1/2/3 assignments—are robust. Without it, the taxonomy i
  2. [§4.2.2, Figs. 5–8] The assignment of datasets to the three classes is described in words ('effectively equal', 'converge', 'keep changing') and supported by Q-Q plots, but no formal convergence criterion or statistical test is specified. For example, Class 1 is claimed when 'the quantiles of H^{w,2} and H^w are effectively equal'; Class 2 when distributions 'converge for an intermediate layer number k'; Class 3 when quantiles 'keep changing'. Without a precise measure (e.g., maximum absolute quantile deviation below a threshold, or a two-sample test on distance distributions), the classification is not falsifiable and cannot be independently checked. Please define an explicit rule for assigning a dataset to a class and report the numerical values that justify each assignment.
  3. [§4.1.2, Figs. 2–3] The comparison of projected versus hypergraph rankings uses Kendall's rank correlation and the μ_t measure, but no confidence intervals or significance tests are provided. Statements such as 'anticorrelated' (pollinator networks) and 'completely uncorrelated' (pollinator 062) are strong and should be accompanied by uncertainty estimates, especially for datasets with small N (e.g., Enron, Senate). At a minimum, bootstrap CIs for KRC at representative t values, or a permutation test against the null of no association, would support the claim that the observed differences are systematic rather than noise.
  4. [§4.2, Eq. (7)] In the definition of the distance vector (7), components d^{w,k}(i,j) are undefined for k smaller than the layer in which i and j first become connected. The Q-Q analyses in Figs. 5–8 compare distance distributions across layers, but the paper does not state how pairs with undefined entries are treated: are they excluded from the distribution, assigned infinite distance, or handled otherwise? This choice can materially affect whether Q-Q curves 'converge' and thus the class assignment. Please specify the exact subset of node pairs used for each Q-Q comparison and how undefined components are treated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'Trough' should be 'Through'. Also 'threedistancebasedtopologicalmeasures' and 'nodepairs' are missing spaces in the abstract.
  2. [§3] Typo: 'higher-order interations' should be 'higher-order interactions'.
  3. [§2.2, Eq. (5)] The definition of a path π and the indices in the intersection sum are not fully explicit. Please define the length ℓ, the indexing of consecutive hyperedges, and the meaning of the indicator more precisely.
  4. [§4.2.2] The phrase 'quantile-quantile distance relations' is informal; consider using 'quantile-quantile plots of the distance distributions' throughout.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'Relative size the of the largest connected component' should read 'Relative size of the largest connected component'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the results apply an imported hypergraph distance to external data; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper takes the hypergraph distance of Eqs. (1)-(2) from Ref. [16] as a starting point and computes closeness, betweenness, eccentricity, distance vectors, and a three-class taxonomy from it. There is no step in which a quantity to be predicted is used to define the distance, nor is any parameter fitted to the datasets and then reported as a finding. The centrality measures and the class assignments are empirical outputs computed on independent benchmark data; the classes are descriptive categories of the computed distance-vector behaviour, not quantities used in the construction of the distance. The only point that could be raised is that the distance itself comes from prior work by overlapping authors and that the weight function f(x)=1/x is acknowledged to be arbitrary and non-unique (Section 2.1: 'the specific form proposed in Ref. [16] is not necessarily the only one'; 'completely arbitrary'). That is a robustness/generalizability limitation, not a circularity: changing f could change numerical rankings or class boundaries, but the paper does not claim uniqueness, and no prediction is forced by construction. The comparison against clique projection is also computed with the same f in both formulations, so the observed differences are not an artefact of fitting a parameter to the outcome. Hence no circular step is exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The load-bearing assumptions are the imported non-unique distance from [16], the hand-chosen f=1/x, the layer-filtration interpretation, and the representativeness of the datasets. These assumptions are reasonable but not independently proven.

free parameters (2)
  • Weight-to-distance function f(x) = 1/x
    Chosen by hand for all analyses; encodes the assumption that larger hyperedge weights mean shorter distances. Not fitted to data, but affects every distance, centrality, and class assignment.
  • Constants 1/2 and 3/2 in Eq. (1) = 1/2, 3/2
    Arbitrary coefficients in the imported line-graph edge-weight formula; they set the balance between hyperedge size, intersection size, and weight, and are not derived from data or from the four stated properties.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Eqs. (1)–(2) define a valid distance satisfying the four stated properties (size, intersection, weight tunability, reduction to graph distance).
    Taken from Ref. [16] without proof in this paper; all measures inherit it. The paper notes the form is not unique.
  • domain assumption Higher weight implies closer connection for all datasets, so f(W)=1/W is applicable.
    Section 2.1: 'This is a natural choice for cases in which higher weight of hyperedges represent closer connections...' This is asserted, not tested per dataset.
  • domain assumption The multilayer filtration H^{w,k} (hyperedges of size ≤ k) captures the metric structure progressively, so distance vectors can be compared across layers.
    Section 2.2, Eq. (7) and the definition of layers; assumes adding larger hyperedges only shortens distances and that layer-wise convergence defines interaction-order dominance.
  • domain assumption The ten benchmark datasets plus arXiv sub-samples are representative enough to support a general three-class taxonomy.
    Section 4.2.2 classifies all analyzed hypergraphs into three classes without a formal statistical clustering procedure or a principled sample-size argument.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12318 in / 13390 out tokens · 133132 ms · 2026-08-01T08:52:12.000922+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Higher-order interactions introduce an additional structural dimension to complex networks, requiring consistent generalizations of classical topological measures. In hypergraphs, the definition of distance between nodes is not unique: beyond the conventional measure derived from clique projection, an alternative formulation that explicitly incorporates the sizes of hyperedges, those of their intersection and their weights has been recently proposed. Here, we generalize three distance-based topological measures, namely closeness centrality, betweenness centrality and node eccentricity, using this new hypergraph distance. Trough tractable illustrative examples, we demonstrate that the differences between results obtained with the two distances are systematic and arise from structurally meaningful features of the higher-order networks. Also, analyzing a series of real-world datasets, we show that hypergraphs can be divided into three distinct classes, corresponding to the possible dominance of specific orders of interaction over their general metric structure. This provides practical guidance on the possibility of limiting the analysis to only some specific interaction orders, reducing its complexity while maintaining the full information of the system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20962 by Andrei M. Raigorodskii, Charo. I. del Genio, Daniil Musatov, Ekaterina Vasilyeva, Liubov Tupikina, Stefano Boccaletti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustrative examples of hypergraphs. A) Hypergraph 𝐻1 contains four nodes connected by 7 edges, one of size 3 and the rest of size 2. B) Hypergraph 𝐻2 contains 8 nodes and 12 edges. Nodes B and C act as bridges between two sets of densely connected nodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Similarity of node rankings by closeness and betweenness. The behaviours of the 𝜇-measure and of the Kendall rank correlation coefficient (KRC) with the number of included top nodes reveals how the importance of higher-order connections changes at different scales. In particular, they are more relevant at the global scale than at the local one in the school dataset and in the conference contact network, wh… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Similarity of node rankings by eccentricity. The behaviours of the 𝜇-measure and of the Kendall rank correlation coefficient (KRC) with the number of included top nodes reveals that, if higher-order interactions are not negligible, the topological structure of the networks changes radically with the chosen definition of distance. Thus, while the differences are small in the contact networks (primary school… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relative size the of the largest connected component (LCC) in hypergraph layers. A) In the arXiv dataset, almost all nodes are connected already when only pairwise interactions are considered (𝑘 = 2, black curve). For 𝑘 = 3, all the nodes belong to the LCC in some years. B) In the real-world datasets, the fractions of nodes in the LCC increase differently with the layers considered, with the slower increas… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quantile-quantile distance plots for benchmark datasets with pairwise interaction dominance. The panels show the correspondence between the quantiles of the distributions of distances 𝑑 𝑤,2 (𝑖, 𝑗) and 𝑑 𝑤(𝑖, 𝑗) (blue), and those of the distributions of distances 𝑑 𝑝,2 (𝑖, 𝑗) and 𝑑 𝑝 (𝑖, 𝑗) (orange). The hypergraph distances are dominated by pairwise interactions, as it is evident from the distance remainin… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The quantile-quantile distance plots for the arXiv datasets show a strong pairwise interaction dominance. The panels show the correspondence between the quantiles of the distributions of distances 𝑑 𝑤,2 (𝑖, 𝑗) and 𝑑 𝑤(𝑖, 𝑗) (blue), and those of the distributions of distances 𝑑 𝑝,2 (𝑖, 𝑗) and 𝑑 𝑝 (𝑖, 𝑗) (orange). Since the hypergraph distances do not change when adding layers to the network, the metric stru… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The quantile-quantile distance plots for the Plant Pollinators (015) dataset show the dominance of intermediate orders of interaction. The panels show the correspondence between the quantiles of the distributions of the distances 𝑑 𝑤,𝑘(𝑖, 𝑗) and 𝑑 𝑤(𝑖, 𝑗) (blue), and those of the distributions of the distances 𝑑 𝑝,𝑘(𝑖, 𝑗) and 𝑑 𝑝 (𝑖, 𝑗) (orange), as more layers 𝑘 are progressively considered. The two distr… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The quantile-quantile distance plots for the show the dominance of higher-order interactions. The panels show the correspondence between the quantiles of the distributions of the distances 𝑑 𝑤,𝑘(𝑖, 𝑗) and 𝑑 𝑤(𝑖, 𝑗) (blue), and those of the distributions of the distances 𝑑 𝑝,𝑘(𝑖, 𝑗) and 𝑑 𝑝 (𝑖, 𝑗) (orange) for datasets in Class 3, as more layers 𝑘 are progressively considered. For all these datasets, the di… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The structure and function of complex networks.SIAM Review, 45:167, 2003

    Mark Newman. The structure and function of complex networks.SIAM Review, 45:167, 2003

    2003

  2. [2]

    Complex networks: Structure and dynamics.Physics Reports, 424:175, 2006

    Stefano Boccaletti, Vito Latora, Yamir Moreno, Martin Chavez, and D-U Hwang. Complex networks: Structure and dynamics.Physics Reports, 424:175, 2006

    2006

  3. [3]

    Oxford University Press, 2012

    Ernesto Estrada.The structure of complex networks: theory and applications. Oxford University Press, 2012

    2012

  4. [4]

    The structure and dynamics of multilayer networks.Physics Reports, 544:1, 2014

    StefanoBoccaletti,GinestraBianconi,ReginoCriado,CharoIvandelGenio,JesúsGómez-Gardeñes,MiguelRomance,IreneSendiña-Nadal, Zhen Wang, and Massimiliano Zanin. The structure and dynamics of multilayer networks.Physics Reports, 544:1, 2014

    2014

  5. [5]

    Oxford university press, 2018

    Mark Newman.Networks. Oxford university press, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Networks beyond pairwise interactions: Structure and dynamics.Physics reports, 874:1, 2020

    Federico Battiston, Giulia Cencetti, Iacopo Iacopini, Vito Latora, Maxime Lucas, Alice Patania, Jean-Gabriel Young, and Giovanni Petri. Networks beyond pairwise interactions: Structure and dynamics.Physics reports, 874:1, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    The structure and dynamics of networks with higher order interactions.Physics Reports, 1018:1, 2023

    Stefano Boccaletti, Pietro De Lellis, Charo Ivan del Genio, Karin Alfaro-Bittner, Regino Criado, Sarika Jalan, and Miguel Romance. The structure and dynamics of networks with higher order interactions.Physics Reports, 1018:1, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Reconstructingsimplicialcomplexesfromevolutionary games.Physical Review E, 111:044304, 2025

    Yin-JieMa,Zhi-QiangJiang,FanshuFang,CharoI.delGenio,andStefanoBoccaletti. Reconstructingsimplicialcomplexesfromevolutionary games.Physical Review E, 111:044304, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    del Genio, and Stefano Boccaletti

    Fatemeh Parastesh, Mahtab Mehrabbeik, Karthikeyan Rajagopal, Sajad Jafari, Matjaž Perc, Charo I. del Genio, and Stefano Boccaletti. Synchronization stability in simplicial complexes of near-identical systems.Physical Review Research, 7:033039, 2025

    2025

  10. [10]

    del Genio

    Charo I. del Genio. Hypermodularity and community detection in hypergraphs.Physical Review Research, 7:033045, 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Solitarystatesinspiking oscillators with higher-order interactions.Physical Review E, 112:034302, 2025

    VladimirVSemenov,SubhasanketDutta,StefanoBoccaletti,CharoI.delGenio,SarikaJalan,andAnnaZakharova. Solitarystatesinspiking oscillators with higher-order interactions.Physical Review E, 112:034302, 2025

    2025

  12. [12]

    Equitabilityandexplosivesynchronisationinmultiplex and higher-order networks.Communications Physics, 9:117, 2026

    KKovalenko,GContreras-Aso,CIdelGenio,SBoccaletti,andRJSánchez-García. Equitabilityandexplosivesynchronisationinmultiplex and higher-order networks.Communications Physics, 9:117, 2026

    2026

  13. [13]

    Higher-orderinteractionsinducechimerastatesingloballycoupledoscillators

    ZGuo,ZLui,SGuan,CIdelGenio,SBoccaletti,andJZhou. Higher-orderinteractionsinducechimerastatesingloballycoupledoscillators. Physical Review Research, 8:023011, 2026

    2026

  14. [14]

    Hypernetwork science via high-order hypergraph walks.EPJ Data Science, 9:16, 2020

    Sinan G Aksoy, Cliff Joslyn, Carlos Ortiz Marrero, Brenda Praggastis, and Emilie Purvine. Hypernetwork science via high-order hypergraph walks.EPJ Data Science, 9:16, 2020

    2020

  15. [15]

    Higher-order shortest paths in hypergraphs.Physical Review E, 112:054302, 2025

    Berné L Nortier, Simon Dobson, and Federico Battiston. Higher-order shortest paths in hypergraphs.Physical Review E, 112:054302, 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    Distances in weighted higher-order networks.Communications Physics, 2026

    Charo I del Genio, Ekaterina Vasilyeva, Liubov Tupikina, Dmitry Fedorov, Daniil Musatov, Andrei M Raigorodskii, and Stefano Boccaletti. Distances in weighted higher-order networks.Communications Physics, 2026

    2026

  17. [17]

    Distances in higher-order networks and the metric structure of hypergraphs.Entropy, 25:923, 2023

    Ekaterina Vasilyeva, Miguel Romance, Ivan Samoylenko, Kirill Kovalenko, Daniil Musatov, Andrey Mihailovich Raigorodskii, and Stefano Boccaletti. Distances in higher-order networks and the metric structure of hypergraphs.Entropy, 25:923, 2023

    2023

  18. [18]

    Multilayer representation of collaboration networks with higher-order interactions.Scientific reports, 11:5666, 2021

    E Vasilyeva, A Kozlov, Karin Alfaro-Bittner, D Musatov, AM Raigorodskii, Matjaž Perc, and Stefano Boccaletti. Multilayer representation of collaboration networks with higher-order interactions.Scientific reports, 11:5666, 2021

    2021

  19. [19]

    Betweenness computation in the single graph representation of hypergraphs.Social networks, 35:561, 2013

    Rami Puzis, Manish Purohit, and VS Subrahmanian. Betweenness computation in the single graph representation of hypergraphs.Social networks, 35:561, 2013

    2013

  20. [20]

    Benson, Rediet Abebe, Michael T

    Austin R. Benson, Rediet Abebe, Michael T. Schaub, Ali Jadbabaie, and Jon Kleinberg. Simplicial closure and higher-order link prediction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115:E11221, 2018

    2018

  21. [21]

    Contact patterns in a high school: A comparison between data collected using wearable sensors, contact diaries and friendship surveys.PLoS One, 10:e0136497, 2015

    Rossana Mastrandrea, Rossana Fournet, and Alain Barrat. Contact patterns in a high school: A comparison between data collected using wearable sensors, contact diaries and friendship surveys.PLoS One, 10:e0136497, 2015

    2015

  22. [22]

    Generative hypergraph clustering: From blockmodels to modularity.Science Advances, 7:eabh1303, 2021

    Philip S Chodrow, Nate Veldt, and Austin R Benson. Generative hypergraph clustering: From blockmodels to modularity.Science Advances, 7:eabh1303, 2021

    2021

  23. [23]

    The human disease network

    Kwang-Il Goh, Michael E Cusick, David Valle, Barton Childs, Marc Vidal, and Albert-László Barabási. The human disease network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104:8685, 2007

    2007

  24. [24]

    Pollination ecology in a phryganic ecosystem.American Journal of Botany, 80:892, 1993

    T Petanidou and D Vokou. Pollination ecology in a phryganic ecosystem.American Journal of Botany, 80:892, 1993

    1993

  25. [25]

    Science Press, 1929

    Charles Robertson.Flowers and insects: lists of visitors of four hundred and fifty-three flowers. Science Press, 1929

    1929

  26. [26]

    What’s in a crowd? analysis of face-to-face behavioral networks.Journal of theoretical biology, 271:166, 2011

    Lorenzo Isella, Juliette Stehlé, Alain Barrat, Ciro Catuto, Jean-François Pinton, and Wouter Van den Broeck. What’s in a crowd? analysis of face-to-face behavioral networks.Journal of theoretical biology, 271:166, 2011

    2011

  27. [27]

    Ontheuseofarxivasadataset.arXiv,page1905.00075, 2019

    ColinB.Clement,MatthewBierbaum,KevinP.O’Keeffe,andAlexanderA.Alemi. Ontheuseofarxivasadataset.arXiv,page1905.00075, 2019. E. Vasilyevaet al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 9 of 10 Topological measures in weighted hypergraphs

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    Vector centrality in hypergraphs.Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 162:112397, 2022

    Kirill Kovalenko, Miguel Romance, Ekaterina Vasilyeva, David Aleja, Regino Criado, Daniil Musatov, Andrei M Raigorodskii, Julio Flores, Ivan Samoylenko, Karin Alfaro-Bittner, Matjaž Perc, and Stefano Boccaletti. Vector centrality in hypergraphs.Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 162:112397, 2022. E. Vasilyevaet al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 10 of 10 Top...

    2022