Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

The Structure of Spreading on Temporal Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a class of SIS processes, temporal spreading is exactly reachability in one event graph.

desk verdict A useful mapping of temporal SIS variants to event-graph reachability, with a clean R0 for directed random networks, but the abstract overclaims generality that Appendix C itself undermines. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06175 v1 pith:VNEU445U submitted 2026-08-06 physics.soc-ph math-phmath.MPnlin.AOphysics.app-phphysics.comp-ph

Omar Henderson , Mikko Kivelä , Márton Karsai This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.soc-phmath-phmath.MPnlin.AOphysics.app-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords temporalnetworkseventgraphsspreadingprocessesSISmodelepidemicthresholdpercolationglobalconsistencybasicreproductionnumber
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 aims to put spreading on temporal networks on the same footing that percolation gave to static networks: instead of simulating an epidemic many times, one builds a temporal event graph whose nodes are contact events and whose directed links connect events that could pass an infection, then reads outbreak size from reachable components. The central claim is that a class of SIS-type processes, defined as globally consistent, are exactly reachability on a single event graph for fixed recovery time, so their prevalence and epidemic threshold follow from component analysis rather than simulation. For random temporal networks the basic reproduction number factorises as $R_0 = F_R(δt) R_{stat}^0$, where $F_R$ is the residual inter-event time CDF and $R_{stat}^0$ is the static network reproduction number; this gives explicit threshold conditions for Poisson and bursty link dynamics. A last-contact reinforcing SIS process (lrSIS) realises this mapping exactly and is an upper bound for standard fixed-recovery-time SIS, with matching epidemic onsets in simulations and on three empirical temporal networks. The analytical threshold assumes independent, locally tree-like branches; the paper shows this assumption fails for undirected networks when alternating motifs make branches converge.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the temporal event graph (EG): a static directed acyclic graph whose nodes are the events of the temporal network and whose directed edges connect temporally adjacent events, weighted by waiting time. The recovery time $δt$ thresholds these edges (bond percolation) and the infection probability $β$ removes events (site percolation), so a spreading process with waiting-time limit $δt$ traverses exactly the paths kept in the pruned EG. For random temporal networks the argument runs through the excess out-degree generating function $G_1(y)$, whose derivative at 1 gives $R_0 = F_R(δt) \langle k_{in} k_{out}\rangle / \langle k_{in}\rangle$, separating temporal statistics (the residual CDF $F_R$) from static structure. The global consistency condition specifies which processes can be coded by a single EG; lrSIS and frSIS satisfy it, standard fixed-recovery SIS does not, and lrSIS nevertheless upper-bounds standard SIS.

What would settle it

Run the lrSIS process on a directed configuration-model temporal network with a specified joint in/out degree distribution and a known inter-event time distribution, and compare the measured onset to $δt_c$ satisfying $F_R(δt_c) = 1/R_{stat}^0$; a significant mismatch would falsify the branching-process derivation. Conversely, on an undirected $k$-regular network with Lomax inter-event times, the measured onset should sit above the analytical $R_0 = 1$ line because ABAB motifs make branches converge, as seen in the paper's Fig. 5.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that spreading on temporal networks is isomorphic to reachability in a temporal event graph whenever the process is globally consistent: all possible realisations from any initial condition live in a single static directed acyclic graph. The lrSIS process, in which an infected node's fixed recovery clock resets after every incoming infectious event, satisfies this condition, and a proof in Appendix A shows that the infected events in lrSIS are exactly the nodes in the event-graph out-component of the seed. As a direct corollary, the basic reproduction number for random temporal networks is $R_0 = F_R(δt) R_{stat}^0$, so the epidemic threshold is determined by the residual waiting-time distribution and the static degree structure alone; for Poisson link activation this reproduces the known fixed-recovery-time SIS threshold. Because event-graph out-components are ordered in time, they carry infection times and transmission routes, not only final outbreak size, making the correspondence stronger than the static percolation mapping. On empirical Twitter, flight, and public-transport networks, the numerical $R_0 = 1$ condition from the event graph predicts the observed epidemic onset well, with a noted overestimate on the public transport data.

Load-bearing premise

The analytical $R_0$ and threshold equations assume that the event graph is locally tree-like so that spreading branches from an event are independent; the paper's own Appendix C shows that in undirected networks alternating paths between two links make branches converge, shifting the measured onset away from the predicted threshold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On random temporal networks, the epidemic threshold can be calculated in closed form from the inter-event time distribution and static degree distribution, with no epidemic simulation.
  • For Poisson link activation the threshold reduces to $δt_c = -(1/λ)\log(1 - 1/R_{stat}^0)$, the same condition as fixed-recovery-time SIS on a static network, so temporal and static analyses coincide in this limit.
  • Because the event graph encodes the whole time-respecting path structure, its out-components give not only final outbreak size but also infection times and transmission routes for any seed.
  • The lrSIS process is an upper bound for standard fixed-recovery SIS and shows the same epidemic onset, so event-graph analysis locates conventional SIS thresholds even where the processes are not exactly isomorphic.
  • Each globally consistent process can be computed for all initial conditions from one event-graph component sweep, giving a large computational saving as the number of realisations grows.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The global-consistency criterion is likely the right organising principle for a general theory: any dynamics (random walks, complex contagions, opinion or behaviour spread) that admits a globally consistent variant automatically becomes a structural reachability problem on the same kind of event graph.
  • The ABAB-motif failure suggests a testable correction for undirected networks: if one prunes alternating two-link returns in the event graph, the analytical threshold may be recovered, but the graph would then depend on process history, so the exactness is lost; an effective branching-factor correction might retain simplicity.
  • The factorisation $R_0 = F_R(δt) R_{stat}^0$ implies a design principle: temporal heterogeneity and static topology act multiplicatively, so a network designer could compensate for burstiness (small $α$) by increasing static connectivity, and the threshold line from the paper's Eq. (5) gives the trade-off.
  • In empirical networks with locally dense regions, a globally subcritical network can still have supercritical subpopulations, so onset may occur before $R_0 = 1$; a local out-component spectrum of the event graph could quantify this.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a structural framework for spreading on temporal networks: it maps a class of SIS-type processes to reachability in temporal event graphs (EGs). Two 'globally consistent' processes are introduced, lrSIS and frSIS, whose recovery clocks reset upon infection, and Appendix A proves exact isomorphisms between these processes and EG reachability together with an upper bound relating lrSIS to standard fixed-recovery-time SIS. Using branching-process generating functions under a locally tree-like EG assumption, the paper derives the basic reproduction number R0 = F_R(dt) R_stat^0 (Eq. 2) and threshold conditions (Eqs. 3-5) for directed configuration-model temporal networks with independent renewal link dynamics, and validates them on Poisson and Lomax inter-event-time models and on three empirical temporal networks, claiming significant computational advantages from single-sweep EG component analysis. Appendix C reports that the undirected generalization fails: ABAB motifs make EG branches converge, so the analytical threshold underestimates the observed onset.

Significance. The framework is a genuine contribution if the directed-network results are confirmed. The equivalence and upper-bound proofs in Appendix A are clean and correct, and the upper-bound theorem gives the constructed lrSIS/frSIS processes a substantive connection to the standard SIS model rather than leaving them as purely definitional objects. The R0 factorization is elegant and falsifiable: it reduces to the known static threshold as dt grows, and Eqs. (4)-(5) give explicit, testable predictions for Poisson and bursty dynamics that the simulations in Fig. 3 reportedly match. The computational reduction, building the EG once and obtaining outcomes for all initial conditions from a single component sweep, is real and is benchmarked on empirical data. The paper is also honest: it reports the Helsinki overestimate and, in Appendix C, its own failure case. The principal limitations are the scope of the analytical claim (directed networks only; the abstract overstates this), the unverified tree-likeness assumption, and the definitional nature of lrSIS/frSIS as processes constructed for EG compatibility; these are fixable with qualification and additional verification.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Appendix C] The abstract states that epidemic thresholds are derived 'for temporal networks with arbitrary degree and inter-event time distributions' without any directedness caveat. The actual derivation (Eqs. (1)-(5) and Appendix B) is restricted to directed configuration-model static networks with independent link event processes, and Appendix C shows that the natural undirected analogue, Eq. (C3), 'significantly underestimates the onset of the frSIS process' on k-regular undirected networks because ABAB motifs make branches converge (Fig. 5). Undirected contact networks are a standard case, so the headline claim in the abstract, the introduction, and the discussion is not established; the threshold result should be stated as valid for directed temporal networks, with the undirected breakdown reported in the main text.
  2. [Section 'If the EG is locally tree-like...'; Appendix B] The branching-process derivation of Eq. (2) assumes the EG is locally tree-like and branches are independent, but the paper provides no argument that this holds for the directed configuration model, and Appendix C identifies a concrete violation mechanism: a static node with multiple in-events and a shared out-event creates convergent EG branches, a local configuration not suppressed by network sparsity. The close agreement claimed in Fig. 3 is numerical evidence for particular parameter settings, not verification of an asymptotic limit. The authors should add a convergence argument or an explicit structural check (e.g., merge statistics or a comparison of Eq. (2) against a non-tree computation) for the directed case, and phrase the 'striking' agreement (Fig. 3 caption) as a validated approximation with stated scope.
  3. [Section 'A temporal event graph...'] The main text invites the reader to 'see Appendix C' for generalization to undirected events, but Appendix C shows that only the process definition and the local branching factor generalize: the analytical threshold 'significantly underestimates the onset' (Fig. 5b). This internal mismatch between the main-text claim and the appendix result should be resolved by rewording the main text to state that the process mapping and numerical component analysis generalize, while the closed-form threshold does not.
  4. [Eq. (1); Appendix B; Fig. 2] The generating function H(y) = 1 - F_R(dt) + F_R(dt)y in Eq. (1)/(B1) models each static link as contributing at most one EG branch. This corresponds to the frSIS constrained event graph D_C (at most one admissible event per link), not to the unconstrained EG to which lrSIS maps exactly, where multiple dt-adjacent events on one static link create multiple EG edges; at the parameters of Fig. 2 the expected count lambda*dt reaches order 1. Since the same dashed line from Eq. (4) is overlaid on both the lrSIS and frSIS phase diagrams (Fig. 2b,c), the text should state explicitly which event-graph variant and which process the analytic R0 describes, and justify the at-most-one-branch reduction for lrSIS.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figs. 3 and 4] Simulation results are reported without error bars or confidence intervals; in Fig. 4, where outcomes are averaged over randomly sampled observation windows, the spread across windows should be reported to support the 'remarkable' agreement claim.
  2. [Author affiliations] The affiliation contains a typo: 'Aalto Univerisity' should read 'Aalto University'.
  3. [Eq. (5)] The Lomax model requires alpha > 2 for a finite mean (t0 = mu(alpha-2) > 0); the parameter range should be stated explicitly at Eq. (5).
  4. [Eq. (3)] The parenthetical remark after Eq. (3) that the threshold takes a different functional form if p depends on kin or kout is correct but unexplained; a one-line example would help the reader gauge the scope of the result.
  5. [Fig. 3 caption] The statement that the insets compare SIS and frSIS densities is informative, but the caption could also state the number of independent realizations and network sizes used in the numerical R0 measurements.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The lrSIS-to-event-graph mapping is definitional by construction, but the R0 derivation and thresholds are independent; Appendix C limits scope without adding circularity.

  1. self definitional [Main text, 'Globally consistent processes' section; Appendix A equivalence proof]
    "if the infectious period of an infected node is reset after every incoming event from an infected neighbour, the process becomes globally consistent. We call this the last-contact reinforcing SIS (lrSIS) process, as the fixed recovery time is always computed from the last infecting event in a δt adjacent interaction sequence of an infected node. The lrSIS maps exactly to reachability on the event graph for fixed recovery time δt (see Fig. 1(d) for an example and Appendix A for proof)."

    The event-graph edge is defined by δt-adjacency (second event within δt and target of first equals source of second, or shared node for undirected events). The lrSIS recovery rule is defined by resetting the clock at exactly such δt-adjacent infecting events. Appendix A's two steps unpack these two definitions in opposite directions: Step 1 infers infection from event-graph adjacency because the lrSIS clock was reset at the preceding event; Step 2 infers event-graph adjacency from lrSIS transmission because both require t_j - t_i < δt and the same causal node-sharing condition. Thus the 'exact mapping' is an identity by construction rather than an independent first-principles result.

full rationale

Aside from the deliberately defined lrSIS/frSIS mapping, the analytical chain is self-contained. R0 in Eq. (2) comes from a generating-function calculation (Appendix B) with no fitted parameters; the residual CDF F_R(δt) is a standard renewal-theory input, and the result is checked against external simulations and empirical thresholds, so it is not a fit renamed as prediction. The paper relies on prior event-graph work by overlapping authors [23–29], but the definitions are restated and the new derivation is carried out in the paper, so self-citation is not load-bearing. Appendix C is an honest limitation: for undirected networks the tree-like branching assumption fails because ABAB motifs make branches converge, shifting the predicted threshold below the observed onset; this narrows the scope of the abstract's unrestricted claim but is a correctness/assumption issue, not circularity. The only definitional step is that lrSIS is constructed so that its recovery rule coincides with δt-adjacency, and the paper is transparent about that modelling choice.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central R0 derivation has no fitted free parameters: all quantities are computed from stated input distributions and network degree structure. The main unstated costs are the tree-likeness and independent-link assumptions, and the lrSIS/frSIS recovery rules, which are ad hoc constructs introduced to force exactness.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Generating functions and branching process theory are valid for the event graph.
    Used in Appendix B to derive R0 from the excess out-degree distribution.
  • domain assumption The event graph is locally tree-like and branches are independent.
    Invoked in the main text ('If the EG is locally tree-like...') and underlying Appendix B; Appendix C shows it fails for undirected networks due to ABAB motifs.
  • domain assumption Events on different links are independent and the underlying static network is a directed configuration model.
    Stated as 'for temporal networks with independent events over an underlying directed configuration model static network', used to factor the generating function and define p = F_R(δt).
  • domain assumption Infection arrivals occur at random points in a link's timeline, so the residual waiting time CDF F_R(δt) is the relevant activation probability.
    Cites [8,33]; this is the standard stationary renewal approximation and is not derived in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper lrSIS/frSIS recovery-reset rules define globally consistent processes.
    These model variants are introduced by the paper to make spreading exactly isomorphic to event graph reachability; their relevance to standard SIS is argued, not derived.
invented entities (2)
  • lrSIS (last-contact reinforcing SIS) process
    purpose: Defines an SIS variant whose infectious period resets on every incoming infection, making it exactly isomorphic to reachability on an event graph.
    This is a model construct introduced to match the event graph structure; its upper bound on standard SIS is proven, but the process itself is not independently falsifiable.
  • frSIS (first-contact reinforcing SIS) process independent evidence
    purpose: A globally consistent variant closer to fixed-recovery-time SIS, with at most one infection per neighbor per infectious period.
    The paper compares its R0 threshold against simulations and empirical networks, providing a falsifiable handle external to the definition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Structure of Spreading on Temporal Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VNEU445U

@misc{pith2026260806175,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Structure of Spreading on Temporal Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VNEU445U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06175}
}
read the original abstract

The physics of spreading in static networks is well understood through mappings to percolation. We show that spreading dynamics on temporal networks can analogously be mapped to reachability in temporal event graphs. This provides a theoretical and computational framework for a class of processes, such as variants of the susceptible-infected-susceptible model. Without explicit simulations, through the component analysis of event graphs, we obtain epidemic prevalence and derive epidemic thresholds for temporal networks with arbitrary degree and inter-event time distributions, with significant computational advantages as compared to explicit simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06175 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of (a) a temporal network, (b) its static projection, and its (c) event graph representation. Spreading paths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the corresponding phase diagrams for SIS (a), lrSIS (b), frSIS (c), and SIR (d) on k-regular tem￾poral networks with Poisson link activation. All systems exhibit similar epidemic transitions between a susceptible and infected phase, characterized by a transition contour that appears very similar between each spreading pro￾cess. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 In f e c tio n r a t e (a) SIS (b) lrSIS 0 50 100 150 200 R… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a)-(d), which compares analytical and numerical estimates of R0 for k-regular configuration model net￾works in panels (a) and (b) and for degree heterogeneous networks in panels (c) and (d). In each case, link ac￾tivations follow a bursty renewal process with varying inter-event time exponent α (see colours). Strikingly, the analytical predictions (solid curves) agree closely with the simulation results (symbols) a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Steady-state infection size as function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Undirected frSIS spreading on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W. O. Kermack and A. G. McKendrick, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Pa- pers of a Mathematical and Physical Character115, 700 (1927)

    work page 1927

  2. [2]

    Pastor-Satorras, C

    R. Pastor-Satorras, C. Castellano, P. Van Mieghem, and A. Vespignani, Reviews of Modern Physics87, 925 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    M. E. Newman, Physical review E66, 016128 (2002)

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    Kenah and J

    E. Kenah and J. M. Robins, Physical Review E76, 036113 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Bogu˜ n´ a, C

    M. Bogu˜ n´ a, C. Castellano, and R. Pastor-Satorras, Phys- ical Review Letters111, 068701 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Holme and J

    P. Holme and J. Saram¨ aki, Physics Reports519, 97 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    Lambiotte and N

    R. Lambiotte and N. Masuda,A Guide to Temporal Net- works(World Scientific, Singapore, 2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Karsai, M

    M. Karsai, M. Kivel¨ a, R. K. Pan, K. Kaski, J. Kert´ esz, A.-L. Barab´ asi, and J. Saram¨ aki, Physical Review E83 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Holme and F

    P. Holme and F. Liljeros, Scientific Reports4, 4999 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Masuda and P

    N. Masuda and P. Holme, F1000Prime Reports5, 6 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    S. Lee, L. E. C. Rocha, F. Liljeros, and P. Holme, PLOS ONE7, e36439 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Kivel¨ a, R

    M. Kivel¨ a, R. K. Pan, K. Kaski, J. Kert´ esz, J. Saram¨ aki, and M. Karsai, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2012, P03005 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Stehl´ e, N

    J. Stehl´ e, N. Voirin, A. Barrat, C. Cattuto, V. Colizza, L. Isella, C. R´ egis, J.-F. Pinton, N. Khanafer, W. Van den Broeck, and P. Vanhems, BMC Medicine9(2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    D. X. Horv´ ath and J. Kert´ esz, New Journal of Physics 16, 073037 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Holme and N

    P. Holme and N. Masuda, PLOS ONE10, 1 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Onaga, J

    T. Onaga, J. P. Gleeson, and N. Masuda, Physical Re- view Letters119, 108301 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    L. E. C. Rocha, F. Liljeros, and P. Holme, PLOS Com- putational Biology7, e1001109 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    Valdano, L

    E. Valdano, L. Ferreri, C. Poletto, and V. Colizza, Phys- ical Review X5, 021005 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Valdano, M

    E. Valdano, M. Re Fiorentin, C. Poletto, and V. Colizza, Physical Review Letters120, 068302 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Perra, B

    N. Perra, B. Gon¸ calves, R. Pastor-Satorras, and A. Vespignani, Scientific Reports2, 469 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Karsai, N

    M. Karsai, N. Perra, and A. Vespignani, SCIENTIFIC REPORTS4(2014), 10.1038/srep04001

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    Mancastroppa, A

    M. Mancastroppa, A. Vezzani, M. A. Mu˜ noz, and R. Bu- rioni, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Ex- periment2019, 053502 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Mellor, Journal of complex networks6, 639 (2018)

    A. Mellor, Journal of complex networks6, 639 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Weighted temporal event graphs,

    J. Saram´ aki, A. Badie Modiri, A. Rizi, M. Kivel¨ a, and M. Karsai, “Weighted temporal event graphs,” inTem- poral Network Theory(Springer, 2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Badie-Modiri, A

    A. Badie-Modiri, A. K. Rizi, M. Karsai, and M. Kivel¨ a, Physical Review Research4, L022047 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Badie-Modiri, A

    A. Badie-Modiri, A. K. Rizi, M. Karsai, and M. Kivel¨ a, Physical Review E105, 054313 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Hinrichsen, Advances in physics49, 815 (2000)

    H. Hinrichsen, Advances in physics49, 815 (2000)

    2000

  20. [28]

    Badie-Modiri, M

    A. Badie-Modiri, M. Karsai, and M. Kivel¨ a, Physical Review E101, 052303 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Kivel¨ a, J

    M. Kivel¨ a, J. Cambe, J. Saram¨ aki, and M. Karsai, Sci- entific reports8, 12357 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Grassberger, Mathematical Biosciences63, 157 (1983)

    P. Grassberger, Mathematical Biosciences63, 157 (1983)

    1983

  23. [31]

    J. L. Cardy and R. L. Sugar, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General13, L423 (1980)

    1980

  24. [32]

    A. S. Mata, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Non- linear Science31, 012101 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Kivel¨ a and M

    M. Kivel¨ a and M. A. Porter, Physical Review E92, 052813 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    I. Z. Kiss, G. R¨ ost, and Z. Vizi, Physical Review Letters 115, 078701 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    N. L. Johnson, S. Kotz, and N. Balakrishnan,Continu- ous univariate distributions, volume 1, Vol. 1 (John wiley & sons, 1994)

    1994

  28. [36]

    Yang and J

    J. Yang and J. Leskovec, inProceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining(2011) pp. 177–186

    2011

  29. [37]

    Crowdsourced air traffic data from the opensky network 2020,

    X. Olive, M. Strohmeier, and J. L¨ ubbe, “Crowdsourced air traffic data from the opensky network 2020,” (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Kujala, C

    R. Kujala, C. Weckstr¨ om, R. K. Darst, M. N. Mladen- ovi´ c, and J. Saram¨ aki, Scientific Data5, 180089 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Bogun´ a, R

    M. Bogun´ a, R. Pastor-Satorras, and A. Vespignani, Physical review letters90, 028701 (2003)

    2003

  32. [40]

    J. C. Miller, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics80, 020901 (2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    A. K. Rizi, R. Michielan, C. Stegehuis, and M. Kivel¨ a, Nature communications16, 11351 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Hiraoka, Z

    T. Hiraoka, Z. Ghadiri, A. K. Rizi, M. Kivel¨ a, and J. Saram¨ aki, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122, e2421460122 (2025). 7 End Matter Appendix A: Event graphs vs. spreading processes Equivalence between lrSIS process and event graph reachability Statement:Th...

    2025

Pith tools

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