Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 82 references

Quantifying concurrency in event-based temporal network and hypergraph data

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-30 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Pairs of edges sharing a node show higher concurrency than pairs that do not, mainly because they sit inside closed local structures such as triangles.

desk verdict EEC is a clean new concurrency metric but the main empirical claim about shared-node pairs and local structures looks vulnerable to activity-rate confounding. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.24633 v1 pith:2AR4ZRIQ submitted 2026-05-23 physics.soc-ph

Jiyoung Kang , Hang-Hyun Jo , Naoki Masuda This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.soc-ph
keywords concurrencytemporalnetworkdataevent-basedpairsinteractionsquantifying
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 introduces edge-event correlation as a measure of how similarly two edges or hyperedges are active across time in sequences of timestamped events. When applied to empirical temporal networks and hypergraphs, the measure shows that node-sharing pairs tend to activate together more than non-sharing pairs. This difference arises largely from pairs that belong to closed structures like triangles in the static projection of the data. The finding matters because concurrency shapes the speed of spreading processes such as epidemics or information flow.

What carries the argument

Edge-event correlation (EEC), which compares the time series of activity for two edges or hyperedges to measure how similarly they are active.

What would settle it

A dataset in which shared-node pairs lose their concurrency advantage after the effects of node activity levels are removed would falsify the claim that local structures are the main driver.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that edge-event correlation quantifies concurrency by comparing the temporal activity profiles of two connections, and that empirical data exhibit elevated concurrency precisely for those pairs that share a node, with the elevation attributable mainly to the pairs' embedding inside closed local structures such as triangles.

Load-bearing premise

The observed elevation in concurrency for shared-node pairs is driven primarily by local closed structures rather than by differences in individual node activity rates or recording biases in the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Edge-event correlation supplies a practical numerical tool for measuring concurrency in any event-based temporal network or hypergraph.
  • Across most examined datasets, node-sharing pairs display higher concurrency than non-sharing pairs.
  • The excess concurrency is accounted for mainly by the pairs' membership in triangles and similar closed motifs.
  • The measure can flag network motifs likely to accelerate spreading or collective dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Temporal spreading models that ignore this node-sharing bias may underestimate outbreak sizes or information reach.
  • The same measure could be applied to test whether higher-order hyperedge concurrency follows analogous local-structure rules.
  • Controlling explicitly for node activity in future data collection might isolate the contribution of triangles more cleanly.
  • The pattern suggests that rewiring algorithms aimed at reducing local clustering could also lower overall concurrency.
  • keywords:[
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces edge-event correlation (EEC), a measure of temporal overlap between pairs of edges or hyperedges in event-based temporal networks and hypergraphs. It applies EEC to multiple empirical datasets and reports that, across most datasets, pairs sharing a node exhibit higher concurrency than non-sharing pairs, with this elevation primarily attributable to pairs embedded in closed local structures such as triangles in the aggregated static network. EEC is positioned as a practical tool for quantifying concurrency and identifying structures relevant to spreading processes.

Significance. If the empirical findings survive appropriate controls, the work supplies a simple, interpretable scalar for concurrency that can be computed directly from timestamped event lists. This could aid analysis of temporal data in social, biological, and technological systems. The manuscript does not report machine-checked proofs, open code, or parameter-free derivations, but the measure itself is defined without fitted parameters.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results section] Results section (empirical comparisons): the reported elevation in EEC for shared-node pairs versus non-shared pairs is presented via direct comparison in the empirical data, yet no activity-matched null models, degree-preserving temporal shuffles, or regression controls for node event rates or burstiness are described. Without these, the attribution of the elevation to closed local structures (rather than heterogeneous node activity) cannot be isolated; this directly affects the central empirical claim.
  2. [Methods] Methods (EEC definition and hypergraph extension): the precise normalization and handling of multi-node events in hypergraphs is not cross-checked against a temporal null model that preserves node activity sequences; this leaves open whether the reported hypergraph results are robust to the same potential confounder identified for ordinary networks.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the time window or binning used to compute EEC, as this choice affects numerical values.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states findings 'across most datasets' without quantifying how many datasets were examined or the fraction that support the claim; a table summarizing per-dataset results would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the empirical claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results section] Results section (empirical comparisons): the reported elevation in EEC for shared-node pairs versus non-shared pairs is presented via direct comparison in the empirical data, yet no activity-matched null models, degree-preserving temporal shuffles, or regression controls for node event rates or burstiness are described. Without these, the attribution of the elevation to closed local structures (rather than heterogeneous node activity) cannot be isolated; this directly affects the central empirical claim.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of activity-matched controls leaves open the possibility that heterogeneous node activity rates contribute to the observed EEC elevation. The direct comparison between sharing and non-sharing pairs does not fully isolate local structure effects. In the revised manuscript we will add a temporal null model that shuffles event times while preserving each node's activity sequence, burstiness, and degree sequence. We will recompute the EEC differences under this null and report whether the elevation for node-sharing pairs (and its attribution to triangles) remains significant. This will directly test the central claim. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods (EEC definition and hypergraph extension): the precise normalization and handling of multi-node events in hypergraphs is not cross-checked against a temporal null model that preserves node activity sequences; this leaves open whether the reported hypergraph results are robust to the same potential confounder identified for ordinary networks.

    Authors: We concur that the hypergraph results require the same robustness check. The current hypergraph EEC definition normalizes by the number of node pairs in each hyperedge, but this has not been validated against activity-preserving shuffles. We will extend the null-model analysis to all hypergraph datasets, applying the identical node-activity-preserving temporal shuffle, and report the resulting EEC statistics for sharing versus non-sharing hyperedge pairs. Any changes to the interpretation will be discussed. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: EEC introduced as independent measure; empirical comparisons do not reduce to self-definition or fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper defines edge-event correlation (EEC) as a new, simple measure for quantifying temporal overlap between pairs of edges or hyperedges. The abstract presents direct empirical comparisons across datasets without any equations or steps that reduce the reported elevation in concurrency for shared-node pairs to a fitted parameter, self-referential definition, or self-citation chain. No load-bearing uniqueness theorems, ansatzes, or renamings of known results are indicated. The central claims rest on observable data patterns rather than constructionally forced outputs, making the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

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

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit equations or methods, so no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be identified from the provided text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantifying concurrency in event-based temporal network and hypergraph data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2AR4ZRIQ

@misc{pith2026260524633,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantifying concurrency in event-based temporal network and hypergraph data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2AR4ZRIQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.24633}
}
read the original abstract

Many social, biological, and technological systems are recorded as sequences of time-stamped interactions. In such systems, concurrency, i.e., the tendency for an individual to participate in multiple interactions approximately at the same time, can strongly affect processes such as epidemic or information spreading. However, concurrency measures for event-based temporal network data are not established. We introduce edge-event correlation (EEC), a simple and interpretable measure that quantifies how similarly two connections are active over time. We apply EEC to empirical temporal networks and temporal hypergraphs, the latter allowing single events to involve more than two nodes. Across most datasets, pairs of edges or hyperedges that share a node show higher concurrency than pairs that do not. We further find that this elevated concurrency is mainly driven by pairs embedded in closed local structures, such as triangles in the aggregated network. EEC provides a practical tool for quantifying concurrency in event-based temporal data and may help identify network structures that facilitate rapid spreading or collective dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.24633 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Computation and comparison of the EEC. (A) Steps for computing the EEC. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of EEC values for different edge-pair types in temporal networks. His [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of EEC values for the three edge-pair types (i.e., dj, int [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of EEC values for the five h3-h3 pair types in empirical hypergraphs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Holme and J

    P. Holme and J. Saramäki. Temporal networks. Physics Reports, 519(3):97–125, 2012

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    A Guide to Temporal Networks

    Naoki Masuda and Renaud Lambiotte. A Guide to Temporal Networks . World Scientific, 2nd edition, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Bansal, J

    S. Bansal, J. Read, B. Pourbohloul, and L. A. Meyers. The dynamic nature of contact networks in infectious disease epidemiology. Journal of Biological Dynamics , 4(5):478–489, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Holme and J

    P. Holme and J. Saramäki, editors. Temporal Network Theory . Computational Social Sciences. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    P. Holme. Modern temporal network theory: A colloquium. The European Physical Journal B, 88(9):234, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Barabási

    A.-L. Barabási. The origin of bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics. Nature, 435(7039):207–211, 2005

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Vázquez, J

    A. Vázquez, J. G. Oliveira, Z. Dezsö, K.-I. Goh, I. Kondor, and A.-L. Barabási. Modeling bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics. Physical Review E , 73(3):036127, 2006

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Bursty Human Dynamics

    Márton Karsai, Hang-Hyun Jo, and Kimmo Kaski. Bursty Human Dynamics . SpringerBriefs in Complexity. Springer, Cham, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Vazquez, B

    A. Vazquez, B. Rácz, A. Lukács, and A.-L. Barabási. Impact of non-Poissonian activity patterns on spreading processes. Physical Review Letters , 98(15):158702, 2007

    2007

  2. [10]

    Karsai, M

    M. Karsai, M. Kivelä, R. K. Pan, K. Kaski, J. Kertész, A.-L. Barabási, and J. Saramäki. Small but slow world: How network topology and burstiness slow down spreading. Physical Review E , 83(2):025102, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    Masuda and P

    N. Masuda and P. Holme. Predicting and controlling infectious disease epidemics using temporal networks. F1000Prime Reports, 5:6, 2013

    2013

  4. [12]

    R. Milo, S. Shen-Orr, S. Itzkovitz, N. Kashtan, D. Chklovskii, and U. Alon. Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. Science, 298(5594):824–827, 2002

    2002

  5. [13]

    U. Alon. Network motifs: theory and experimental approaches. Nature Reviews Genetics , 8(6):450–461, 2007

    2007

  6. [14]

    Kovanen, M

    L. Kovanen, M. Karsai, K. Kaski, J. Kertész, and J. Saramäki. Temporal motifs in time- dependent networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics , 2011(11):P11005, 2011. 15

    2011

  7. [15]

    Paranjape, A

    A. Paranjape, A. R. Benson, and J. Leskovec. Motifs in temporal networks. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM ’17) , pages 601–610, New York, NY, USA, 2017. Association for Computing Machinery

    2017

  8. [16]

    Jazayeri and C

    A. Jazayeri and C. C. Yang. Motif discovery algorithms in static and temporal networks: A survey. Journal of Complex Networks , 8(4):cnaa031, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    P. Liu, V. Guarrasi, and A. E. Sarıyüce. Temporal network motifs: Models, limitations, evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 35(1):945–957, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    M. M. Hosseinzadeh, M. Cannataro, P. H. Guzzi, and R. Dondi. Temporal networks in bi- ology and medicine: A survey on models, algorithms, and tools. Network Modeling Analysis in Health Informatics and Bioinformatics , 12(1):10, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Chen and R

    J. Chen and R. Ying. TempMe: Towards the explainability of temporal graph neural networks via motif discovery. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 36, pages 29005–29028. Cur...

    2023

  12. [20]

    A. E. Sarıyüce. A powerful lens for temporal network analysis: temporal motifs. Discover Data, 3(14), 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Morris and M

    M. Morris and M. Kretzschmar. Concurrent partnerships and transmission dynamics in networks. Social Networks , 17(3-4):299–318, 1995

    1995

  14. [22]

    Kretzschmar and M

    M. Kretzschmar and M. Morris. Measures of concurrency in networks and the spread of infectious disease. Mathematical Biosciences, 133(2):165–195, 1996

    1996

  15. [23]

    Masuda, J

    N. Masuda, J. C. Miller, and P. Holme. Concurrency measures in the era of temporal network epidemiology: A review. Journal of The Royal Society Interface , 18(179):20210019, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    C. H. Watts and R. M. May. The influence of concurrent partnerships on the dynamics of HIV/AIDS. Mathematical Biosciences, 108(1):89–104, 1992

    1992

  17. [25]

    S. M. Goodreau, S. Cassels, D. Kasprzyk, D. E. Montaño, A. Greek, and M. Morris. Con- current partnerships, acute infection and HIV epidemic dynamics among young adults in Zimbabwe. AIDS and Behavior , 16(2):312–322, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    Moody and R

    J. Moody and R. A. Benton. Interdependent effects of cohesion and concurrency for epidemic potential. Annals of Epidemiology , 26(4):241–248, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Onaga, J

    T. Onaga, J. P. Gleeson, and N. Masuda. Concurrency-induced transitions in epidemic dynamics on temporal networks. Physical Review Letters , 119(10):108301, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    J. C. Miller and A. C. Slim. Saturation effects and the concurrency hypothesis: Insights from an analytic model. PLoS ONE , 12(11):e0187938, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    E. Lee, S. Emmons, R. Gibson, J. Moody, and P. J. Mucha. Concurrency and reachability in treelike temporal networks. Physical Review E , 100(6):062305, 2019. 16

    2019

  22. [30]

    Bauch and D

    C. Bauch and D. A. Rand. A moment closure model for sexually transmitted disease transmission through a concurrent partnership network. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 267(1456):2019–2027, 2000

    2019

  23. [31]

    R. Liu, M. Ogura, E. Fonseca dos Reis, and N. Masuda. Effects of concurrency on epidemic spreading in Markovian temporal networks. European Journal of Applied Mathematics , 35(3):430–461, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Lagarde, B

    E. Lagarde, B. Auvert, M. Caraël, M. Laourou, B. Ferry, E. Akam, T. Sukwa, L. Morison, B. Maury, J. Chege, I. N’Doye, A. Buvé, and Study Group on the Heterogeneity of HIV Epidemics in African Cities. Concurrent sexual partnerships and HIV prevalence in five urban communities o...

    2001

  25. [33]

    Schreiber, J

    S. Schreiber, J. M. Fellous, D. Whitmer, P. Tiesinga, and T. J. Sejnowski. A new correlation- based measure of spike timing reliability. Neurocomputing, 52–54:925–931, 2003

    2003

  26. [34]

    Sihn and S.-P

    D. Sihn and S.-P. Kim. A spike train distance robust to firing rate changes based on the Earth Mover’s Distance. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience , 13:82, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    J. Cohen. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences . Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- ciates, 2nd edition, 1988

    1988

  28. [36]

    A. R. Benson, R. Abebe, M. T. Schaub, A. Jadbabaie, and J. Kleinberg. Simplicial closure and higher-order link prediction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA , 115(48):E11221–E11230, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Cencetti, F

    G. Cencetti, F. Battiston, B. Lepri, and M. Karsai. Temporal properties of higher-order interactions in social networks. Scientific Reports, 11:7028, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Ceria and F

    A. Ceria and F. W. Takes. The relevance of higher-order ties. EPJ Data Science , 14:62, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Mancastroppa, G

    M. Mancastroppa, G. Cencetti, and A. Barrat. Emerging activity temporal hypergraph: A model for generating realistic time-varying hypergraphs. Physical Review E , 112:054305, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    Jo and N

    H.-H. Jo and N. Masuda. Bursty interactions in temporal hypergraphs. 2026. Submitted to Communications Physics; arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.07694

    2026 arXiv

  33. [41]

    R. D. Malmgren, D. B. Stouffer, A. E. Motter, and L. A. N. Amaral. A Poissonian expla- nation for heavy tails in e-mail communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 105(47):18153–18158, 2008

    2008

  34. [42]

    Perra, B

    N. Perra, B. Gonçalves, R. Pastor-Satorras, and A. Vespignani. Activity driven modeling of time varying networks. Scientific Reports, 2:469, 2012

    2012

  35. [43]

    Fonseca dos Reis, A

    E. Fonseca dos Reis, A. Li, and N. Masuda. Generative models of simultaneously heavy- tailed distributions of inter-event times on nodes and edges. Physical Review E , 102:052303, 2020. 17

    2020

  36. [44]

    Hartle and N

    H. Hartle and N. Masuda. Autocorrelation properties of temporal networks governed by dynamic node variables. Physical Review Research, 7:013083, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    M. S. Granovetter. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology , 78(6):1360– 1380, 1973

    1973

  38. [46]

    Asikainen, G

    A. Asikainen, G. Iñiguez, J. Ureña-Carrión, K. Kaski, and M. Kivelä. Cumulative effects of triadic closure and homophily in social networks. Science Advances, 6(19):eaax7310, 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    T. P. Peixoto. Disentangling homophily, community structure, and triadic closure in net- works. Physical Review X , 12(1):011004, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Lee and K

    G. Lee and K. Shin. Temporal hypergraph motifs. Knowledge and Information Systems , 65(4):1549–1586, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Q. F. Lotito, F. Musciotto, A. Montresor, and F. Battiston. Higher-order motif analysis in hypergraphs. Communications Physics , 5(1):79, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    Gallo, L

    L. Gallo, L. Lacasa, V. Latora, and F. Battiston. Higher-order correlations reveal complex memory in temporal hypergraphs. Nature Communications, 15:4754, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    J. D. Victor and K. P. Purpura. Nature and precision of temporal coding in visual cortex: A metric-space analysis. Journal of Neurophysiology , 76(2):1310–1326, 1996

    1996

  44. [52]

    J. D. Victor and K. P. Purpura. Metric-space analysis of spike trains: theory, algorithms and application. Network: Computation in Neural Systems , 8(2):127–164, 1997

    1997

  45. [53]

    M. C. W. van Rossum. A novel spike distance. Neural Computation , 13(4):751–763, 2001

    2001

  46. [54]

    Quian Quiroga, T

    R. Quian Quiroga, T. Kreuz, and P. Grassberger. Event synchronization: A simple and fast method to measure synchronicity and time delay patterns. Physical Review E, 66(4):041904, 2002

    2002

  47. [55]

    Kreuz, D

    T. Kreuz, D. Chicharro, C. Houghton, R. G. Andrzejak, and F. Mormann. Monitoring spike train synchrony. Journal of Neurophysiology , 109(5):1457–1472, 2013

    2013

  48. [56]

    Mulansky, N

    M. Mulansky, N. Bozanic, A. Sburlea, and T. Kreuz. A guide to time-resolved and parameter-free measures of spike train synchrony. In 2015 International Conference on Event-based Control, Communication, and Signal Processing (EBCCSP) , pages 1–8, 2015

    2015

  49. [57]

    Kreuz, J

    T. Kreuz, J. S. Haas, A. Morelli, H. D. I. Abarbanel, and A. Politi. Measuring spike train synchrony. Journal of Neuroscience Methods , 165(1):151–161, 2007

    2007

  50. [58]

    Satuvuori, M

    E. Satuvuori, M. Mulansky, N. Bozanic, I. Malvestio, F. Zeldenrust, K. Lenk, and T. Kreuz. Measures of spike train synchrony for data with multiple time scales. Journal of Neuro- science Methods, 287:25–38, 2017

    2017

  51. [59]

    Houghton and K

    C. Houghton and K. Sen. A new multineuron spike train metric. Neural Computation , 20(6):1495–1511, 2008. 18

    2008

  52. [60]

    J. D. Victor. Spike train metrics. Current Opinion in Neurobiology , 15(5):585–592, 2005

    2005

  53. [61]

    T. Kreuz. Quantifying spike train synchrony and directionality: Measures and applications. arXiv URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.07140, 2025

    2025

  54. [62]

    R. A. Rossi and N. K. Ahmed. The network data repository with interactive graph analyt- ics and visualization. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) , 2015

    2015

  55. [63]

    T. P. Peixoto. The Netzschleuder network catalogue and repository. https://networks. skewed.de, 2020

    2020

  56. [64]

    J. Kunegis. KONECT: The Koblenz network collection. In Proceedings of the 22nd Interna- tional Conference on World Wide Web Companion (WWW Companion) , pages 1343–1350, New York, NY, USA, 2013. Association for Computing Machinery

    2013

  57. [65]

    Leskovec and A

    J. Leskovec and A. Krevl. SNAP Datasets: Stanford large network dataset collection. http://snap.stanford.edu/data, 2014

    2014

  58. [66]

    Clauset, E

    A. Clauset, E. Tucker, and M. Sainz. The Colorado Index of Complex Networks. https: //icon.colorado.edu, 2016

    2016

  59. [67]

    Reality Commons

    MIT Human Dynamics Laboratory. Reality Commons. http://realitycommons.media. mit.edu

  60. [68]

    Tore Opsahl’s dataset

    Tore Opsahl. Tore Opsahl’s dataset. https://toreopsahl.com/datasets/

  61. [69]

    Huang, F

    S. Huang, F. Poursafaei, J. Danovitch, M. Fey, W. Hu, E. Rossi, J. Leskovec, M. Bronstein, G. Rabusseau, and R. Rabbany. Temporal graph benchmark for machine learning on tem- poral graphs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) Datasets and Benchmarks T...

    2023

  62. [70]

    Poursafaei, S

    F. Poursafaei, S. Huang, K. Pelrine, and R. Rabbany. Towards better evaluation for dynamic link prediction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) Datasets and Benchmarks Track , volume 35, 2022

    2022

  63. [71]

    SocioPatterns: Datasets

    SocioPatterns Collaboration. SocioPatterns: Datasets. http://www.sociopatterns.org/

  64. [72]

    Y. Hao, J. Liu, J. Wang, and Z. Zheng. Emergence of temporal higher-order interactions from pairwise collaboration. Communications Physics , 9:32, 2026

    2026

  65. [73]

    Onnela, J

    J.-P. Onnela, J. Saramäki, J. Hyvönen, G. Szabó, D. Lazer, K. Kaski, J. Kertész, and A.-L. Barabási. Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA , 104(18):7332–7336, 2007

    2007

  66. [74]

    V. D. Blondel, A. Decuyper, and G. Krings. A survey of results on mobile phone datasets analysis. EPJ Data Science , 4:10, 2015

    2015

  67. [75]

    Eagle and A

    N. Eagle and A. Pentland. Reality mining: sensing complex social systems. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing , 10:255–268, 2006. 19

    2006

  68. [76]

    Aharony, W

    N. Aharony, W. Pan, C. Ip, I. Khayal, and A. Pentland. Social fMRI: Investigating and shaping social mechanisms in the real world. Pervasive and Mobile Computing , 7(6):643– 659, 2011

    2011

  69. [77]

    Health State

    A. Madan, M. Cebrian, S. Moturu, K. Farrahi, and A. Pentland. Sensing the “Health State” of a community. IEEE Pervasive Computing , 11(4):36–45, 2012

    2012

  70. [78]

    Sapieżyński, A

    P. Sapieżyński, A. Stopczynski, D. D. Lassen, and S. Lehmann. Interaction data from the Copenhagen Networks Study. Scientific Data , 6:315, 2019

    2019

  71. [79]

    Opsahl and P

    T. Opsahl and P. Panzarasa. Clustering in weighted networks. Social Networks, 31(2):155– 163, 2009

    2009

  72. [80]

    Rubner, C

    Y. Rubner, C. Tomasi, and L. J. Guibas. The Earth Mover’s Distance as a metric for image retrieval. International Journal of Computer Vision , 40:99–121, 2000

    2000

  73. [81]

    C. Villani. Optimal Transport: Old and New . Grundlehren der mathematischen Wis- senschaften. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009

    2009

  74. [82]

    Peyré and M

    G. Peyré and M. Cuturi. Computational optimal transport with applications to data sci- ences. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning , 11(5–6):355–607, 2019. 20 A Selection of pairwise temporal networks To assemble candidate temporal network datasets, we surveyed ten gener...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed June 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.