![Arxiv:1802.09786V1 [Physics.Soc-Ph] 27 Feb 2018 H Aa Twssffiin O I Hte.1Yed the Yields 1 Eq](http://data.docslib.org/img/e781c552b1b9e02946976ea9efb1e612-1.webp)
arXiv:1802.09786v1 [physics.soc-ph] 27 Feb 2018 h aa twssffiin o i htE.1yed the yields 1 Eq. that with him 2 for Eq. sufficient of was comparison it detailed data, for the look didn’t Price where e fisicmn de,adtesmi vralnodes. all over is sum the and attractivity initial edges, The incoming its of ber de nE.1pa h oeo oes”aia”adnew p and ”capital” node’s of role ”dividends”. the are play accumulated edges 1 The Eq. wealth. in explained edges of which moti- distribution law power-law is proportional 1 the Gibrat’s Equation the immediately. by vated edges acquire to start rbblt fanwnode new a of probability itn fndsadegs e oe perwt con- with appear con- nodes New network rate a edges. stant and Consider model nodes follows.[5] This of as sisting papers.[4] captured scientific be to studying can cumu- by citations his developed of suggested he network Price which Solla model de advantage lative when generative 1970s the explanation in The came is distributions? weird what these of arouse- Gaussians. mechanism question known previously intriguing they with The and contrast [1–3] sharp ago century made a about community scientific ∗ rfrnilatcmn ehns fcmlxntokgrow network complex of mechanism attachment Preferential ( [email protected] K qain1yed oe-a eredistribution, degree power-law a yields 1 Equation oe-a itiuin eebogtt teto of attention to brought were distributions Power-law ) ∼ K K j − stetre oesi-ere .. h num- the i.e., in-degree, node’s target the is dN dt γ constant, et 9 572(02)addmntaeta,udrvr ge growth, very network under of m that, equation fitness demonstrate dynamic and and same (1999)) the (2002)) 509 yield 258702 286, 89, Science Albert, Lett. R. and Barabasi aaee hc a etuepandwti h rmwr o framework the f within that ba explanation show unexplained We microscopic left long-sought was underlying yields which approach an parameter provides This model mechanism. fitness the that of rcdt rqetyocriglgomlfins distribut fitness lognormal occurring frequently to traced ihteexponent the with n extend and eaayetegot oesfrcmlxntok including networks complex for models growth the analyze We K .INTRODUCTION I. 0 Π nmn ope ewrsuulyyedtesame the yield usually networks complex many in j = K γ K + 2 = P stend’ ere and degree, node’s the is 0 K ∼ K nue htnwybr nodes born newly that ensures l i ( 0 oatc oanode a to attach to K j c smil eemndb h it ftefins distribution fitness the of width the by determined mainly is + l de oohrnds The nodes. other to edges K + c K 0 K . 0 0 ) , h erwUiest fJerusalem, of University Hebrew The h aa nttt fPhysics, of Institute Racah The Dtd eray2,2018) 28, February (Dated: 10 euae,Israel Jerusalem, 91904 ”fit-gets-richer”? ihe Golosovsky Michael j K is 0 steiiilatatvt.Bsn nti eut eshow we result, this on Basing attractivity. initial the is (2) (1) where supino h aaaiAbr oe sta newly a that core is node model The born Barabasi-Albert identical model. the not of advantage but assumption cumulative to Price’s similar attach- very the is preferential with which the [9] model suggested ment Albert and Barabasi K etdntok,E.3cnb rte sΠ as written di- be can for the of 3 narrow, onto is Eq. distribution mapped networks, networks statistical be rected complex can since most 3 in Indeed, out-degrees Eq. case model. latter Price’s the for that wr curnei et,ct ie,wat distribu- distribu- wealth degree power-law with sizes, the for tions city account To networks texts, etc.). complex tion, in as considered occurrence not (word are which nomena ok n h u ftei-adout-degrees, and in- the of sum the and works where itiuin r oehtdffrn rmtepower-law the with from distributions different somewhat are distributions oe-a eredsrbtoswith the distributions by characterized degree sci- being power-law of them forefront of the many to research, entific came networks complex digitized biological, social information, of and of proliferation number a of 1990s, result in information a as then However, network complex known. only the was community network science citation since information the beyond spread didn’t oe-a itiuinwith distribution power-law e sΠ as ten as nteasneo n le rc postulated Zipf’s Price clue, and any of absence Bradford’s, the In Lotka’s, laws. by bibliometric captured of indicators distributions Pareto well-documented to tsol entd oee,ta hl rc’ model Price’s while that however, noted, be should It qiaetand equivalent j in dK h rc’ uuaieavnaemdl(q.1,2) (Eqs. model advantage cumulative Price’s The dt K + o ihtewidth the with ion = 0 K c K ∗ ∼ A = j j out rteiiilatatvt,a elusive an attractivity, initial the or ( j .Ti miia nvraiycnbe can universality empirical This 1. h rfrnilatcmn model. attachment preferential the f t stetre oesdge o nietdnet- undirected for degree node’s target the is i )( γ i o h rfrnilattachment preferential the for sis K ea odtos hs w models two these conditions, neral o ietdntok.Nwa 5 showed [5] Newman networks. directed for , dl(adrlie l,Py.Rev. Phys. al., et (Caldarelli odel ∼ tahst nodrnode older an to attaches K ∼ j out + ( rfrnilatcmn (A.-L. attachment preferential c nifrainadbooia networks biological and information in 3 K naohrhn,E.1cnb writ- be can 1 Eq. hand, another On . ly h oeo nta attractivity initial of role the plays K j in 0 γ ,where ), + ∼ σ h rc-esrce”or ”rich-gets-richer” th: K Π curn ntoesca phe- social those in occurring 2 h measurements The . ≈ j 0 .Teaoeeutosare equations above The ). ∼ 1. A γ K ( t ≥ j steaging the is ) , hc svr similar very is which 2 γ j ∼ ihprobability with j .58 These 3.[5–8] ∼ ( K K j in K 0 1. = + j K (3) c = 0 ) . 2 postulates K0 = 1, the Barabasi-Albert model assumes in which the attachment rule was modified to Πj ∼ K0 = c. Both models generate networks with the power- (Kj + K0), where Kj is the total degree and K0 is law degree distributions, but the exponents are different: an arbitrary number. It was found that the power- γ ≥ 2 for the former and γ = 3 for the latter model. law degree distribution is retained but its exponent The Barabasi-Albert preferential attachment model bet- is modified in accordance with Eq. 2. ter agrees with measured power-law distributions in com- • Accelerated network growth. While the original plex networks and that is why it became the paradigm for Barabasi-Albert model assumed that new nodes complex network research, much in the same way as the and edges appear at the same rate, Leskovec et Ising model established itself as a paradigm for studies al. [13] found that in many networks the number of magnetism. In particular, the preferential attachment of edges grows faster than the number of nodes, model became the basis for developing specific network in such a way that these networks shrink with growth models. On another hand, it has been serving as time. Assuming that the average number of out- a platform for organisation of measurements to charac- going edges per node increases exponentially with terize complex networks. time, c = c tΘ, Ref. [8] found that the power-law Numerous measurements of the growth dynamics of 0 degree distribution in these shrinking networks is complex networks validated Eq. 1, namely they estab- 2Θ retained but its exponent increases by ∆γ = 1 Θ . lished a linear or close-to-linear dependence between the − growth rate of node’s degree, dK/dt, and its current de- • Link editing. In the original Barabasi-Albert model gree, K. In addition, these measurements yielded a very the existing links can’t be deleted, the links be- small initial attractivity, K0 ∼ 1. The last finding poses tween old nodes can’t be added, and the old nodes a problem for the theory. On the one hand, most complex can’t be removed. Although this is true for cita- networks are characterized by the power-law distribution tion networks, other networks such as Wikipedia with γ ∼ 3 and c >> 1 and, according to Eq. 2, this edits, allow link or node editing. Ghoshal et al. implies K0 ∼ c >> 1. On another hand, the measured [12] analyzed networks for which link editing and K0 ∼ 1 is much smaller and inconsistent with that in- node removal are allowed and showed that these ferred from Eq. 2. Solution of this inconsistency requires processes act disruptively on network topology, al- (i) thorough analysis of the measurement protocols aimed though there is a wide range of parameters for at verification of Eq. 1, (ii) reevaluation of the theoretical which the power-law degree distribution is con- derivation of Eqs. 1,2,3, and (iii) a deeper understanding served. of the initial attractivity K which is not defined within 0 Aging. the preferential attachment model. • Equation 1 assumes that the attachment The aim of our study is the reevaluation of the prefer- probability Πj does not depend on node’s age. ential attachment mechanism and its derivatives in order However, the common sense tells us that Πj should to understand this elusive parameter- initial attractivity. decrease with increasing age of the target node, in This is done in Sections II - VI while in Section VII we such a way that recent nodes become more popu- analyze another kind of the network growth model- the lar. Refs. [14–18] considered a general case of the fitness model of Caldarelli et al. [10]. Section VIII re- preferential attachment with aging ports our original results. Our main finding is that the A(tj )(Kj + K0) Πj = , (4) fitness model provides a microscopic basis of the pref- l A(tl)[Kl + K0] erential attachment mechanism and explains the initial where t is theP age of node j and A(t) is the ag- attractivity which is determined by the shape of the fit- j ing function which is usually assumed to follow ex- ness distribution. We also demonstrate that small initial ponential or power-law dependence, A(t) ∝ 1/tν. attractivity K is consistent with the power-law degree 0 In the latter case Dorogovtsev and Mendes [14] distribution with γ ∼ 3. Section IX discusses the com- showed that the power-law degree distribution is mon basis of the preferential attachment, fitness model, retained only for ν < 1 while for ν > 1 the aging ef- and recursive search. fect overcomes the preferential attachment and the degree distribution does not follow the power-law II. EVALUATION OF THE PREFERENTIAL dependence. ATTACHMENT MODEL • Memory. Although Eq. 4 accounts for aging, it attributes equal weight to all edges, as if the at- In what follows we do not make distinction between tachment were a Markov process. However, the the Price’s and Barabasi-Albert approaches and relate to recent edges are usually more important than the Eq. 1 with unspecified K0 as the preferential attachment older ones, namely, attachment process can have model. The success of this model in explaining the seem- memory. Refs. [16, 18–23] considered preferential ingly universal power-law degree distribution in complex attachment with memory and replaced Eq. 4 by networks prompted several theoretical generalizations. tj Initial attractivity Πj (tj ) ∝ A(tj − τ)kj (τ)dτ, (5) • . Refs. [11, 12] analyzed Eq. 3 Z0 3
where ∆Kj (τ)= kj ∆τ is the number of edges gar- perform such shift we go back to Eqs. 1-6 and assume nered by the node j in the time window (τ, τ + δτ), that new nodes appear at a constant rate. Consider N tj is the node’s age, A(tj −τ) is the memory kernel, new nodes that joined the network during time window and the integral is over all past edges that appeared (t,t + ∆t). Each new node extends in average c edges during target node’s life. to existing nodes. Consider one such target node j. From the batch of new nodes, it garners approximately Nonlinear preferential attachment. • While Eq. 1 as- ∆Kj = Πj cN edges where Πj is its attachment proba- sumes a linear relation between attachment prob- bility. We substitute there the general expression for Πj , ability Πj and node’s degree Kj , Krapivsky and which includes nonlinearity, aging, and initial attractiv- Redner [24] considered a general case of nonlinear ity, but not memory, and find preferential attachment 1+δ ∆Kj = A˜(tj )(Kj + K0) (7) 1+δ (Kj + K0) Πj = 1+δ (6) (Kl + K0) where tj is the target node’s age at time t, Kj is l ˜ P its current degree, and the aging function is A(t) = where δ 6= 0. It was shown that the power-law A(t) A(t )[K +K ]1+δ cN. [Note difference between A(t) and degree distribution is closely associated with the l l l 0 P˜ linear case, δ = 0. For the superlinear attachment, A(t): for the Barabasi-Albert model A(t) = 1 while ˜ 2 N δ > 0, the network becomes the hub-and-spoke or A(t) = t ∆t .] Equation 7 is the basis for comparison ”winner-takes-all”, while for the sublinear attach- of the preferential attachment model to measurements. ment, δ < 0, the network becomes a gel-like where To validate Eq. 7 one usually considers a set of all every node is connected to all other nodes and de- nodes of the same age and measures each one’s de- gree distribution is the stretched exponential rather gree at t and at t + ∆t. Then one calculates ∆Kj = than power-law. Subsequently, Krapivsky and Kri- Kj(t + ∆t) − Kj (t), the number of additional edges that oukov [25] showed that for weak superlinear at- each node garnered during the time window (t,t + ∆t), tachment, 0 <δ << 1, there is a vast asymptotic plots ∆Kj versus Kj , and makes one’s best to fit this regime for which the network retains its power-law scatter plot using Eq. 7.[27, 31, 32] This fit is by no degree distribution. means trivial. The catch here is that ∆Kj is a discrete stochastic variable and Eq. 7 predicts its mean value In summary, theoretical studies indicate that the but says nothing about the variance. Our measurements preferential attachment mechanism is plausibly robust. for citation networks [33] indicate that ∆Kj distribution Namely, it generates complex networks with the power- (for fixed Kj) follows negative binomial distribution with law degree distribution and the exponent 2 < γ ≤ 3 high variance-to-mean ratio > 2, in such a way that the under the following conditions: the attachment probabil- variance of ∆Kj is considerably greater than that for the ity is linear or weakly nonlinear, aging is weak, and ini- Poisson distribution. In other words, ∆Kj (Kj ) depen- tial attractivity is positive and small. These conditions dence is so noisy that direct fitting of ∆Kj vs Kj using are quite reasonable and that is why the preferential at- Eq. 7 is not very informative. tachment model has been accepted as a most plausible To circumvent the problem of noise one can use loga- generative mechanism of growing complex networks with rithmic binning of Kj , plot a histogram of ∆Kj, and find the power-law degree distribution. the trend. This method was originated by Newman [34] and adopted by many others.[27, 28, 35–39] Another way to counter the noise problem is to plot III. MEASUREMENTS AND MODEL K cumulative function 0 ∆K(K)dK vs K. In the context VALIDATION of complex networksR this procedure was first applied by Jeong et al. [40] and subsequently by Refs. [41, 42]. Refs. [26–30] discuss the microscopic mechanisms of However, there is a pitfall here. If ∆Kj were continu- the evolution of growing networks and the ways of their ous variable with symmetric distribution, this cumulative validation. In what follows we present a more specific procedure should certainly work. However, since ∆Kj is overview with the focus on preferential attachment. a non-negative discrete variable with highly skewed dis- Straightforward verification of the preferential attach- tribution, the cumulative procedure can distort the re- ment model requires analysis of decisions made by in- sults, in particular, when applied to validation of Eq. 7, coming nodes. The measurements aimed at quantitative it overestimates the initial attractivity.[37] analysis of such decisions are widespread in psychology Yet another strategy is to use the raw ∆Kj versus Kj but they are rare in physics, biology, and computer sci- plots and to apply sophisticated numerical fitting pro- ence - the fields, where majority of complex networks ap- cedure to find parameters of Eq. 7.[28] This procedure pear. The most conventional way to uncover the growth could probably become a valuable tool in complex net- mechanism of complex networks is to trace evolution of work characterization.[43] individual nodes. To this end, the perspective shall be In what follows we present the summary of measure- shifted from the incoming node to the target node. To ments aimed at validation of Eq. 7. 4
• Preferential attachment. The growth of many IV. SPECIFIC PREDICTIONS OF THE complex networks does follow the preferential at- PREFERENTIAL ATTACHMENT MODEL AND tachment model.[26–30] However, some of these THEIR STATUS VERSUS MEASUREMENTS networks exhibit preferential attachment only for nodes with low and moderate degrees while the After scientific community became persuaded that the nodes with high degree exhibit anti-preferential growth of complex networks is accounted for by the pref- attachment.[28, 35] erential attachment model, the research shifted from the model validation to analysis of its predictions. Indeed, Linear or nonlinear PA? • Early measurements besides the power-law degree distribution, the complex claimed linear or close to linear preferential networks generated using Eq. 1 should acquire a very attachment.[34, 40] Later measurements using large special structure.[5, 8] datasets (citations to scientific papers [33, 39] and patent citations [38, 44]) revealed superlinear at- • First mover advantage. The preferential attach- tachment with the exponent 1 + δ ∼ 1.25. Social ment model predicts strong positive correlation be- networks (scientific collaboration,[34] movie actors tween the node’s age and degree, namely, the degree [40, 41]) exhibit sublinear preferential attachment of the old nodes should be substantially higher than with the exponent 1 + δ =0.8 − 0.9. that of the recent nodes. The measurements reveal such correlation but it is not strong and most new • Aging function. Our measurements of citations to edges do not necessarily go to old nodes.[46, 47] ν scientific papers [37] yielded A˜(t) ∼ (t − ∆)− , namely, a power-law decay with small delay ∆ ∼1-2 • Trajectory of the nodes of the same age. The ba- yr and the exponent ν = 2. Patent citations yield a sic preferential attachment model predicts that the node’s degree grows with time according to the rule: similar power-law aging function with ν =1.3−1.6. c c K [38, 44] Zeng et al. [45] provide an overview of aging tj + 0 Kj (tj )= K0 1+ t − 1 where t is the age effects in citation networks. of the network at the moment when the node was • Initial attractivity. Early measurements of cita- born and tj is the node’s age.[8] Thus, the node’s tions to scientific papers were not statistically rep- degree grows with time with deceleration and the resentative to make reliable estimate of K0.[31, 40] trajectories of the nodes of the same age should Subsequent studies of patent citations yielded small be very similar. However, the measurements show K0 ∼ 1.[44] Our high statistics measurements of that these trajectories strongly diverge [33, 48] and citations to scientific papers [37] also yielded small do not necessarily decelerate with time. In partic- K0 ∼ 1. Eom and Fortunato [41] analyzed network ular, citation networks demonstrate many ”sleep- of citations between the APS (American Physi- ing beauties” [49] whose trajectories accelerate with cal Society) journals and found a bigger number, time. K0 ∼ 7 for younger papers and K0 ∼ 1 − 2 for the papers that are at least 5 years old. (Note, however, • Degree distribution for the nodes of the same age. that Ref. [41] used cumulative procedure which is According to the preferential attachment model, this distribution is narrow and close to exponential, known to overestimate K0.[37]). Recent studies of c K0 1 c+K0 K Higham et al. [38, 39] yielded K0 = 1 − 1.8 for p(K) ∼ K − (1 − tj ) .[5, 8] Measurements patent citations and K0 = 1 for Physical Review on Wikipedia and citation networks showed that citations. Thus, all measured initial attractivities degree distribution for the nodes of the same age are small, K0 << c, and better conform to Price’s is much wider than exponential and is better de- conjecture, K0 = 1, rather than to the Barabasi- scribed by the power-law or lognormal function.[23, Albert conjecture, K0 = c. 31, 48, 50, 51] Thus, preferential attachment mechanism of network • Degree-degree correlation. Within the framework of growth, as captured by Eq. 7, has been qualitatively the preferential attachment model the assortativity validated for many complex networks. The attachment of the resulting network is determined by the ini- in most of them is linear or close-to-linear, although de- tial attractivity K0.[8, 34] In particular, for K0 = c viations from the linearity are well documented. How- (the Barabasi-Albert model), the network shall be ever, Eq. 2 is not supported by measurements. Indeed, neutral, for K0 > c it shall be assortative, and for the measurements indicate that initial attractivity K0 K0 • Clustering coefficient. The preferential attachment which is now determined by fitness distribution rather mechanism predicts that in large networks the than by the acquired degree. clustering coefficient shall be vanishingly small.[55] What is fitness? On the one hand, it includes However, many real networks have high clustering the notion of similarity known as homophily in social coefficient.[26] networks.[60] Indeed, complex networks are rarely uni- form, they consist of communities and subcommunities. Thus, several specific predictions of the preferential New nodes tend to attach to similar nodes, namely, to attachment model are inconsistent with measurements. those belonging to the same community. To measure sim- This is unsurprising since these predictions were made ilarity one can use overlap of contents or bibliographies assuming a basic version of the model, namely, linear for citation networks and WWW pages,[61, 62] or over- preferential attachment and absence of aging (Eq. 1). lap of common neighbors in the general case.[27, 34, 63] Since most studied networks exhibit weakly nonlinear at- Another ingredient of fitness is associated with quality tachment and strong aging, the proper account of these or talent. This component is not easy to estimate when two factors could modify some of the above predictions the node first appears, it can be measured only after it and make them consistent with observations. However, has garnered some edges. The obvious way to measure the problem of the wide degree distribution of the nodes the Bianconi-Barabasi’s fitness is through Eq. 8. Thus, of the same age and the paradox of the first-mover ad- Kong et al. [48] studied the network of WWW internet vantage can be hardly solved in such a way. To address pages, analyzed trajectories of the pages of the same age, these problems one needs to go beyond the framework of and successfully fitted them using Eq. 8. The fitness the preferential attachment model as captured by Eqs. turned out to be constant, as expected, and the fitness 1-7. distribution turned out to be wide. The most striking prediction of the Bianconi-Barabasi model is that for wide fitness distributions there are su- V. FITNESS-BASED PREFERENTIAL percritical nodes that eventually take a lion share of ATTACHMENT edges. Such supercritical nodes were observed in citation networks [64, 65] and this successful prediction became The difficulties associated with the application of the a reason of the wide popularity of the Bianconi-Barabasi preferential attachment model and its derivatives for the model.[7, 66–69] quantitative account of complex network growth call for While Eq. 8 explains several features of complex net- alternative approaches. One such alternative is the at- works, such as degree distribution of the nodes of the tachment probability which is proportional not to node’s same age, it does not account for aging. To convert the degree but to some other node’s attribute such as local Bianconi-Barabasi model into a quantitative tool that clustering coefficient,[56] node’s rank,[57] or PageRank can be be compared to measured node’s trajectories, coefficient.[58] However, the most popular alternative is Wang, Song, and Barabasi [67] replaced Eq. 8 by the the Bianconi and Barabasi model [59] that introduced following expression fitness- an empirical parameter that characterizes the propensity of nodes to attract edges. The core assump- Πj = ηj Aj (tj )(Kj + K0), (9) tion of the model is that the node’s fitness is a constant number and does not change with time. where Aj (tj ) is the aging function, specific for each node, and tj is the node’s age. (Ref. [67] denoted the aging function by Pj (t) while we denote it by Aj (t) to be con- A. Multiplicative fitness- Bianconi-Barabasi model sistent with Eq. 4). The Wang-Song-Barabasi model (Eq. 9) builds upon the earlier approach of Ref. [70] How fitness can be incorporated into dynamic equation who introduced node’s relevance, Xj(t) ∼ ηj Aj (t). of network growth? The Bianconi-Barabasi model [59] Equation 9 was validated using citation network of introduces fitness on top of the preferential attachment, Physics papers covered by the APS database,[67] whereas the aging function was approximated by the lognormal namely, it postulates that the attachment probability is − 2 (ln tj µj ) the product of node’s fitness η and degree, 1 − 2σ2 dependence Aj (tj ) = e j where µj √2πσj tj Πj = ηj (Kj + K0). (8) and σj are specific parameters for each node. Pham, Sheridan, and Shimodaira [30, 71] developed a software (To be consistent with Eq. 1 we introduced here initial package based on Eq. 9 and demonstrated that it is a attractivity K0.) Solution of Eq. 8 yields the node’s tra- valid platform for quantitative description of the com- jectory Kj(t). It turns out that this trajectory strongly plex network growth. depends on fitness: a high fitness latecomer can outper- This success notwithstanding, Eq. 9 has several prob- form a low-fitness old node. Thus, fitness solves the prob- lems. First of all, it contains too many fitting param- lem of the first-mover advantage. It also solves the prob- eters. In addition to dynamic node attributes (degree lem of degree distribution for the nodes of the same age Kj and age tj ), the Wang-Song-Barabasi model adds 6 another three static attributes: ηj ,µj , and σj . Sec- VI. EXPLANATORY MODELS OF NETWORK ondly, the Wang-Song-Barabasi and its parent Bianconi- GROWTH Barabasi model assume linear preferential attachment. This is an unlucky coincidence that both these mod- The basic preferential attachment model and the els were validated using citation networks which exhibit fitness-based preferential attachment are not explanatory nonlinear preferential attachment.[33, 37, 39] While the models, they lack realistic scenario explaining how the Wang-Song-Barabasi model can be extended to account new node chooses the target nodes. Indeed, Eqs. 1,7 im- for nonlinearity, this extension requires an additional fit- ply that an incoming node shall know degrees of all other ting parameter- attachment exponent- in such a way that nodes in the network in order to attach to some of them. the resulting model becomes too sophisticated. This can be true for collaboration and some other social networks,[75, 76] for which a new node is familiar with some limited set of nodes, but not for general networks B. Additive fitness for which global information on network connectivity is usually unavailable.[77] The multiplicative fitness of the Bianconi-Barabasi The most popular explanatory model of network model is not the only way it can be introduced into growth is the recursive search [78] also known as dynamic equation of network growth. Ref. [72] in- link copying or redirection,[79] random walk or lo- troduced fitness through optimization procedure, while cal search,[80, 81] triple(triangle) formation,[82] triadic Refs. [41, 61, 73, 74] introduced it additively, as follows: closure,[83] or forest fire model.[84, 85] The motivation Πj ∝ (Kj + ηj ). (10) for this class of models was the explanation of the high clustering coefficient commonly observed in complex net- Equation 10 is nothing else but Eq. 1 where fitness ηj works. The recursive search mechanism assumes that a replaces the initial attractivity K0. new node attaches to a randomly found node, explorers The growth dynamics described by Eqs. 8, 10 are not the network neighborhood of the latter, and with some that different as it could seem. In fact, the combina- probability attaches to one [80] or all [79, 86] of its ances- tion of nonlinear preferential attachment (Eq. 7) with tors. This scenario can include one-level [78] or multilevel additive fitness (Eq. 10) mimics Eq. 8, in particular, search,[84, 85, 87] in the latter case a new node explores it predicts supercritical nodes. To demonstrate this we network vicinity of all previously chosen nodes. Vazquez adopt continuous approximation of Ref. [8] and replace [78] showed that, in the absence of ageing and memory, dKj ∆Kj in Eq. 7 by dt ∆t. In view of Eq. 10 Eq. 7 can be the one-level recursive search mechanism results in the recast as follows: attachment probability dK = A˜(t)(K + η)1+δ (11) dt Πij = λ + qKj , (14) where index j was dropped for brevity. We solve Eq. 11 for δ > 0 and find where λ is the probability of random search, qKj is η the probability of recursive search, and Kj is the tar- K(t) 1 − η. (12) δ get node’s degree. If we recast this equation as Π = δ t ˜ ij 1 − δη 0 A(τ)dτ λ h i q(Kj + q ) we immediately realize that this is nothing R λ To analyze Eq. 12 we assume for simplicity that the else but Eq. 1 with K0 = q . t ˜ integral 0 A(τ)dτ converges as t → ∞. We introduce The above studies suggested only a generic scenario of 1 R δ the recursive search while to convert it into a quantita- ∞ ˜ − ηcrit = δ 0 A(τ)dτ , in such a way that Eq. 12 h i tive model one needs to calibrate this scenario against reduces to R the measurements. Recently, we performed such calibra- η tion using citation networks [23] and found that Eq. 14 K(t)= 1 − η, (13) δ t ˜ δ shall be supplemented with aging, memory, and- most η 0 A(τ)dτ 1 − ∞ ηcrit R A˜(τ)dτ important- fitness. Namely, it turned out that the ran- 0 R dom search is not random but fitness-based. Our find- where t is the node’s age. For η < ηcrit Eq. 13 yields ings imply the multilevel recursive search that develops K(t) that increases with time and eventually achieves η according to the following scenario: a new node i per- saturation, K(∞) = 1 − η. However, for forms a fitness-based search in the network, finds some η δ δ 1 η − crit target node k, and explorers its network neighborhood. η ≥ ηcrit, K(t) does not achieve saturation, namely, the It can choose a nearest neighbor of k as a new target node node’s trajectory becomes supercritical. (In fact, it un- j. The probability of such choice depends on the age of dergoes a finite-time singularity at certain t0, in such a the parent node k with respect to node i (obsolescence way that Eqs. 12, 13 hold only for t Our analysis shows that all extensions and explana- where A(t) is the aging function, the same for all nodes, tions of the preferential attachment mechanism eventu- and the time t is counted from the moment when the ally invoke fitness. While at the birth of the research node joined the network. Equation 19 leaves some ambi- field of complex networks the node degree seemed to guity in the definition of the fitness η and aging constant be the most important parameter determining growth A(t) since it includes only their product. To raise this dynamics, subsequent studies focused more on node ambiguity, we define the aging constant in such a way ∞ fitness.[71] This prompts us to consider generative mech- that 0 A(τ)dτ = 1. Under this constraint, the physi- anisms where fitness rather than node’s degree plays the cal meaningR of fitness η is the long-time limit of node’s key role. degree, namely, η ∼ K(t → ∞). One such mechanism was suggested by Caladarelli et Since Eq. 19 is memoryless, the number of edges that al.[10] who assumed that the probability of attachment each node garners through the period from t =0to t also between a new node i and the target node j is just follows Poisson distribution with the rate Πij = f(ηi, ηj ) where ηi and ηj are node fitnesses, and t f(ηi, ηj ) is the symmetric function of its arguments (link- Λ= η A(τ)dτ. (20) ing function). Ref. [10] considered additive linking func- Z0 tion but the later publication of the same group [89] pos- We focus on the ensemble of N nodes that joined the tulated multiplicative linking function, f(ηi, ηj ) ∼ ηiηj . network at the same time which we set as t = 0. Among The latter assumption became more popular and it al- these nodes, the number of those that garnered K edges lows the following generalization. Consider a target node by time t is j. If fitness is determined by similarity and all nodes be- K long to the same community, then the node j will garner ∞ Λ Λ N(K,t)= N e− ρ(η)dη, (21) edges with the rate ∆Kj ∝ ηiηj where ηi is the average Z0 K! 8 where ρ(η) is the fitness distribution and Λ(η) depen- dence is given by Eq. 20. During time window (t,t + ∆t) each of these N(K,t) nodes garners ∼ λ edges, in such a way that the average number of new edges garnered by each node from this subset is ΛK Λ N ∞ λ e− ρ(η)dη ∆K = 0 K! (22) R N(K,t) We substitute Eq. 19 into Eq. 22, note that λ =ΛA˜(t), A(t)∆t where A˜(t)= t , use the equality 0 A(τ)dτ R ΛPoiss(Λ,K) = (K + 1)Poiss(Λ,K + 1), (23) and come to N(K +1,t) ∆K| = A˜(t)(K + 1) . (24) K N(K,t) where N(K +1,t) is the number of nodes that after time FIG. 1. Numerical simulation of the growth dynamics of t garnered K + 1 edges. If the fitness distribution is 0.035t 400,000 nodes with the aging function A(t) = |t−2.4|1.3 and sufficiently broad, then N(K + 1) ≈ N(K) for K >> 1 lognormal fitness distribution with µ = 1.6 and σ = 1.1. ∆K (see Appendix) and Eq. 24 approaches asymptotically to is the mean growth rate, K is the number of accumulated edges, t is the age, and continuous lines show fits to Eq. 26. ∆K = A˜(t)(K + 1). (25) This expression is nothing else but the preferential at- Figure 2 shows ∆K(K +1) dependences for lognormal tachment rule (Eq. 7) with δ = 1 and K0 =1. A fitness distributions with different σ. These dependences similar result was obtained earlier by Burrell [92] using deviate from Eq. 25 for small K and we approximate a different approach. In the continuous approximation, them as dK ˜ Eq. 25 reduces to dt = A(t)(K + 1). This equation has uncanny resemblance to the famous expression for ∆K = A˜(t)(K + K0), (26) the photon emission rate for two-level atomic systems, dNph = Bn2(Nph + 1), where n2 is the number of atoms where K0 is the fitting parameter. Equation 26 indicates dt ˜ in the upper state, Nph is the number of photons, and B that at small K, ∆K → A(t)K0. On another hand, Eq. is the Einstein coefficient for stimulated emission. Thus, 24 yields K is the analog of Nph and K0 is the analog of sponta- neous emission. N(1,t) ∆K|K=0 = A˜(t) . (27) To validate Eq. 25 through numerical simulation we N(0,t) considered a set of 400,000 nodes and simulated their growth using Eq. 19. We assumed a lognormal fitness Thus, (ln η−µ)2 1 2σ2 Λ distribution ρ(η) = e− with µ = 1.6 and N(1,t) ∞ Λe− ρ(Λ)dΛ √2πση K ≈ = 0 , (28) 0.035t 0 Λ σ = 1.1, and the aging function A(t) = t 2.4 1.3 . The N(0,t) R ∞ e− ρ(Λ)dΛ | − | 0 time was run from t = 0 to t = 25 with steps ∆t = R t=25 1, in such a way that 0 A(t) = 1. For each node where ρ(Λ) follows the lognormal distribution with j in this set we determined K (t), the total number of t t P j shifted µ′ = µ + log( 0 A(τ)dτ). Since 0 A(τ)dτ) → 1 edges accumulated after time t, and ∆Kj (t), the number in the long time limit,R the difference betweenR µ and µ′ of additional edges gained at step t + 1. For every t becomes increasingly small at long t. Figure 3 shows K0 we grouped all nodes into 40 logarithmically-spaced bins, calculated according to Eq. 28 as a function of µ and σ. each bin containing the nodes with close values of K. We observe that K0 increases with µ and decreases with For each bin, we determined ∆K-distribution and found σ. These dependences can be captured by the approxi- its mean, ∆K. Figure 1 plots ∆K versus K +1, as mate empirical expression suggested by Eq. 25. It is clearly seen that this equation µ fits the data fairly well for K >> 1. The fit at small e 1+σ K ≈ . (29) K is less satisfactory but it can be improved by using 0 (1 + σ2)0.6 Eq. 26 with K0 as a fitting parameter. We obtain K0 = 0.7, 0.8, 0.85 and 1 for t =2, 3, 7 and 24, correspondingly. For reasonable values of µ = 0 − 2 and σ = 1 − 2, K0 Thus, anyway K0 ∼ 1. lies between 0.5 and 1.5. It is determined by σ, and, to 9 FIG. 2. Numerical simulation of the growth dynamics of the set of 400,000 nodes with different lognormal fitness distribu- FIG. 3. Initial attractivity K0 calculated from Eq. 28 in tions having the same µ=1.6 and different σ. The symbols dependence of the parameters of the lognormal fitness distri- show results of numerical simulation, continuous lines show bution, µ and σ. The filled squares show our measurements for Physics, Economics, and Mathematics papers published in linear approximation ∆K = A(K + K0) with A = 0.04 and 1984 (see Ref. [33]). The open circles show our expectations K0 = 3.5, 1.65, 1, and 0.55 for σ = 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 1.8, cor- respondingly. The aging function is the same as in Fig. 1, based on measured µ and σ of the lognormal fitness distribu- t = 24. tion for these very datasets. For all three research fields the measured fitness distributions have σ = 1.1 and different µ. The measured values of K0 are close to those predicted by Eq. 28. a lesser extent, by µ. This means the following: if K0 is measured using Eq. 26 using extrapolation from large K, then one always gets K0 = 1. On another hand, since universality of initial attractivity K0 ∼ 1 in growing net- most fitness distributions are broad, the K0 measured works is a by-product of the ubiquity of power-law degree using Eq. 26 for small K (as it is usually done in most distributions with γ ∼ 3. studies) is not not exactly 1 but close to 1, somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5. Figure 3 shows that for narrow fitness distribution, K0 can be higher. IX. DISCUSSION We plot on Fig. 3 the measured values of K0 which were inferred from our studies of citation dynamics of sci- Our analysis shows that if network growth is consid- entific papers published in 1984. We considered three re- ered from the perspective of a target node and is studied search fields: Physics, Economics, and Mathematics and using the mean-field approximation, namely, by averag- found that the fitness distribution for all three fields is ing over many similar nodes, one cannot distinguish be- lognormal with different µ but the same, σ = 1.1. The tween the preferential attachment and the fitness-only measured and calculated initial attractivities K0 are in models - both of them yield Eq. 26. Thus, in all that good agreement and are all close to 1. concerns the mean-field network dynamics, preferential Thus, our numerical simulation supports the preferen- attachment is equivalent to fitness-only model, in other tial attachment (cumulative advantage) model with ini- words, the rich-gets-richer mechanism reduces to the fit- tial attractivity K0 ∼ 1, as it was postulated by de Solla gets-richer mechanism.[71] This is surprising since these Price.[4] The natural question arises- why K0 ∼ 1 is so two models are based on different premises. The prefer- widespread? Figure 3 shows that the corresponding fit- ential attachment model assumes that all nodes are born ness distribution shall have any µ between 0 and 2 but equal, the inequality in their degree coming by chance. the width shall be σ ≈ 1. Nguyen and Tran [90] showed After this inequality has been established, it is amplified by numerical simulation that if the complex network with by the autocatalytic process represented by Eq. 1. In a lognormal fitness distribution grows according to Eq. contrast, the fitness model and the fitness-based recur- 18, then the power-law degree distribution with the ex- sive search model assume that the nodes are born un- ponent γ ∼ 3 appears only for σ ≈ 1. This observation equal, each newly born node is endowed with a certain implies that the initial attractivity is coupled to the ex- fitness. The latent inequality in fitnesses becomes evident ponent of the degree distribution, in such a way that the only after the nodes have been developing for some time. 10 Surprisingly, the two opposing assumptions underlying nodes can be found by this simple strategy: random network growth- all nodes are born equal or different- choice among the neighbors of already chosen nodes. We result in the same growth equation, Eq. 26. found [23] that the recursive search follows a more clever strategy: the search in the network neighborhood of the This does not mean that the two models are equivalent. previously chosen nodes is not random but has preference While the preferential attachment model does not specify for those neighbors that are connected to several already the initial attractivity, the fitness-only model with aging chosen nodes. The cartoon picture of such strategy is explains it perfectly well- it is determined by the shape as follows. Simple recursive search: if Alice is linked to of the fitness distribution. With respect to the power-law Bob, and Bob is linked to Frank, there is a chance that degree distribution in complex networks: the preferential Alice will link to Frank. Clever recursive search: if Alice attachment relates its to the strategy by which the new is linked to Bob and Charlie, and both of them are linked node attaches to old nodes, while the fitness model im- to Frank, then Alice will link to Frank almost for sure. plies that this distribution is inherited from the fitness Thus if a new node identifies a target node in the net- distribution. The fitness model successfully explains the work vicinity of two or more previously chosen nodes, the first-mover advantage, degree distribution for the nodes probability of attachment to such node exceeds the sum of the same age, different trajectories of the nodes of the of probabilities per each path, namely, multiple paths in- same age, etc. However, this model does not account terfere constructively, reinforcing one another. The syn- for the nonlinear dynamic growth rule that is observed ergetic interaction between the paths to the next-nearest in some networks. Most important, this model does not neighbors ensures that a new node finds highly-connected account for the network structure: it addresses neither nodes. This strategy of exploring next-nearest neighbors clustering coefficient nor assortativity. can still be considered as local strategy, but in fact, it is Although it could seem that the fitness-only model one step towards global search and this is the way how is more advantageous than the preferential attachment, classical preferential attachment emerges in the recursive Eqs. 1,7 can still be valid since the preferential attach- search. ment is a structural rather than explanatory model. In- deed, the relation Πij ∼ Kj does not imply that a new node i crawls through the whole network in order to gain ACKNOWLEDGMENTS information about degrees of all other nodes j. What oc- curs in reality is that the network grows following some I am grateful to Lev Muchnik for valuable discussions. local rule and this rule becomes imprinted in the network topology. When the network growth is analyzed, the changes in topology are visible while the underlying mi- X. APPENDIX croscopic growth rule is not. This feeds the illusion that the growth dynamics is determined by network topol- To explore the limits of approximation K >> 1 ogy while in reality the reverse is true. The challenge is for which N(K + 1) ≈ N(K), we consider the ra- ∞ K+1 − to uncover the microscopic rules of network growth that Λ e Λρ(Λ)dΛ tio N(K+1,t) = 0 (K+1)! and note that for explain the resulting network topology. This can’t be N(K,t) R ∞ ΛK −Λ 0 K! e ρ(Λ)dΛ done basing on Eq. 26 since too many mechanisms yield the uniform distribution,R ρ(Λ) = const, the relation the very same equation. Only truly microscopic mea- N(K) = N(K + 1) is satisfied exactly for every K. In surements, such as studying network growth from the order to study to what extent this relation holds for incoming node’s perspective, measuring autocorrelation non-uniform distributions, we assume a lognormal dis- (ln Λ−µ)2 and memory effects, can differentiate between the dif- 1 N(K+1,t) tribution, ρ(Λ) = e− 2σ2 . Then = ferent models. Our opinion is that the recursive search √2πσΛ N(K,t) (ln Λ−µ)2 ∞ K+1 − − mechanism (which includes the fitness model as a par- Λ e Λe 2σ2 dΛ 0 (K+1)! K Λ − 2 . The expression Λ e− , when ticular case) is a best candidate to account for growth R − (ln Λ µ) ∞ K − Λ e Λe 2σ2 dΛ dynamics of many complex networks. 0 (K)! consideredR as a function of Λ, is a bell-shaped function Does the recursive search mechanism exclude the with a peak at Λmax = K, the width of the peak being 1 genuine preferential attachment- namely, the algorithm 2 ∆Λ 1 ∆Λ ∼ K . The relative width of this peak is Λ ≈ 1 whereby a new node finds well-connected older nodes and max K 2 and for K >> 1 it is much narrow than any lognormal attaches to them? It has been generally believed that the distribution with σ> 1. In this case, the lognormal func- recursive search mechanism is one of realizations of this tion is almost constant across the peak of the function algorithm, since if a new node makes a random choice K Λ Λ e− and we can replace it by its value at the peak, among the neighbors of already chosen nodes, it has high K ∞ Λ Λ probability of picking up a highly-connected node. We Λ=Λmax. Since 0 (K)! e− = 1 then, for K >> 1, − 2 − − 2 − N(K+1,t) (ln(K+1)R µ) (ln K µ) ln(1+ 1 ) ln K µ demonstrate here (Eq. 17) that this strategy works in a 2σ2 K σ2 N(K,t) ≈ e− = e− ≈ straightforward way only if the recursive search does not − ln K µ N(K+1,t) Kσ2 ln K have memory. In reality, recursive search has rather short e− . Since K << 1 for K >> 1, then N(K,t) ≈ memory,[23] and it is not clear whether highly-connected 1. Thus, the latter relation holds for K >> 1 and σ > 1. 11 [1] M. Mitzenmacher, Internet Mathematics 1, 226 (2004). [2] M. Newman, Contemporary Physics 46, 323 (2005). [3] A. Clauset, C. R. Shalizi, and M. E. J. Newman, SIAM Review 51, 661 (2009). [4] D. D. S. Price, Journal of the American Society for Information Science 27, 292 (1976). [5] M. Newman, Networks (Oxford University Press, 2010). [6] S. Boccaletti, V. Latora, Y. Moreno, M. Chavez, and D.-U. Hwang, “Complex networks: Structure and dynamics,” (2006). [7] G. Caldarelli, Scale-Free Networks: Complex Webs in Nature and Technology (Oxford University Press, 2007). [8] A.-L. Barabasi, Network Science (Cambridge University Press, 2015). [9] R. Albert and A.-L. Barabasi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 47 (2002). [10] G. Caldarelli, A. Capocci, P. DeLosRios, and M. A. Mu˜noz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 258702 (2002). [11] S. N. Dorogovtsev, J. F. F. Mendes, and A. N. Samukhin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4633 (2000). [12] G. Ghoshal, L. Chi, and A.-L. Barab´asi, Scientific Reports 3 (2013), 10.1038/srep02920. [13] J. Leskovec, J. Kleinberg, and C. Faloutsos, ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) 1, 2 (2007). [14] S. N. Dorogovtsev and J. F. F. Mendes, Physical Review E 62, 1842 (2000). [15] K. B. Hajra and P. Sen, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 368, 575 (2006). [16] M. Wang, G. Yu, and D. Yu, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 387, 4692 (2008). [17] Y. Wu, T. Z. Fu, and D. M. Chiu, Journal of Informetrics 8, 650 (2014). [18] L. Ostroumova-Prokhorenkova and E. Samosvat, Journal of Complex Networks 4, 475 (2016). [19] B. A. Miller and N. T. Bliss, IEEE Signal Processing Letters 19, 356 (2012). [20] M. Rosvall, A. V. Esquivel, A. Lancichinetti, J. D. West, and R. Lambiotte, Nat Commun 5, (2014). [21] J. P. Gleeson, D. Cellai, J.-P. Onnela, M. A. Porter, and F. Reed-Tsochas, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 10411 (2014). [22] O. Mokryn, A. Wagner, M. Blattner, E. Ruppin, and Y. Shavitt, PLOS ONE 11, e0156505 (2016). [23] M. Golosovsky and S. Solomon, Physical Review E 95, 012324 (2017). [24] P. L. Krapivsky and S. Redner, Physical Review E 63, 066123 (2001). [25] P. Krapivsky and D. Krioukov, Physical Review E 78, 026114 (2008). [26] J. Leskovec, L. Backstrom, R. Kumar, and A. Tomkins, in Proceeding of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining - KDD 08 (Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), 2008). [27] A. Mislove, H. S. Koppula, K. P. Gummadi, P. Druschel, and B. Bhattacharjee, in Dynamics On and Of Complex Networks, Volume 2 (Springer Nature, 2013) pp. 19–40. [28] J. Kunegis, M. Blattner, and C. Moser, in Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference (Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), 2013). [29] M. Perc, Journal of The Royal Society Interface 11 (2014), 10.1098/rsif.2014.0378. [30] T. Pham, P. Sheridan, and H. Shimodaira, PLOS ONE 10, e0137796 (2015). [31] S. Redner, Physics Today 58, 49 (2005). [32] A. Garavaglia, R. Hofstad, and G. Woeginger, Journal of Statistical Physics 168, 1137 (2017). [33] M. Golosovsky and S. Solomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 098701 (2012). [34] M. E. Newman, Physical review E 64, 025102 (2001). [35] A. Capocci, V. D. Servedio, F. Colaiori, L. S. Buriol, D. Donato, S. Leonardi, and G. Caldarelli, Physical Review E 74, 036116 (2006). [36] C. P. Massen and J. P. Doye, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 377, 351 (2007). [37] M. Golosovsky and S. Solomon, Journal of Statistical Physics 151, 340 (2013). [38] K. W. Higham, M. Governale, A. B. Jaffe, and U. Zulicke, Phys. Rev. E 95, 042309 (2017). [39] K. Higham, M. Governale, A. Jaffe, and U. Z¨ulicke, Journal of Informetrics 11, 1190 (2017). [40] H. Jeong, Z. N´eda, and A.-L. Barab´asi, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 61, 567 (2003). [41] Y.-H. Eom and S. Fortunato, PLoS ONE 6, e24926 (2011). [42] M. Medo, Physical Review E 89, 032801 (2014). [43] Ref. [28] analyzes 49 networks, claims preferential attachment for each of them, and reports the corresponding parameters found from the sophisticated analysis of ∆K versus K plots. Ref. [28] also shows raw data for six networks and five of them clearly do not support the preferential attachment mechanism. Namely, they demonstrate preferential attachment at low degree and anti-preferential attachment for high degree, similar to what was observed in Ref. [35] for Wikipedia edits. Thus, although the fitting procedure of Ref. [28] can be valid, the result interpretation without inspection of raw data is incomplete. [44] G. Cs´ardi, K. J. Strandburg, L. Zal´anyi, J. Tobochnik, and P. Erdi,´ Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 374, 783 (2007). [45] A. Zeng, Z. Shen, J. Zhou, J. Wu, Y. Fan, Y. Wang, and H. E. Stanley, Physics Reports (2017). [46] M. E. J. Newman, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 86, 68001 (2009). [47] M. E. J. Newman, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 105, 28002 (2014). [48] J. S. Kong, N. Sarshar, and V. P. Roychowdhury, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 13724 (2008). [49] Q. Ke, E. Ferrara, F. Radicchi, and A. Flammini, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 7426 (2015). [50] B. A. Huberman and L. A. Adamic, cond-mat/9901071v2. [51] L. A. Adamic, B. A. Huberman, A.-L. Barab´asi, R. Albert, H. Jeong, and G. Bianconi, Science 287, 2115 (2000). 12 [52] X. Geng and Y. Wang, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 88, 38002 (2009). [53] Z. Xie, Z. Ouyang, Q. Liu, and J. Li, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 456, 167 (2016). [54] I. Sendi˜na-Nadal, M. M. Danziger, Z. Wang, S. Havlin, and S. Boccaletti, Scientific Reports 6 (2016), 10.1038/srep21297. [55] L. O. Prokhorenkova, Optimization Letters 11, 279 (2017). [56] J. P. Bagrow and D. Brockmann, Phys. Rev. X 3, 021016 (2013). [57] S. Fortunato, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 218701 (2006). [58] J. Zhou, A. Zeng, Y. Fan, and Z. Di, Scientometrics 106, 805 (2016). [59] G. Bianconi and A.-L. A.-L. Barabasi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5632 (2001). [60] Y. Bramoull´e, S. Currarini, M. O. Jackson, P. Pin, and B. W. Rogers, Journal of Economic Theory 147, 1754 (2012). [61] F. Menczer, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101, 5261 (2004). [62] V. Ciotti, M. Bonaventura, V. Nicosia, P. Panzarasa, and V. Latora, EPJ Data Science 5, 7 (2016). [63] D. Liben-Nowell and J. Kleinberg, in Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on Information and knowledge management - CIKM (Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), 2003). [64] A.-L. Barabasi, C. Song, and D. Wang, Nature 491, 40 (2012). [65] M. Golosovsky, Physical Review E 96, 032306 (2017). [66] S. Ghadge, T. Killingback, B. Sundaram, and D. A. Tran, International Journal of Parallel, Emergent and Distributed Systems 25, 223 (2010). [67] D. Wang, C. Song, and A.-L. Barabasi, Science 342, 127 (2013). [68] T. Carletti, F. Gargiulo, and R. Lambiotte, The European Physical Journal B 88, 18 (2015). [69] M. Bell, S. Perera, M. Piraveenan, M. Bliemer, T. Latty, and C. Reid, Scientific Reports 7 (2017). [70] M. Medo, G. Cimini, and S. Gualdi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 238701 (2011). [71] T. Pham, P. Sheridan, and H. Shimodaira, Scientific Reports 6, 32558 (2016). [72] F. Papadopoulos, M. Kitsak, M. A.´ Serrano, M. Bogu˜n´a, and D. Krioukov, Nature 489, 537 (2012). [73] G. Erg¨un and G. Rodgers, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 303, 261 (2002). [74] C. Bedogne and G. J. Rodgers, Physical Review E 74 (2006), 10.1103/physreve.74.046115. [75] D. Centola, V. M. Egu´ıluz, and M. W. Macy, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 374, 449 (2007). [76] D. Centola, Science 329, 1194 (2010). [77] With the proliferation of easily accessible informational databases such as Google Scholar, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, etc., global information on many complex networks became easily accessible. In particular, for citation networks, the incentive to cite a certain paper may indeed come from the number of previous citations. Thus, the preferential attachment model is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. [78] A. Vazquez, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 54, 430 (2001). [79] P. L. Krapivsky and S. Redner, Phys. Rev. E 71, 036118 (2005). [80] M. O. Jackson and B. W. Rogers, American Economic Review 97, 890 (2007). [81] S. R. Goldberg, H. Anthony, and T. S. Evans, Scientometrics 105, 1577 (2015). [82] Z.-X. Wu and P. Holme, Phys. Rev. E 80, 037101 (2009). [83] T. Martin, B. Ball, B. Karrer, and M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E 88, 012814 (2013). [84] J. Leskovec, J. Kleinberg, and C. Faloutsos, in Proceeding of the eleventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery in data mining - KDD 05 (Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), 2005). [85] L. Subelj and M. Bajec, Proceedings of the WWW Workshop on Large Scale Network Analysis 2013, (LSNA’13),pp.527 (2013), 1303.5857. [86] R. Lambiotte, P. Krapivsky, U. Bhat, and S. Redner, Physical Review Letters 117, 218301 (2016). [87] R. Lambiotte and M. Ausloos, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 77, 58002 (2007). [88] M. V. Simkin and V. P. Roychowdhury, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58, 1661 (2007). [89] V. D. P. Servedio, G. Caldarelli, and P. Butt`a, Physical Review E 70, 056126 (2004). [90] K. Nguyen and D. A. Tran, in Handbook of Optimization in Complex Networks (Springer, 2012) pp. 39–53. [91] J. Luck and A. Mehta, Physical Review E 95, 062306 (2017). [92] Q. L. Burrell, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 54, 372 (2003).