Local clustering coefficient of spatial preferential attachment model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we study the clustering properties of the spatial preferential attachment (SPA) model. This model naturally combines geometry and preferential attachment using the notion of spheres of influence. It was previously shown in several research papers that graphs generated by the SPA model are similar to real-world networks in many aspects. Also, this model was successfully used for several practical applications. However, the clustering properties of the SPA model were not fully analysed. The clustering coefficient is an important characteristic of complex networks which is tightly connected with its community structure. In this article, we study the behaviour of |$C(d)$|, which is the average local clustering coefficient for the vertices of degree |$d$|. It was empirically shown that in real-world networks |$C(d)$| usually decreases as |$d^{-a}$| for some |$a>0$| and it was often observed that |$a=1$|. We prove that in the SPA model |$C(d)$| decreases as |$1/d$|. Furthermore, we are also able to prove that not only the average but also the individual local clustering coefficient of a vertex |$v$| of degree |$d$| behaves as |$1/d$| if |$d$| is large enough. The obtained results further confirm the suitability of the SPA model for fitting various real-world complex networks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".