Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 87 references

Universal self-similarity of hierarchical communities formed through a general self-organizing principle

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that nested communities in brains, protein networks, collaborations, and road grids obey one scaling law, reproduced by a similarity-based linking rule.

desk verdict A clean, well-documented empirical survey of Horton scaling in hierarchical communities, but the universality claim needs a null model and alternative algorithm before it lands. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11159 v1 pith:MWIRBHVR submitted 2025-07-15 physics.soc-ph physics.data-an

Shruti Tandon , Nidhi Dilip Sonwane (equal) , Tobias Braun , Norbert Marwan , Juergen Kurths , R. I. Sujith This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.soc-phphysics.data-an
keywords hierarchicalcommunitystructureuniversalscalinglawsHorton-Strahlerorderingself-similarityself-organizationdetectionstatus-basedlinkformationcomplexnetworks
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 claims that the nested 'communities-within-communities' structure found in diverse real-world networks — mouse brain fibre tracts, E. coli protein interactions, C. elegans gene interactions, scientific collaborations, weaver-bird interactions, mutually liked Facebook pages, and European road infrastructure — follows the same quantitative scaling laws, with the number of branches per organizational level decaying as $\log_{10} b_h = \gamma_b h + c$ with $\gamma_b \approx -0.53 \pm 0.04$. It then shows that a minimal generative model, in which a new node links to an existing node with probability inversely proportional to the difference in their intrinsic 'status', reproduces this entire family of exponents whether the status distribution is Gaussian, exponential, or quadratic. The paper interprets the match as evidence for a general self-organizing principle: nodes sort into communities so that the diversity (continuous entropy) of statuses within each community is minimized at every organizational scale, and organizational entropy falls as the scale coarsens, consistent with Haken's principle. If correct, the discovery means one similarity-based linking rule can account for a quantitative structural signature shared by brains, cells, societies, and infrastructure.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the binary community tree with Horton–Strahler ordering. Communities are detected by iterated Girvan–Newman edge-betweenness removal: each community is split into exactly two children, repeatedly, until single nodes remain, and each community-node receives an order $h$ (leaf communities get $h = 1$; a parent with two children of equal order $h$ gets $h + 1$, otherwise it inherits the larger child order). Horton's law — branch counts decaying geometrically with order, $\log_{10} b_h = \gamma_b h + c$ — is the quantitative signature of self-similarity, and the paper's generative mechanism is the status model, in which the connection probability between an incoming node $i$ and an existing node $j$ is $\pi_{ij} = (1/|S_i - S_j|) / \sum_k (1/|S_i - S_k|)$, i.e., inverse to status difference. The surrogate-entropy comparison is the device that links the emergent tree to the claimed self-organizing principle of entropy minimization at every scale.

What would settle it

Run the identical pipeline — iterated Girvan–Newman bisection to a binary tree, then Horton–Strahler counting — on degree-preserving randomized copies of the same eight networks and on random binary trees such as critical Galton–Watson trees; if those random structures also give a branch-count exponent near $-0.5$, the universality is a generic property of forced-bisection trees rather than of the networks. Equally decisive would be recomputing the exponents from an alternative hierarchical community-detection method on the same eight networks and finding that they deviate from $-0.53 \pm 0.04$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the binary tree of nested communities obtained by repeatedly bisecting a network is structurally self-similar and obeys universal Horton scaling. Across eight real-world networks, the number of branches $b_h$ of organizational order $h$ satisfies $\log_{10} b_h = \gamma_b h + c$ with $\gamma_b \approx -0.53 \pm 0.04$ (bifurcation ratio $R_b \approx 3.38$), and companion exponents for community count, mean relative link density, mean community size, and fixed-depth attributes ($\gamma_\chi$, $\gamma_\eta$, $\gamma_n$, $\gamma_h$, $\gamma_{\chi d}$, $\gamma_{\eta d}$, $\gamma_{nd}$) cluster tightly across the same networks. Because the scaling also holds at fixed hierarchical depth, the paper asserts the stronger property of structural self-similarity, and it shows that a tree that merely obeys Horton's law but is not self-similar fails those fixed-depth tests (as the ECO and DDI networks do). The same exponent family emerges from a model in which the probability of linking two nodes is proportional to the inverse of the difference in their assigned statuses, and surrogate shuffles show that the resulting communities minimize the continuous entropy of statuses within each community at every scale, with organizational entropy decreasing as the scale of description grows.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the binary tree created by repeatedly splitting every community into exactly two sub-communities with Girvan–Newman edge-betweenness removal represents the network's true multi-scale organization; if a different detection method builds a different tree, the universal exponents could be an artifact of the forced bisection procedure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Horton branch-count exponent $\gamma_b \approx -0.53$ (bifurcation ratio $\approx 3.38$) becomes a quantitative fingerprint that can be measured once a network's hierarchical communities are mapped to a binary tree, allowing direct comparison of brains, protein webs, social systems, and infrastructure.
  • Networks grown from similarity-based linking reproduce the universal exponents without degree-based preferential attachment, so the status model offers a generating mechanism for synthetic networks with prescribed self-similar hierarchical structure.
  • The surrogate analysis implies that the observed community structure is the most entropy-minimizing arrangement of node properties at every scale: randomizing statuses within communities always raises the mean within-community status entropy.
  • Organizational entropy $E(h)$ decreases with organizational scale, which the paper presents as a concrete instance of Haken's principle that order formation lowers the system's remaining degrees of freedom.
  • Not every network obeys the laws: the ECO and DDI networks are Hortonian but fail the structural self-similarity tests, so the universal scaling is a distinguishing property rather than a tautology of any tree built from any network.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the tree is produced by repeatedly bisecting the network until each community splits into exactly two children, the universal exponents may partly reflect properties of the Girvan–Newman bisection procedure itself; rebuilding the trees with other hierarchical detection methods, or from random binary trees, would settle this, and the paper does not report such a comparison.
  • If the scaling survives a change of tree-construction method, the exponents join degree exponents and fractal dimensions as candidate universal descriptors, and one could ask whether the status model's exponents are fixed-point values of the linking rule or drift continuously with the shape of the status distribution $p(S)$.
  • The cost reading sketched in the discussion — maintaining links between dissimilar nodes costs more — suggests a testable extension: networks whose link cost grows with status difference should show sharper Horton scaling as the cost grows, and blur toward random-tree behaviour as the cost vanishes.
  • The entropy-minimization and organizational-entropy results are demonstrated on model networks; extending the same surrogate analysis to the eight real-world networks would test whether the minimization claim holds where only the exponents have been measured.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that hierarchical community structure in eight diverse real-world networks obeys universal Horton-Strahler scaling laws, with exponents such as γb ≈ -0.53 ± 0.04 for log10(b_h) vs h (Fig. 2, Tables I and II). It then introduces a 'status model' in which the probability that a new node connects to an existing node is inversely proportional to the difference in node statuses (Eq. 1, referred to as Eq. 5 in the text), and reports that this model reproduces the same scaling exponents. The manuscript further argues that the underlying self-organizing principle is the minimization of within-community status diversity at every organizational scale, formalized through continuous entropy and an 'organizational entropy' E(h) (Eqs. 2 and 3), in line with Haken's principle. The paper includes supplementary analyses of additional networks, alternative status distributions, non-growing model variants, and publicly archived code.

Significance. If established, the claimed universality would be a notable contribution to the network-science literature, potentially linking local similarity-based attachment to the nested community geometry of biological, social, and infrastructure networks. The manuscript has clear strengths: the model is simple and transparent, the authors provide archived code, they include surrogate analyses and non-growing variants, and they explicitly discuss networks that do not fit the universal pattern. However, the central empirical claim currently lacks a null-model baseline, the exclusion of two networks from the universal range is not justified by a quantitative criterion, and the entropy-minimization principle is only demonstrated in a model where it is essentially built into the attachment rule. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main conclusions, so the manuscript requires substantial additional work.

major comments (4)
  1. [Materials and Methods, 'Binary tree representation'; Fig. 2(b), Table I] The hierarchical tree for every network is constructed by repeatedly removing the highest edge-betweenness edge until each component splits into exactly two (Materials and Methods). This procedure produces a binary tree for any connected graph, and the claimed universal exponents are then measured on that tree. The manuscript provides no comparison with degree-preserving randomized graphs, random binary trees, or alternative hierarchical community-detection algorithms. The authors themselves cite Ref. [68], which shows that Horton laws emerge generically in random self-similar trees, so without such a baseline the similarity of γb across the eight chosen networks does not discriminate a universal organizing principle from a generic property of the forced recursive-bisection construction. I recommend adding null-model tests (e.g., configuration-model random graphs and random binary trees with matched sizes) and at least one alternative hierarchical detection method, and reporting the resulting exponents.
  2. [Supplementary S1, Table S1] The supplementary material shows that ECO and DDI also satisfy Horton's law of branch numbers, with γb = -0.83 and -1.03, far outside the claimed universal range. The paper excludes these networks because they have 'limited organizational scales' and a poor γηd fit, but this is a post hoc selection: the universal interval in Table I is computed after removing exactly the networks that violate it. To support the universality claim, either include ECO and DDI in the reported dispersion or in a formal outlier test, or state a quantitative, pre-specified criterion for exclusion (e.g., minimum number of organizational scales and minimum R² for γηd) and demonstrate that the main conclusions are robust to that criterion.
  3. [Section 'A general self-organizing principle...', Eqs. (2)-(3), Fig. 5] The claim that nodes 'self-organize' so that within-community status diversity is minimized at every scale is only demonstrated in the status model, where the link probability is by construction inversely proportional to status difference (Eq. 1). The surrogate tests in Fig. 5(a) randomly permute statuses within fixed communities and show that the original assignment has lower entropy, but this is a direct consequence of the model's attachment rule: communities detected by edge-betweenness on such a network will be grouped by status. The manuscript should state this circularity explicitly and provide either a falsifiable prediction of the minimization principle that is not already encoded in the attachment rule, or a test on a real-world network with an independently measured node attribute that is not the one used to define the links.
  4. [Tables I and II] Per-network scaling exponents are quoted to two decimals with R² values but without confidence intervals, and the 'standard error' in Table I is the dispersion across the eight networks, not the uncertainty of each individual fit. For the model, the exponents are obtained from a single simulated network (N = 1000 in Fig. 4), so finite-size and realization effects are unreported. The universality claim would be much stronger if the authors provided per-network fit uncertainties and an ensemble of model realizations (at least 10-100 networks per parameter set) with reported mean and standard deviation of each exponent.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Equation numbering throughout] The model's link probability appears as Eq. (1) in the main text but is repeatedly referred to as 'Eq. 5' (e.g., in the 'Universal scaling laws' section and in Supplementary S4). Please renumber or correct the references.
  2. [Fig. 5(a) caption and text] The gray surrogate lines and the reported slope β = 1.0 are described only qualitatively; the reader cannot tell how many surrogate realizations were averaged, whether the slope is the mean over realizations, and what the spread across realizations is. Please provide these details.
  3. [Supplementary S1, ECO/DDI discussion] The statement that the large block structures in the ECO and DDI adjacency matrices 'do not represent communities but are just remnants of the community detection algorithm' is asserted without quantification. A quantitative measure of community strength, such as modularity or a comparison to a random-graph baseline, would support this claim.
  4. [Eq. (3) and surrounding text] The term 'organizational entropy' E(h) is defined as a mean surplus entropy relative to a fully randomized status assignment, but the subsequent statement that E(h) 'represents the information needed to describe the orderliness of the structure' is not justified by the definition and should be reworded or supported by a derivation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The model's 'self-organizing principle' is a restatement of its link-formation rule; the empirical Horton scaling exponents are independent, giving partial circularity.

  1. self definitional [Section 'EMERGENCE OF TOPOLOGICAL SELF-SIMILARITY THROUGH LOCAL LINK FORMATION RULES' (Eq.]
    "we use a basic phenomenological model to explain the emergence of hierarchical communities obeying such universal scaling laws and discover the underlying self-organizing principle. ... πij = dij / Σ_k d_k ... Here, dij is the inverse of the difference in the statuses of two nodes i and j, i.e., dij = 1/|Si − Sj|. The higher the difference between the intrinsic properties of the two nodes, the lower the probability of them forming a connection. ..."

    The model's only input is that link probability is inversely proportional to status difference. Community detection then groups nodes by connectivity, so each detected community necessarily contains nodes with small status spread; the surrogate test merely permutes statuses inside fixed communities and shows the entropy rises. Both the 'discovery' that diversity is minimized at every scale and the surrogate 'confirmation' are logical consequences of the definition of πij, not independent empirical findings. The Horton exponents of the model are emergent and not circular, but the paper's stated self-organizing principle is the model's rule restated.

full rationale

The empirical Horton scaling exponents for the eight real-world networks are measured from data and are not fitted to the model; the model exponents are not tuned to the real-world values. Those quantitative exponents therefore have independent content and are not circular. However, the paper's headline conceptual result—that self-organization minimizes node-property diversity at every scale—is the model's link-formation rule (similar nodes connect with higher probability) rewritten as a discovered principle. The surrogate analysis demonstrates only that destroying the status-community correspondence raises entropy, which is guaranteed by construction because the network was grown from those statuses. The lack of null-model or alternative-community-detection comparisons for the real-world exponents is a robustness and interpretability concern, not a circularity. Overall, the central 'self-organizing principle' claim reduces to its input, while the scaling-law measurements remain independent, so the circularity is partial.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on: (i) a latent scalar 'status' for every node that is never observed in real networks; (ii) the link-formation rule pi_ij proportional to 1/|S_i - S_j|; (iii) the assumption that recursive Girvan-Newman bipartitioning reveals the true hierarchy; and (iv) new definitions such as organizational entropy E(h). Model parameters N, m, N0, and p(S) are chosen by hand, though the paper tests robustness to them. The entropy-minimization 'principle' is the model rule restated.

free parameters (4)
  • Total nodes N = 1000
    Model size chosen for tractability; robustness to N=2000,3000 tested in S4.
  • Links per new node m = 4
    Sets link density; robustness to m=2,8,10 tested in S3.
  • Initial nodes N0 = 100
    Initial random seed network; not varied.
  • Status distribution p(S) = Gaussian(0,1)
    Assumed distribution of intrinsic node property; alternative quadratic and exponential distributions tested in S2.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Recursive bipartitioning via Girvan-Newman reveals the true hierarchical community structure
    All scaling exponents and entropy results are computed on the resulting binary tree (Materials and Methods).
  • domain assumption Each node has a scalar status S, and link probability depends only on |S_i - S_j|
    Model rule, Eq. (5), and basis for entropy minimization claims.
  • standard math Continuous entropy E(S) = - integral p(S) ln p(S) dS is a valid diversity measure for communities
    Used in Eq. (2) with Freedman-Diaconis binning; continuous entropy can be negative, which the paper acknowledges.
  • ad hoc to paper Organizational entropy E(h), Eq. (3), measures orderliness at scale h
    Newly defined quantity; its monotonic decrease with h is asserted as the Haken-principle connection, supported only by the definition.
  • domain assumption The largest connected component of each undirected, unweighted network is representative
    Analysis restricted to largest connected component (Materials and Methods, 'Binary tree representation').
invented entities (2)
  • Status S_i
    purpose: Latent node property driving connection probability in the model and defining community diversity
    No real-world measurement of status is provided; entropy-minimization claims for real networks cannot be tested without it.
  • Organizational entropy E(h)
    purpose: Quantifies orderliness at each hierarchical scale and provides the Haken-principle link
    A newly introduced measure, defined in Eq. (3); its behavior is a consequence of the definition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universal self-similarity of hierarchical communities formed through a general self-organizing principle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MWIRBHVR

@misc{pith2026250711159,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universal self-similarity of hierarchical communities formed through a general self-organizing principle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MWIRBHVR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11159}
}
read the original abstract

Emergence of self-similarity in hierarchical community structures is ubiquitous in complex systems. Yet, there is a dearth of universal quantification and general principles describing the formation of such structures. Here, we discover universality in scaling laws describing self-similar hierarchical community structure in multiple real-world networks including biological, infrastructural, and social networks. We replicate these scaling relations using a phenomenological model, where nodes with higher similarity in their properties have greater probability of forming a connection. A large difference in their properties forces two nodes into different communities. Smaller communities are formed owing to further differences in node properties within a larger community. We discover that the general self-organizing principle is in agreement with Hakens principle; nodes self-organize into groups such that the diversity or differences between properties of nodes in the same community is minimized at each scale and the organizational entropy decreases with increasing complexity of the organized structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11159 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Examples of real-world networks that self-organize into a hierarchical community structure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Hierarchical community structure of real-world networks is structurally Hortonian and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Similar nodes are more likely to connect and group together to form communities at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Network obtained from our model exhibits a highly self-similar topology with a structurally [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Self-organization leads to a community-within-community structure that minimizes the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Schematic flow diagram for characterizing the hierarchical community structure as a binary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [68]

    Kovchegov, I

    Y . Kovchegov, I. Zaliapin, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, Random self-similar trees: Emergence of scaling laws. Surv. Geophys. 43, 353–421 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    J. G. White, E. Southgate, J. N. Thomson, S. Brenner, et al., The structure of the nervous system of the nematode caenorhabditis elegans. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 314, 1–340 (1986)

    1986

  3. [2]

    Eisenberg, E

    D. Eisenberg, E. M. Marcotte, I. Xenarios, T. O. Yeates, Protein function in the post-genomic era. Nature 405, 823–826 (2000)

    2000

  4. [3]

    Vishveshwara, K

    S. Vishveshwara, K. Brinda, N. Kannan, Protein structure: insights from graph theory. J. Theor . Comput. Chem. 1, 187–211 (2002)

    2002

  5. [4]

    Brinda, S

    K. Brinda, S. Vishveshwara, A network representation of protein structures: implications for protein stability. Biophys. J. 89, 4159–4170 (2005)

    2005

  6. [5]

    R. K. Sistla, B. KV , S. Vishveshwara, Identification of domains and domain interface residues in multidomain proteins from graph spectral method. Proteins 59, 616–626 (2005). 22

    2005

  7. [6]

    B. A. Shoemaker, A. R. Panchenko, Deciphering protein–protein interactions. part i. experimental techniques and databases. PLoS Comput. Biol. 3, e42 (2007)

    2007

  8. [7]

    Bullmore, O

    E. Bullmore, O. Sporns, Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and func- tional systems. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 10, 186–198 (2009)

    2009

Show all 87 references
  1. [8]

    Sporns, The human connectome: a complex network

    O. Sporns, The human connectome: a complex network. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1224, 109–125 (2011)

    2011

  2. [9]

    Amunts, C

    K. Amunts, C. Lepage, L. Borgeat, H. Mohlberg, T. Dickscheid, M.- ´E. Rousseau, S. Bludau, P.-L. Bazin, L. B. Lewis, A.-M. Oros-Peusquens, et al., Bigbrain: an ultrahigh-resolution 3d human brain model. Science 340, 1472–1475 (2013)

    2013

  3. [10]

    Safari-Alighiarloo, M

    N. Safari-Alighiarloo, M. Taghizadeh, M. Rezaei-Tavirani, B. Goliaei, A. A. Peyvandi, Protein-protein interaction networks (ppi) and complex diseases. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. Bed Bench 7, 17 (2014)

    2014

  4. [11]

    H. A. Dawah, B. A. Hawkins, M. F. Claridge, Structure of the parasitoid communities of grass-feeding chalcid wasps. J. Anim. Ecol. pp. 708–720 (1995)

    1995

  5. [12]

    A. E. Krause, K. A. Frank, D. M. Mason, R. E. Ulanowicz, W. W. Taylor, Compartments revealed in food-web structure. Nature 426, 282–285 (2003)

    2003

  6. [13]

    R. A. Hill, R. A. Bentley, R. I. Dunbar, Network scaling reveals consistent fractal pattern in hierarchi- cal mammalian societies. Biol. Lett. 4, 748–751 (2008)

    2008

  7. [14]

    L. C. Ponisio, F. S. Valdovinos, K. T. Allhoff, M. P. Gaiarsa, A. Barner, P. R. Guimar ˜aes Jr, D. H. Hembry, B. Morrison, R. Gillespie, A network perspective for community assembly. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 103 (2019)

    2019

  8. [15]

    M. E. Newman, J. Park, Why social networks are different from other types of networks. Phys. Rev. E 68, 036122 (2003)

    2003

  9. [16]

    M. E. Newman, Scientific collaboration networks. I. network construction and fundamental results. Phys. Rev. E 64, 016131 (2001)

    2001

  10. [17]

    M. E. Newman, Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 101, 5200–5205 (2004)

    2004

  11. [18]

    A. L. Barab ´asi, R. Albert, Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286, 509–512 (1999)

    1999

  12. [19]

    M. E. Newman, Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 103, 8577–8582 (2006)

    2006

  13. [20]

    M. E. Newman, Communities, modules and large-scale structure in networks. Nat. Phys. 8, 25–31 (2012)

    2012

  14. [21]

    M. T. Schaub, J. Li, L. Peel, Hierarchical community structure in networks. Phys. Rev. E 107, 054305 23 (2023)

    2023

  15. [22]

    H. A. Simon, The architecture of complexity. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 106, 467–482 (1962)

    1962

  16. [23]

    C. Song, S. Havlin, H. A. Makse, Self-similarity of complex networks. Nature 433, 392–395 (2005)

    2005

  17. [24]

    C. Song, S. Havlin, H. A. Makse, Origins of fractality in the growth of complex networks. Nat. Phys. 2, 275–281 (2006)

    2006

  18. [25]

    Ikeda, Stratified structure of fractal scale-free networks generated by local rules

    N. Ikeda, Stratified structure of fractal scale-free networks generated by local rules. Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl. 583, 126299 (2021)

    2021

  19. [26]

    L. K. Gallos, C. Song, H. A. Makse, A review of fractality and self-similarity in complex networks. Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl. 386, 686–691 (2007)

    2007

  20. [27]

    S. N. Dorogovtsev, A. V . Goltsev, J. F. F. Mendes, Pseudofractal scale-free web. Phys. Rev. E 65, 066122 (2002)

    2002

  21. [28]

    S. H. Strogatz, Exploring complex networks. Nature 410, 268–276 (2001)

    2001

  22. [29]

    Boccaletti, V

    S. Boccaletti, V . Latora, Y . Moreno, M. Chavez, D.-U. Hwang, Complex networks: Structure and dynamics. Phys. Rep. 424, 175–308 (2006)

    2006

  23. [30]

    S. N. Dorogovtsev, A. V . Goltsev, J. F. Mendes, Critical phenomena in complex networks. Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1275–1335 (2008)

    2008

  24. [31]

    Kwapie ´n, S

    J. Kwapie ´n, S. Dro˙zd˙z, Physical approach to complex systems. Phys. Rep. 515, 115–226 (2012)

    2012

  25. [32]

    A. F. Siegenfeld, Y . Bar-Yam, An introduction to complex systems science and its applications.Com- plexity 2020, 6105872 (2020)

    2020

  26. [33]

    Meunier, R

    D. Meunier, R. Lambiotte, A. Fornito, K. Ersche, E. T. Bullmore, Hierarchical modularity in human brain functional networks. Front. Neuroinformatics 3, 571 (2009)

    2009

  27. [34]

    Meunier, R

    D. Meunier, R. Lambiotte, E. T. Bullmore, Modular and hierarchically modular organization of brain networks. Front. Neurosci. 4, 7572 (2010)

    2010

  28. [35]

    Rosvall, C

    M. Rosvall, C. T. Bergstrom, Multilevel compression of random walks on networks reveals hierarchi- cal organization in large integrated systems. PLoS One 6, e18209 (2011)

    2011

  29. [36]

    Barab ˆasi, H

    A.-L. Barab ˆasi, H. Jeong, Z. N´eda, E. Ravasz, A. Schubert, T. Vicsek, Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl. 311, 590–614 (2002)

    2002

  30. [37]

    Ravasz, A.-L

    E. Ravasz, A.-L. Barab ´asi, Hierarchical organization in complex networks. Phys. Rev. E 67, 026112 (2003)

    2003

  31. [38]

    G. W. Flake, S. Lawrence, C. L. Giles, F. M. Coetzee, Self-organization and identification of web communities. Computer 35, 66–70 (2002). 24

    2002

  32. [39]

    Onnela, J

    J.-P. Onnela, J. Saram ¨aki, J. Hyv ¨onen, G. Szab ´o, D. Lazer, K. Kaski, J. Kert ´esz, A.-L. Barab ´asi, Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 7332–7336 (2007)

    2007

  33. [40]

    Guimera, L

    R. Guimera, L. Danon, A. Diaz-Guilera, F. Giralt, A. Arenas, Self-similar community structure in a network of human interactions. Phys. Rev. E 68, 065103 (2003)

    2003

  34. [41]

    L. H. Hartwell, J. J. Hopfield, S. Leibler, A. W. Murray, From molecular to modular cell biology. Nature 402, C47–C52 (1999)

    1999

  35. [42]

    A. W. Rives, T. Galitski, Modular organization of cellular networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100, 1128–1133 (2003)

    2003

  36. [43]

    F. Luo, Y . Yang, C.-F. Chen, R. Chang, J. Zhou, R. H. Scheuermann, Modular organization of protein interaction networks. Bioinformatics 23, 207–214 (2007)

    2007

  37. [44]

    Ravasz, A

    E. Ravasz, A. L. Somera, D. A. Mongru, Z. N. Oltvai, A.-L. Barab ´asi, Hierarchical organization of modularity in metabolic networks. Science 297, 1551–1555 (2002)

    2002

  38. [45]

    A. C. Lewis, N. S. Jones, M. A. Porter, C. M. Deane, The function of communities in protein interac- tion networks at multiple scales. BMC Syst. Biol. 4, 1–14 (2010)

    2010

  39. [46]

    H. Zhao, C. Shao, Z. Shi, S. He, Z. Gong, The intrinsic similarity of topological structure in biological neural networks. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. (2023)

    2023

  40. [47]

    Sporns, R

    O. Sporns, R. F. Betzel, Modular brain networks. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67, 613–640 (2016)

    2016

  41. [48]

    J. M. Peregrin-Alvarez, X. Xiong, C. Su, J. Parkinson, The modular organization of protein interac- tions in escherichia coli. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5, e1000523 (2009)

    2009

  42. [49]

    Arenas, L

    A. Arenas, L. Danon, A. Diaz-Guilera, P. M. Gleiser, R. Guimera, Community analysis in social networks. Eur . Phys. J. B38, 373–380 (2004)

    2004

  43. [50]

    Bastian, S

    M. Bastian, S. Heymann, M. Jacomy, Proc. Int. AAAI Conf. Web Soc. Media (2009), vol. 3, pp. 361– 362

    2009

  44. [51]

    Chakrabarty, N

    B. Chakrabarty, N. Parekh, Naps: network analysis of protein structures. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, W375–W382 (2016)

    2016

  45. [52]

    M. E. Newman, Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices. Phys. Rev. E 74, 036104 (2006)

    2006

  46. [53]

    Amunts, C

    K. Amunts, C. Lepage, L. Borgeat, H. Mohlberg, T. Dickscheid, M.- ´E. Rousseau, S. Bludau, P.-L. Bazin, L. B. Lewis, A.-M. Oros-Peusquens, N. J. Shah, T. Lippert, K. Zilles, A. C. Evans, Bigbrain: An ultrahigh-resolution 3D human brain model. Science 340, 1472–1475 (2013). 25

    2013

  47. [54]

    R. A. Rossi, N. K. Ahmed, AAAI (2015)

    2015

  48. [55]

    Fortunato, Community detection in graphs

    S. Fortunato, Community detection in graphs. Phys. Rep. 486, 75–174 (2010)

    2010

  49. [56]

    Ladyman, J

    J. Ladyman, J. Lambert, K. Wiesner, What is a complex system? Eur . J. Philos. Sci.3, 33–67 (2013)

    2013

  50. [57]

    J. M. Ottino, Complex systems. AIChE J. 49, 292 (2003)

    2003

  51. [58]

    D. C. Witherington, Taking emergence seriously: The centrality of circular causality for dynamic systems approaches to development. Hum. Dev. 54, 66–92 (2011)

    2011

  52. [59]

    Bogun ´a, R

    M. Bogun ´a, R. Pastor-Satorras, A. D´ıaz-Guilera, A. Arenas, Models of social networks based on social distance attachment. Phys. Rev. E 70, 056122 (2004)

    2004

  53. [60]

    Rodgers, P

    N. Rodgers, P. Tino, S. Johnson, Fitness-based growth of directed networks with hierarchy. J. Phys.: Complex. (2024)

    2024

  54. [61]

    K. R. Hale, E. Th ´ebault, F. S. Valdovinos, A general trait-based model for multiplex ecological net- works. BioRxiv pp. 2023–08 (2023)

    2023

  55. [62]

    Clauset, C

    A. Clauset, C. Moore, M. E. J. Newman, Hierarchical structure and the prediction of missing links in networks. Nature 453, 98–101 (2008)

    2008

  56. [63]

    R. E. Horton, Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins; hydrophysical approach to quantitative morphology. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 56, 275–370 (1945)

    1945

  57. [64]

    A. E. Scheidegger, Horton’s law of stream numbers. Water Resour . Res.4, 655–658 (1968)

    1968

  58. [65]

    Haken, Advanced synergetics: Instability hierarchies of self-organizing systems and devices, vol

    H. Haken, Advanced synergetics: Instability hierarchies of self-organizing systems and devices, vol. 20 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  59. [66]

    Girvan, M

    M. Girvan, M. E. Newman, Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99, 7821–7826 (2002)

    2002

  60. [67]

    A. N. Strahler, Dynamic basis of geomorphology. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 63, 923–938 (1952)

    1952

  61. [69]

    M. E. Newman, The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Rev. 45, 167–256 (2003)

    2003

  62. [70]

    Schleussner, J

    C.-F. Schleussner, J. F. Donges, D. A. Engemann, A. Levermann, Clustered marginalization of minori- ties during social transitions induced by co-evolution of behaviour and network structure. Sci. Rep. 6, 30790 (2016)

    2016

  63. [71]

    Erdos, A

    P. Erdos, A. R ´enyi, et al., On the evolution of random graphs. Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci. 5, 17–60 (1960)

    1960

  64. [72]

    D. J. Watts, S. H. Strogatz, Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’networks. Nature 393, 440–442 26 (1998)

    1998

  65. [73]

    Bianconi, A.-L

    G. Bianconi, A.-L. Barab ´asi, Bose-einstein condensation in complex networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5632 (2001)

    2001

  66. [74]

    S. N. Dorogovtsev, J. F. Mendes, Evolution of networks. Adv. Phys. 51, 1079–1187 (2002)

    2002

  67. [75]

    M. E. Newman, Detecting community structure in networks. Eur . Phys. J. B38, 321–330 (2004)

    2004

  68. [76]

    R ´enyi, Proc

    A. R ´enyi, Proc. 4th Berkeley Symp. Math. Stat. Probab., V ol. 1: Contrib. Theory Stat. (University of California Press, 1961), vol. 4, pp. 547–562

    1961

  69. [77]

    Conrad, Probability distributions and maximum entropy

    K. Conrad, Probability distributions and maximum entropy. Entropy 6, 10 (2004)

    2004

  70. [78]

    Marsh, Introduction to continuous entropy

    C. Marsh, Introduction to continuous entropy. Dep. Comput. Sci., Princet. Univ. 1034 (2013)

    2013

  71. [79]

    Freedman, P

    D. Freedman, P. Diaconis, On the histogram as a density estimator: L2 theory. Z. Wahrsch. V erw. Geb. 57, 453–476 (1981)

    1981

  72. [80]

    Lancaster, D

    G. Lancaster, D. Iatsenko, A. Pidde, V . Ticcinelli, A. Stefanovska, Surrogate data for hypothesis testing of physical systems. Phys. Rep. 748, 1–60 (2018)

    2018

  73. [81]

    H. Kim, J. E. Shim, J. Shin, I. Lee, Ecolinet: a database of cofunctional gene network for escherichia coli. Database 2015, bav001 (2015)

    2015

  74. [82]

    A. Cho, J. Shin, S. Hwang, C. Kim, H. Shim, H. Kim, H. Kim, I. Lee, Wormnet v3: a network-assisted hypothesis-generating server for caenorhabditis elegans. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, W76–W82 (2014)

    2014

  75. [83]

    Rozemberczki, R

    B. Rozemberczki, R. Davies, R. Sarkar, C. Sutton, GEMSEC: Graph Embedding with Self Clustering , ACM (Proc. 2019 IEEE/ACM Int. Conf. Adv. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min., 2019), pp. 65–72

    2019

  76. [84]

    D. A. Bader, H. Meyerhenke, P. Sanders, D. Wagner, Proc. 10th DIMACS Implement. Challenge Workshop: Graph Partitioning and Graph Clustering (American Mathematical Society, 2013)

    2013

  77. [85]

    S. M. Marinka Zitnik, Rok Sosi ˇc, J. Leskovec, BioSNAP Datasets: Stanford biomedical network dataset collection (2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    Freeman, A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness

    L. Freeman, A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry (1977)

    1977

  79. [87]

    Qian, S.-T

    J.-H. Qian, S.-T. Zhao, J. Xu, Emergence of double power-law degree distribution by controlling the evolution of ba model. Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl. 562, 125333 (2021). 27 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL Complexity in real-world systems is intriguing for two reasons: (i) universality ...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.