Self-similarity in the web

By Steve Dill, Ravi Kumar, Kevin S. McCurley, Sridhar Rajagopalan, Dandapani Sivakumar, Andrew Tomkins. TOIT, 2001

302 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Random walks in peer-to-peer networks (2004, background): “in a decentralized fashion are known to have power-laws [16], [24], [28].”
Group formation in large social networks: membership, growth, and evolution (2006, background): “[11] study implicitly-defined “communit ies” of a different sort: For a variety of features (e.”
Graph mining: Laws, generators, and algorithms (2006, unknown): “All these smaller bowties are connected by the navigational backbone of the main SCC of the Web [Dill et al. 2001].”
Kronecker Graphs: An Approach to Modeling Networks (2008, methodology): “Moreover, especially web graphs (Dill et al., 2002; Dorogovtsev et al., 2002; Crovella and Bestavros, 1997) and biological networks (Ravasz and Barabási, 2003) were found to be self-similar and “fractal”.”
Towards a Theory of Scale-Free Graphs: Definition, Properties, and Implications (2005, background): “When used to describe many naturally occurring and man-made networks, “scale free” often implies something about the spatial, geometric, or topological features of the system of interest (for a recent example of that illustrates this perspective in the context of the World Wide Web, see [35]).”