Reply to “Comment on ‘Subgraphs in random networks’ ”
- 18 November 2004
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Physical Society (APS) in Physical Review E
- Vol. 70 (5), 058102
- https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.70.058102
Abstract
King [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. E 70, 058101 (2004)] points out biases in one of the two common algorithms for generating simple random graphs—the matching, or stub-pairing, algorithm. We clarify that in our simulations of simple graphs we used a different algorithm, the Markov-chain Monte Carlo switching algorithm, which is more uniform. As for multigraphs, the stub-pairing algorithm indeed samples uniformly configurations rather than multigraphs, as King points out, and thus is relevant for our model, which pertains to configurations. Finally, we demonstrate that the algorithm we used to generate families of random networks with scale-free out-degree and compact in-degree does not result in noticeable biases.Keywords
This publication has 5 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comment on “Subgraphs in random networks”Physical Review E, 2004
- Superfamilies of Evolved and Designed NetworksScience, 2004
- Subgraphs in random networksPhysical Review E, 2003
- Network Motifs: Simple Building Blocks of Complex NetworksScience, 2002
- Random graphs with arbitrary degree distributions and their applicationsPhysical Review E, 2001