Paper detail

On the diameter of hyperbolic random graphs

Large real-world networks are typically scale-free. Recent research has shown that such graphs are described best in a geometric space. More precisely, the internet can be mapped to a hyperbolic space such that geometric greedy routing performs close to optimal (Boguná, Papadopoulos, and Krioukov. Nature Communications, 1:62, 2010). This observation pushed the interest in hyperbolic networks as a natural model for scale-free networks. Hyperbolic random graphs follow a power-law degree distribution with controllable exponent $β$ and show high clustering (Gugelmann, Panagiotou, and Peter. ICALP, pp. 573-585, 2012). For understanding the structure of the resulting graphs and for analyzing the behavior of network algorithms, the next question is bounding the size of the diameter. The only known explicit bound is $\mathcal O((\log n)^{32/((3-β)(5-β)) + 1})$ (Kiwi and Mitsche. ANALCO, pp. 26-39, 2015). We present two much simpler proofs for an improved upper bound of $\mathcal O((\log n)^{2/(3-β)})$ and a lower bound of $Ω(\log n)$.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.