Abstract
Background
Recent genomic and bioinformatic advances have motivated the development of numerous network models intending to describe graphs of biological, technological, and sociological origin. In most cases the success of a model has been evaluated by how well it reproduces a few key features of the realworld data, such as degree distributions, mean geodesic lengths, and clustering coefficients. Often pairs of models can reproduce these features with indistinguishable fidelity despite being generated by vastly different mechanisms. In such cases, these few target features are insufficient to distinguish which of the different models best describes real world networks of interest; moreover, it is not clear a priori that any of the presentlyexisting algorithms for network generation offers a predictive description of the networks inspiring them.
Results
We present a method to assess systematically which of a set of proposed network generation algorithms gives the most accurate description of a given biological network. To derive discriminative classifiers, we construct a mapping from the set of all graphs to a highdimensional (in principle infinitedimensional) "word space". This map defines an input space for classification schemes which allow us to state unambiguously which models are most descriptive of a given network of interest. Our training sets include networks generated from 17 models either drawn from the literature or introduced in this work. We show that different duplicationmutation schemes best describe the E. coli genetic network, the S. cerevisiae protein interaction network, and the C. elegans neuronal network, out of a set of network models including a linear preferential attachment model and a smallworld model.
Conclusions
Our method is a first step towards systematizing network models and assessing their predictability, and we anticipate its usefulness for a number of communities.
1 Background
The postgenomic revolution has ushered in an ensemble of novel crises and opportunities in rethinking molecular biology. The two principal directions in genomics, sequencing and transcriptome studies, have brought to light a number of new questions and forced the development of numerous computational and mathematical tools for their resolution. The sequencing of whole organisms, including homo sapiens, has shown that in fact there are roughly the same number of genes, for example, in mice and men. Moreover, much of the coding regions of the chromosomes (the subsequences which are directly translated into proteins) are highly homologous. The complexity comes then, not from a larger number of parts, or more complex parts, but rather through the complexity of their interactions and interconnections.
Coincident with this biological revolution – the massive and unprecedented volume of biological data – has blossomed a technological revolution with the popularization and resulting exponential growth of the computing networks. Researchers studying the topology of the Internet [1] and the World Wide Web [2] attempted to summarize these topologies via statistical quantities, primarily the distribution P(k) over nodes of given connectivity or degree k, which was found to be completely unlike that of a "random" or ErdösRényi graph. Instead, the distribution obeyed a powerlaw P(k)~k^{γ}. As a consequence many mathematicians concentrated on (i) measuring the degree distributions of many technological, sociological, and biological graphs (which generically, it turned out, obeyed such powerlaw distributions) and (ii) proposing various models of randomlygenerated graph topologies which could reproduce these degree distributions (cf. [3] for a thorough review). The success of these latter efforts reveals a conundrum for mathematical modeling: a metric which is universal (rather than discriminative) cannot be used for choosing the model which best describes a network of interest. The question posed is one of classification, meaning the construction of an algorithm, based on training data from multiple classes, which can place data of interest within one of the classes with small test loss.
Systematic enumeration of substructures has so far been used to find statistically significant subgraphs or "motifs" [48] by comparing the network of interest to an assumed null model. Recently, the idea of clustering real networks into groups based on similarity in their "significance profiles" has been proposed [9]. We here use and extend these ideas to compare a given network of interest to a set of proposed network models. Rather than unsupervised clustering of real networks, we perform supervised classification of network models. In this paper, we present a natural mapping from a graph to an infinitedimensional vector space using simple operations on the adjacency matrix. The coordinates (called "words", see Methods) reflect the number of various substructures in the network (see Figures 3 and 6). We then use support vector machines (SVMs) to build classifiers that are able to discriminate different network models. The performance of these classifiers is measured using the empirical testloss on a holdout set, thus estimating the probability of misclassifying an unseen test network. We selected 17 different mechanisms proposed in the literature to model various properties of naturally occurring networks. Among them are various biologicallyinspired graphgenerating algorithms which were put forward to model genetic or protein interaction networks. We are then able to classify naturally occurring networks into one of the proposed classes. We here classify data sets for the E. coli genetic network, the C. elegans neuronal network and the yeast S. cerevisiae protein interaction network. To interpret and understand our results further we define a measure of robustness to estimate the confidence of the resulting classification. Moreover, we calculate pvalues using Gaussian kernel density estimation to find substructures that are characteristic of the network model or the real network of interest. We anticipate that this new approach will provide general tools of network analysis useful to a number of communities.
Figure 3. Subgraphs associated with nnz D AUT AUT AU AUT A. Every word can be associated with a set of subgraphs. If the word has a nonzero value for a given network, at least one of these subgraphs must appear. The figure shows the subgraphs associated with the word nnz D AUT AUT AU AUT A.
Figure 6. Example for a word and its associated subgraphs. Every word can be associated with a set of subgraphs. If the word has a nonzero value for a given network, at least one of these subgraphs must appear. The figure shows the subgraphs associated with the word nnz AT A. The elements of the matrix AT A count these two walks. T A corresponds to one step "up" the graph, the following A to one step "down". The last node could be either the same as the starting node as in the first subgraph (accounted for by the diagonal part D AT A) or a different node as in the second subgraph (accounted for by the nondiagonal part U AT A).
Results and Discussion
We apply our method to three different real data sets: the E. coli genetic network [10] (directed), the S. cerevisiae protein interaction network [11] (undirected), and the C. elegans neuronal network [12] (directed).
Each node in E. coli's genetic network represents an operon coding for a putative transcriptional factor. An edge exists from operon i to operon j if operon i directly regulates j by binding to its operator site. This gives a sparse adjacency matrix with a total of 423 nodes and 519 edges.
The S. cerevisiae protein interaction network has 2114 nodes and 2203 undirected edges. Its sparseness is therefore comparable to that of E. coli's genetic network.
The C. elegans data set represents the organism's fully mapped neuronal network. Here, each node is a neuron and each edge between two nodes represents a functional, directed connection between two neurons. The network consists of 306 neurons and 2359 edges, and is therefore about 7 times more dense than the other two networks. We create training data for undirected or directed models according to the real data set. All parameters other than the numbers of nodes and edges are drawn from a uniform distribution over their range. We sample 1000 examples per model for each real data set, train a pairwise multiclass SVM on 4/5 of the sampled data and test on the 1/5 holdout set. We determine a prediction by counting votes for the different classes. Table 1 summarizes the main results. All three classifiers show very low test loss and two of them a very high robustness (see Subsection Robustness under Methods). The average number of support vectors is relatively small. Indeed, some pairwise classifiers have as few as three support vectors and more than half of them have zero test loss. All of this suggests the existence of a small subset of words which can distinguish among most of these models.
Table 1. Summary of classification results. Results of multiclass SVM: the empirical training loss <L_{tr}> averaged over all pairwise classifiers, the average empirical test loss <L_{tst}>, the average number of support vectors <N_{sv}>, and the winning model (with the highest number of votes from all pairwise classifiers). For the definition of robustness see Methods.
The predicted models Kumar [13], MiddendorfZiv (MZ) [14], and Sole [15] are based on very similar mechanisms of iterated duplication and mutation. The model by Kumar et al. was originally meant to explain various properties of the WWW. It is based on a duplication mechanism, where at every iteration a prototype for the newly introduced node is chosen at random, and connected to the prototype's neighbors or other randomly chosen nodes with probability p. It is therefore built on an imperfect copying mechanism which can also be interpreted as duplicationmutation, often evoked when considering genetic and proteininteraction networks. Sole is based on a similar idea, but is an undirected model, and allows for two free parameters, a probability controlling the number of edges copied and a probability controlling the number of random edges created. MZ is essentially a directed version of Sole. Moreover, we observe that none of the biological networks were predicted to be generated by preferential attachment even though these networks exhibit powerlaw degree distributions. The duplicationmutation schemes arise as the most successful. However, it is interesting to note that every duplicationmutation model by construction gives rise to an effective preferential attachment [16]. Our classification results therefore do not dismiss the idea of preferential attachment, but merely the specific model which directly implements this idea.
Kumar and MZ were classified with almost perfect robustness (see Subsection Robustness under Methods) against 500dimensional (out of 4680 dimensions) subspace sampling. With 26 different choices of subspaces, E. coli was always classified as Kumar. We therefore assess with high confidence that Kumar and MZ come closest to modeling E. coli and C. elegans, respectively. In the case of Sole and the S. cerevisiae protein network we observed fluctuations in the assignment to the best model. 3 out of 22 times S. cerevisiae was classified as Vazquez (duplicationmutation), other times as Barabasi (preferential attachment), Klemm (duplicationmutation), Kim (scalefree static), or Flammini (duplicationmutation) depending on the subset of words chosen. This clearly indicates that different features support different models. Therefore the confidence in classifying S. cerevisiae to be Sole is limited. The statistical significance of individual words in different models is investigated using kernel density estimation (see Methods) by finding words which maximize η_{ij }≡ p_{i}(x_{0})/p_{j}(x_{0}) for two different models (i and j) at a word value of the real data set x_{0}. Figure 1 shows training data for two different models used to classify the C. elegans network: the MZ model [14] which wins in the classification results, and the runnerup Grindrod model [17]. The histograms for the word nnz D(AU AD AT AU A) are shown along with their estimated densities, nnz D(AU AD AT AU A) extremely disfavors the winning model over its runnerup (minimizes η_{ij}). The opposite case is shown in Figure 2 for E. coli, where the plotted word distribution supports the winning model (Kumar [13]) and disfavors (maximizes η_{ij}) the runnerup KrapivskyBianconi model [18,14] (preferential attachment). More specifically we are able to verify that the likelihood to generate a network with E. coli's word values is highest for the Kumar model for most of the words. Indeed, out of 1897 words taking at least 2 integer values for all of the models, the estimated density at the E. coli word value was highest for Kumar in 1297 cases, for KrapivskyBianconi [18,14] in 535 cases and for Krapivsky [18] in only 65 cases.
Figure 1. C. elegans: kernel density estimation for the word nnz D(AU AD AT AU A). Data for two different models are shown: the MiddendorfZiv [14] model and the Grindrod [17] model. C. elegans is robustly classified as a MiddendorfZiv network. The Grindrod model is the runnerup. We here show data for a word that especially disfavors the MiddendorfZiv model over the Grindrod model. The histograms of the word over the training data are shown along with their associated densities calculated from the data by Gaussian kernel density estimation. The densities give the following logpvalues at the word value for the C. elegans network: log(p_{MZ}) = 376, log(p_{Grindrod}) = 6.23.
Figure 2. E. coli: kernel density estimation for the word nnz D(AUT AUT AU AUT A). Data for two different models are shown: the Kumar model [13] and the KrapivskyBianconi [18, 14] model. E. coli is robustly classified as a Kumar network. The KrapivskyBianconi model is the runnerup. We here show data for a word that especially favors the Kumar model over the KrapivskyBianconi model. The histograms of the word over the training data are shown along with their associated densities calculated from the data by Gaussian kernel density estimation. The densities give the following logpvalues at the word value for the E. coli network: log(p_{Kumar}) = 4.22, log(p_{KB}) = 12.0.
Figure 2 shows the distributions for the word nnz D(AUT AUT AU AUT A) which had a maximum ratio of probability density of Kumar over that of KrapivskyBianconi at E. coli's word value. In fact, E. coli has a zero word count, meaning that none of the associated subgraphs shown in Figure 3 actually occur in E. coli. Four of those subgraphs have a mutual edge which is absent in the E. coli network and also impossible to generate in a Kumar graph. KrapivskyBianconi graphs allow for mutual edges which could be one of the reasons for a higher count in this word. Another source might be that the fifth subgraph showing a higher order feedforward loop is more probable to be generated in a KrapivskyBianconi graph than in a Kumar graph. This subgraph also has to be absent in the E. coli network since it gives a zero word value, demonstrating that both the Kumar and KrapivskyBianconi models have a tendency to give rise to a topological structure that does not exist in E. coli. This analysis gives an example of how these findings are useful in refining network models and in deepening our understanding of real networks. For further discussions refer to our website. [14]
The SVM results suggest that one may only need a small subset of words to separate most of the models. The simplest approach to find such a subset is to look at every word for a given pair of models and compute the best split, then rank words by lowest loss. We find that among the most discriminative words some occur very often, such as, nnz (AA) or nnz (AT A), which count the pairs of edges attached to the same vertex and either pointing in the same direction or pointing away from each other, respectively. Other frequent words include nnz D(AA), nnz D(AT A) and ΣU(AT A). Figures 4 and 5 show scatterplots of the training data using the most discriminative three words.
Figure 4. Distributions of the E. coli training data in word space. The training data for E. coli for seven directed models is visualized in a 3dimensional subspace of word space. The three chosen words were found to be most discriminative according to a word ranking method. Every color is associated with a different model. The point which is occupied by E. coli is also indicated. The axis correspond to words which can be associated with sets of subgraphs. If a network has a nonzero word value it must possess at least one of these subgraphs.
Figure 5. Distributions of the S. cerevisiae training data in word space. The training data for S. cerevisiae for seven undirected models is visualized in a 3dimensional subspace of word space. The three chosen words were found to be most discriminative according to a word ranking method. Every color is associated with a different model. The point which is occupied by S. cerevisiae is also indicated. The axis correspond to words which can be associated with sets of subgraphs. If a network has a nonzero word value it must possess at least one of these subgraphs.
Conclusions
We proposed a method to discriminate different network topologies, and we showed how to us the resulting classifier to assess which model out of a set of given network models best describes a network of interest. Moreover, the systematic enumeration of countably infinite features of graphs can be successfully used to find new metrics which are highly efficient in separating various kinds of models. Our method is a first step towards systematizing network models and assessing their predictability, and we anticipate its usefulness for a number of communities.
Methods
Network models
We sample training data for undirected graphs from six growth models, one scalefree static model [1921], a smallworld model [22], and the ErdösRényi model [23]. Among the six growth models two are based on preferential attachment [24,25], three on a duplicationmutation mechanism [16,15], and one on purely random growth [26]. For directed graphs we similarly train on two preferential attachment models [18], two static models [17,27,20], three duplicationmutation models [13,28], and the directed ErdösRényi model [23]. More detailed descriptions and source code are available on our website [14].
For the (directed) E. coli transcriptional network and the (directed) C. elegans neuronal network we sample training data for all directed models; for the (undirected) S. cerevisiae protein interaction network we sample data for all undirected models. The set of undirected models includes two symmetrized versions of originally directed models [17,28]. One should note that properties of a directed model can differ significantly from its symmetrized version. In general, the more network classes allowed, the more completetely word space is explored, and therefore the more specific the classification can be.
In order to classify real data, we sample training examples of the given models with a fixed total number of nodes N_{0}, and allow a small interval I_{M }of 1–2% around the total number of edges M_{0 }of the considered real data set. All additional model parameters are sampled uniformly over a given range (which is specified by the model's authors in most cases, and can otherwise be given reasonable bounds). Such a generated graph is accepted if the number of edges M falls within the specified interval I_{M }around M_{0}, thereby creating a distribution of graphs associated with each model which should best describe the real data set with given N_{0 }and M_{0}.
Some of the models can be described as a generalization of another model. Although a generalized model can overlap with a specific one in its support, word space is sufficiently highdimensional that such confusing realizations are practically impossible. To build intuition, consider that the Erdös model itself includes all possible network topologies. Nonetheless there is extremely low test loss with any other models, indicating that it still defines a particular volume in this highdimensional space. Similarly, very few real networks have nonnegligible prediction scores for being classified as Erdös networks.
Words
The input space used for classifying graphs was introduced in our earlier work [6] as a technique for finding statistically significant features and subgraphs in naturally occurring biological and technological networks. Given the adjacency matrix A representing a graph (i.e., A_{ij }= 1 iff there exists an edge from j to i), multiplications of the matrix count the number of walks from one node to another (i.e., [A^{n}]_{ij }is the number of unique walks from j to i in n steps). Note that the adjacency matrix of an undirected graph is symmetric. The topological structure of a network is characterized by the number of open and closed walks of given length. Those can be found by calculating the diagonal or nondiagonal components of the matrix, respectively. For this we define the projection operation D such that
[D(A)]_{ij }= A_{ij}δ_{ij } (1)
and its complement U = I  D. (Note that we do not use Einstein's summation convention. Indices i and j are not summed over.) We define the primitive alphabet {A; T, U, D} as the adjacency matrix A and the operations T, U, D with the transpose operation T(M) ≡ M^{T}, for any matrix M . T(A) and A distinguish walks "up" the graph from walks "down" the graph. From the letters of this alphabet we can construct words (a series of operations) of arbitrary length. A number of redundancies and trivial cases can be eliminated (for example, the projection operations satisfy DU = UD = 0) leading to the operational alphabet {A, AT, AU, AD, AUT}. The resulting word is a matrix representing a set of possible walks, which can be enumerated. An example is shown in Figure 6.
Each word determines two relevant statistics of the network: the number of distinct walks and the number of distinct pairs of endpoints. These two statistics are determined by either summing the entries of the matrix (sum) or counting the number of nonzero elements (nnz) of the matrix, respectively. Thus the two operations sum and nnz map words to integers. This allows us to plot any graph in a highdimensional data space: the coordinates are the integers resulting from these pathbased functionals of the graph's adjacency matrix.
The coordinates of the infinitedimensional data space are given by integervalued functionals
F(L_{1}L_{2}...L_{n}A) (2)
where each L_{i }is a letter of the operational alphabet and F is an operator from the set {sum, sumD, sumU, nnz, nnz D, nnz U}. We found it necessary only to evaluate words with n ≤ 4 (counting all walks up to length 5) to construct low testloss classifiers. Therefore, our word space is a 6 = 4680dimensional vector space, but since the words are not linearly independent (e.g., sumU + sumD = sum), the dimensionality of the manifold explored is actually much smaller. However, we continue to use the full data space since a particular word, though it may be expressed as a linear combination of other words, may be a better discriminator than any of its summands.
In [6], we discuss several possible interpretations of words, motivated by algorithms for finding subgraphs. Previously studied metrics can sometimes be interpreted in the context of words. For example, the transitivity of a network can be defined as 3 times the number of 3cycles divided by the number of pairs of edges that are incident on a common vertex. For a loopless graph (without selfinteractions), this can also be calculated as a simple expression in word space: sum(D A A A)/sum(U AA). Note that this expression of transitivity as the quotient of two words implies separation in two dimensions rather than in one. However, there are limitations to word space. For example, a similar measure, the clustering coefficient, defined as the average over all vertices of the number of 3cycles containing the vertex divided by the number of paths of length two centered at that vertex, cannot be easily expressed in word space because vertices must be considered individually to compute this quantity. Of course, the utility of word space is not that it encompasses previously studied metrics, but that it can elucidate new metrics in an unbiased, systematic way.
SVMs
A standard classification algorithm which has been used with great success in myriad fields is the support vector machine, or SVM [29]. This technique constructs a hyperplane in a highdimensional feature space separating two classes from each other. Linear kernels are used for the analysis presented here; extensions to appropriate nonlinear kernels are possible.
We rely on a freely available Cimplementation of SVMLight [30], which uses a working set selection method to solve the convex programming problem with Lagrangian
with y_{i}(w·x_{i }+ b) ≥ 1  ξ_{i}; i = 1,..., m where f(x) = w·x + b is the equation of the hyperplane, x_{i }are training examples and y_{i }∈ {1, +1} their class labels. Here, C is a fixed parameter determining the tradeoff between small errors ξ_{i }and a large margin 2/w. We set C to a default value . We observe that training and test losses have a negligible dependence on C since most test losses are near or equal to zero even in lowdimensional projections of the data space.
Robustness
Our objective is to determine which of a set of proposed models most accurately describes a given real data set. After constructing a classifier enjoying low test loss, we classify our given real data set to find a 'best' model. However, the real network may lie outside of any of the sampled distributions of the proposed models in word space. In this case we interpret our classification as a prediction of the least erroneous model.
We distinguish between the two cases by noting the following: Consider building a classifier for apples and oranges which is then faced with a grapefruit. The classifier may then decide that, based on the feature size the grapefruit is an apple. However, based on the feature taste the grapefruit is classified as an orange. That is, if we train our classifier on different subsets of words and always get the same prediction, the given real network must come closest to the predicted class based on any given choice of features we might look at. We therefore define a robust classifier as one which consistently classifies a test datum in the same class, irrespective of the subset of features chosen. And we measure robustness as the ratio of the number of consistent predictions over the total number of subspaceclassifications. In this paper we consider robustness for a subspace dimensionality of 500, a significantly small fraction of the total number of dimensions 4680.
Kernel density estimation
A generative model, in which one estimates the distribution from which observations are drawn, allows a quantitative measure of model assignment: the probability of observing a given wordvalue given the model. For a robust classifier, in which assignment is not sensitively dependent on the set of features chosen, the conditional probabilities should consistently be greatest for one class.
To identify significant features we perform density estimations with Gaussian kernels for each individual word, allowing calculation of p(C = cX_{j }= x), the probability of being assigned to class c given a particular value x of word j. By comparing ratios of likelihood values among the different models, it is therefore possible, for the case of nonrobust classifiers, to determine which of the features of a grapefruit come closest to an apple and which features come closest to an orange.
We compute the estimated density at a word value x_{0 }from the training data x_{i }(i = 1,..., m) as
where we optimize the smoothing parameter λ by maximizing the average logprobability Q of a holdout set using 5fold crossvalidation. More precisely, we partition the training examples into 5folds , where {f_{i}(j)}_{j }is the set of indices associated with fold i (i = 1...5). We then maximize
as a function of λ. In all cases we found that Q(λ) had a well pronounced maximum as long as the data was not oversampled. Because words can only take integer values, too many training examples can lead to the situation that the data take exactly the same values with or without the holdout set. In this case, maximizing Q(λ) corresponds to p(x, λ) having single peaks around the integer values, so that λ tends to zero. Therefore, we restrict the number of training examples to 4N_{v}, where N_{v }is the number of unique integer values taken by the training set. With this restriction Q(λ) showed a wellpronounced maximum at a nonzero λ for all words and models.
Word ranking
The simplest scheme to find new metrics which can distinguish among given models is to take a large number of training examples for a pair of network models and find the optimal split between both classes for every word separately. We then test every onedimensional classifier on a holdout set and rank words by lowest test loss.
Web supplement
Additional figures, more detailed description of the network models, and detailed results can be found at http://www.columbia.edu/itc/applied/wiggins/netclass webcite.
Source code
Source code was written in MATLAB and is downloadable from our our website http://www.columbia.edu/itc/applied/wiggins/netclass webcite.
Authors' contributions
MM, EZ, and CW had the original ideas for this paper. CW and LC guided the project. Most of the coding was done by MM and EZ. CA, JH, RK, CL, and GW coded most of the network generation agorithms. The final manuscript was mainly written by MM, EZ, CW, and LC.
Acknowledgments
It is a pleasure to acknowledge useful conversations with C. Leslie, D. Watts, and P. Ginsparg. We also acknowledge the generous support of NSF VIGRE grant DMS9810750, NSF ECS0332479, and the organizers of the LANL CNLS 2003 meeting and the COSIN midterm meeting 2003.
References

Faloutsos C, Faloutsos M, Faloutsos P: On powerlaw relationships of the internet topology.
Computer Communications Review 1999, 29:251262. Publisher Full Text

Albert R, Jeong H, Barabási AL: Diameter of the worldwide web.
Nature 1999, 401:130131. Publisher Full Text

Milo R, ShenOrr SS, Itzkovitz S, Kashtan N, Alon U: Simple building blocks of complex networks.
Science 2002, 298:8247. PubMed Abstract  Publisher Full Text

Wuchty S, Oltvai ZN, Barabási AL: Evolutionary conservation of motif constituents in the yeast protein interaction network.
Nat gen 2003, 35:1769. Publisher Full Text

Ziv E, Koytcheff R, Wiggins CH: Novel systematic discovery of statistically significant network features.

ArtzyRandrup Y, Fleishman SJ, BenTal N, Stone L: Comment on "Network Motifs: Simple Building Blocks of Complex Networks" and "Superfamilies of Evolved and Designed Networks".
Science 2004, 305:1107. PubMed Abstract  Publisher Full Text

Milo R, Itzkovitz S, Kashtan N, Levitt R, Alon U: Response to Comment on "Network Motifs: Simple Building Blocks of Complex Networks" and "Superfamilies of Evolved and Designed Networks".
Science 2004, 305:1107d. Publisher Full Text

Milo R, Itzkovitz S, Kashtan N, Levitt R, ShenOrr S, Ayzenshtat I, Sheffer M, Alon U: Superfamilies of evolved and designed networks.
Science 2004, 303:1538. PubMed Abstract  Publisher Full Text

ShenOrr S, Milo R, Mangan S, Alon U: Network motifs in the transcriptional regulation network of Escherichia coli.
Nature Genetics 2002, 31:6468. PubMed Abstract  Publisher Full Text

Jeong H, Mason S, Barabási A, Oltvai ZN: Lethality and centrality of protein networks.
Nature 2001, 411:4142. PubMed Abstract  Publisher Full Text

White JG, Southgate E, Thompson JN, Brenner S: The structure of the nervous system of the nematode C. elegans.

Kumar R, Raghavan P, Rajagopalan S, Sivakumar D: Stochastic models for the web graph.
In Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science FOCS, IEEE 2000.

[http://www.columbia.edu/itc/applied/wiggins/netclass] webcite

Sole RV, PastorSatorras R, Smith E, Kepler TB: A model of largescale proteome evolution.

Vazquez A, Flammini A, Maritan A, Vespignani A: Modeling of protein interaction networks.

Grindrod P: RangeDependent Random Graphs and their application to modeling large smallworld proteome datasets.
Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 2002, 66:066702. PubMed Abstract  Publisher Full Text

Krapivsky PL, Rodgers GJ, Redner S: Degree distributions of growing networks.
Phys Rev Lett 2001, 86:54015404. PubMed Abstract  Publisher Full Text

Kim DH, Kahng B, Kim D: The qcomponent static model: modeling social networks.

Goh KI, Kahng B, Kim D: Universal behavior of load distribution in scalefree networks.
Phys Rev Lett 2001, 87:278701. PubMed Abstract  Publisher Full Text

Caldarelli G, Capocci A, Rios PDL, Munoz AM: Scalefree networks from varying vertex intrinsic fitness.
Phys Rev Lett 2002, 89:258702. PubMed Abstract  Publisher Full Text

Watts D, Strogatz S: Collective dynamics of smallworld networks.
Nature 1998, 393:202204. PubMed Abstract  Publisher Full Text

Bianconi G, Barabási A: Competition and multiscaling in evolving networks.
Europhys Lett 2001, 54:436442. Publisher Full Text

Barabási A: Emergence of scaling in random networks.
Science 1999, 286:509512. PubMed Abstract  Publisher Full Text

Callaway D, Hopcroft JE, Kleinberg JM, Newman ME, Strogatz SH: Are randomly grown graphs really random?
Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 2001, 64:041902. PubMed Abstract  Publisher Full Text

Higham JD: Spectral Reordering of a RangeDependent Weighted Random Graph.
Mathematics Research Report 14, University of Strathclyde 2003.

Vazquez A: Knowing a network by walking on it: emergence of scaling.

Vapnik V: The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. SpringerVerlag, NY, USA; 1995.

Joachims T: Making largeScale SVM Learning Practical. In In Advances in Kernel Methods – Support Vector Learning. Edited by Schölkopf B, Burges C, Smola A. MITPress; 1999.