2023
DOI: 10.1103/physrevx.13.021032
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Why Are There Six Degrees of Separation in a Social Network?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This approach follows similar studies in synthetic brain networks, where a work also using game theory showed how nodes aiming at maximizing the network’s navigability while minimizing their wiring cost organize in structures remarkably similar to empirical brain networks [5]. Interestingly, related work [64] addressed the long-standing question of why six degrees of separation exist in social networks [65]. Using normative modeling provided by game theory, the authors found the reason to be a trade-off between a node’s aspiration to maximize its centrality, while minimizing its connection maintenance cost [64].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This approach follows similar studies in synthetic brain networks, where a work also using game theory showed how nodes aiming at maximizing the network’s navigability while minimizing their wiring cost organize in structures remarkably similar to empirical brain networks [5]. Interestingly, related work [64] addressed the long-standing question of why six degrees of separation exist in social networks [65]. Using normative modeling provided by game theory, the authors found the reason to be a trade-off between a node’s aspiration to maximize its centrality, while minimizing its connection maintenance cost [64].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Interestingly, related work [64] addressed the long-standing question of why six degrees of separation exist in social networks [65]. Using normative modeling provided by game theory, the authors found the reason to be a trade-off between a node’s aspiration to maximize its centrality, while minimizing its connection maintenance cost [64]. In the present work, we also found that the first eight steps of propagation are sufficient to reconstruct OI, with a peak on the sixth step.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, preferences for indirect utility can be considered even in connections between existing nodes for realistic extensions. A recent study shows that selection to increase betweenness centrality forms an ultra-small world network through a game theoretical framework 50 . Preferences for indirect utility are likely to make a similar contribution, as it could be a practical way to increase betweenness centrality.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Winner-loser effects mildly reduce the average shortest path length over all pairs of nodes in small random networks, but they do not seem to significantly contribute to global network efficiency 17 , 18 . Random networks of any size show “small-world” features with “six degrees of separation” 15 , 26 , and thus, are already quite “efficient” in the sense of network theory. Winner-loser effects as simulated in this study, do not further reduce average path length over all pairs of nodes, but lead on the local level to substantial centralization.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%