Critical truths about power laws
From Brede Wiki
| Paper (help) | |
|---|---|
| Critical truths about power laws | |
| Authors: | Michael P. H. Stumpf, Mason A. Porter |
| Citation: | Science 225 (6069): 665-666. 2012 February |
| Database(s): | Define pmid |
| DOI: | 10.1126/science.1216142. |
| Link(s): | |
| Search | |
| Web: | Bing Google Yahoo! — Google PDF |
| Article: | BASE Google Scholar PubMed |
| Restricted: | DTU Digital Library |
| Other: | |
| Services | |
| Format: | BibTeX |
| Extract: | |
Critical truths about power laws is a commentary that critize applications of power laws when interpreting data.
As a rule-of-thumb they regard a candidant power law should exhibit "an approximately linear relationship on a log-log plot over at least two orders of magnitude in both the x and y axes".
They give examples where power laws have been reported:
- Gutenberg-Richter law in seismology
- Allometric scaling in animals
- World Wide Web hyperlinks
- Urban living
- Insurgent and terrorist activity
- Scientists publication rates
They claim good well-supported power laws in:
- Magnetization
- Allometric scaling in animals
while arguing that numerous scholar have failed to apply statistical test to their data just "eyeballing" straight lines. Furthermore, they argue that the arguments on power laws might lack a generative model.
They give examples were argued power law does not hold (in their opinion):
- yeast protein[1] citing an critical analysis by Aaron Clauset.[2]
- C. elegans nervous system
Of relevance Aaron Clauset, Joel Ornstein, Adam Ginsburg, Wim Otte and Laurent Dubroca have produced some statistical software to handle power laws:[3]
