# Bridging the gap between graphs and networks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.01467 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.01467/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 3 Apr 2020.

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Towards Digital Twin Oriented Modelling of Complex Networked Systems and Their Dynamics: A Comprehensive Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.09363/) (2022)
- [Importance inversion transfer identifies shared principles for cross-domain learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.09116/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Network science has become a powerful tool to describe the structure and dynamics of real-world complex physical, biological, social, and technological systems. Largely built on empirical observations to tackle heterogeneous, temporal, and adaptive patterns of interactions, its intuitive and flexible nature has contributed to the popularity of the field. With pioneering work on the evolution of random graphs, graph theory is often cited as the mathematical foundation of network science. Despite this narrative, the two research communities are still largely disconnected. In this Commentary we discuss the need for further cross-pollination between fields -- bridging the gap between graphs and networks -- and how network science can benefit from such influence. A more mathematical network science may clarify the role of randomness in modeling, hint at underlying laws of behavior, and predict yet unobserved complex networked phenomena in nature.