Rethinking failure and attack tolerance assessment in complex networks

Studies have revealed that real complex networks are inherently vulnerable to the loss of high centrality nodes. These nodes are crucial to maintaining the network connectivity and are identified by classical measures, such as degree and betweenness centralities. Despite its significance, an assessment based solely on this vulnerability premise is misleading for the interpretation of the real state of the network concerning connectivity. As a matter of fact, some networks may be in a state of imminent fragmentation before such a condition is fully characterized by an analysis targeted solely on the centrally positioned nodes. This work aims at showing that, in fact, it is basically the global network configuration that is responsible for network fragmentation, as it may allow many other lower centrality nodes to seriously damage the network connectivity.

[1]  R. Kasperson,et al.  Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: Pathways, players, and partnerships , 2007 .

[2]  B. Smit,et al.  Human adaptation to climatic variability and change , 1997 .

[3]  Massimo Marchiori,et al.  Economic small-world behavior in weighted networks , 2003 .

[4]  D. Watts,et al.  An Experimental Study of Search in Global Social Networks , 2003, Science.

[5]  Alessandro Vespignani,et al.  Vulnerability of weighted networks , 2006, physics/0603163.

[6]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Food-web structure and network theory: The role of connectance and size , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  Andrei Z. Broder,et al.  Graph structure in the Web , 2000, Comput. Networks.

[8]  Michalis Faloutsos,et al.  On power-law relationships of the Internet topology , 1999, SIGCOMM '99.

[9]  Miguel Romance,et al.  A Node-Based Multiscale Vulnerability of Complex Networks , 2009, Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos.

[10]  V. Latora,et al.  Efficiency of scale-free networks: error and attack tolerance , 2002, cond-mat/0205601.

[11]  Massimo Marchiori,et al.  Error and attacktolerance of complex network s , 2004 .

[12]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  The Structure and Function of Complex Networks , 2003, SIAM Rev..

[13]  V. Latora,et al.  Harmony in the Small-World , 2000, cond-mat/0008357.

[14]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Error and attack tolerance of complex networks , 2000, Nature.

[15]  Stefan Wuchty,et al.  Small worlds in RNA structures. , 2003, Nucleic acids research.

[16]  Jon Crowcroft,et al.  A survey and comparison of peer-to-peer overlay network schemes , 2005, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[17]  Hongzhong Deng,et al.  Vulnerability of complex networks under intentional attack with incomplete information , 2007 .

[18]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Power Laws in Biological Networks , 2004, q-bio/0401010.

[19]  M. Handcock,et al.  An assessment of preferential attachment as a mechanism for human sexual network formation , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[20]  P. Thiran,et al.  Error and attack tolerance of layered complex networks. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[21]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Statistical mechanics of complex networks , 2001, ArXiv.

[22]  Jim Dowling,et al.  Properties and mechanisms of self-organizing MANET and P2P systems , 2007, TAAS.

[23]  Niloy Ganguly,et al.  Analyzing the vulnerability of superpeer networks against attack , 2007, CCS '07.

[24]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[25]  V. Eguíluz,et al.  Growing scale-free networks with small-world behavior. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[26]  V Latora,et al.  Efficient behavior of small-world networks. , 2001, Physical review letters.

[27]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Network structure and biodiversity loss in food webs: robustness increases with connectance , 2002, Ecology Letters.