Parameters Affecting the Resilience of Scale-Free Networks to Random Failures

It is commonly believed that scale-free networks are robust to massive numbers of random node deletions. For example, Cohen et al. in (1) study scale-free networks including some which approximate the measured degree distribution of the Internet. Their results suggest that if each node in this network failed independently with probability 0.99, most of the remaining nodes would still be connected in a giant component. In this paper, we show that a large and important subclass of scale-free networks are not robust to massive numbers of random node deletions. In particular, we study scale-free networks which have minimum node degree of 1 and a power-law degree distribution beginning with nodes of degree 1 (power-law networks). We show that, in a power-law network approximating the Internet's reported distribution, when the probability of deletion of each node is 0.5 only about 25% of the surviving nodes in the network remain connected in a giant component, and the giant component does not persist beyond a critical failure rate of 0.9. The new result is partially due to improved analytical accommodation of the large number of degree-0 nodes that result after node deletions. Our results apply to power-law networks with a wide range ofmore » power-law exponents, including Internet-like networks. We give both analytical and empirical evidence that such networks are not generally robust to massive random node deletions.« less

[1]  B. Mohar THE LAPLACIAN SPECTRUM OF GRAPHS y , 1991 .

[2]  R. Otter The Multiplicative Process , 1949 .

[3]  Walter Willinger,et al.  Towards capturing representative AS-level Internet topologies , 2004, Comput. Networks.

[4]  Fan Chung Graham,et al.  A random graph model for massive graphs , 2000, STOC '00.

[5]  Béla Bollobás,et al.  Random Graphs , 1985 .

[6]  Fan Chung Graham,et al.  A Random Graph Model for Power Law Graphs , 2001, Exp. Math..

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

[8]  R. Otter The Number of Trees , 1948 .

[9]  Boaz Patt-Shamir,et al.  Improved Recommendation Systems ∗ Extended , 2005 .

[10]  Bruce A. Reed,et al.  The Size of the Giant Component of a Random Graph with a Given Degree Sequence , 1998, Combinatorics, Probability and Computing.

[11]  Jon Kleinberg,et al.  Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network , 2003, KDD '03.

[12]  S. Havlin,et al.  Breakdown of the internet under intentional attack. , 2000, Physical review letters.

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

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

[15]  Boaz Patt-Shamir,et al.  Improved recommendation systems , 2005, SODA '05.

[16]  Stefan Saroiu,et al.  A Measurement Study of Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Systems , 2001 .

[17]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Measurement study of peer-to-peer file system sharing , 2002 .

[18]  Jared Saia,et al.  The Impact of Social Networks on Multi-Agent Recommender Systems , 2005, ArXiv.

[19]  Gábor Csányi,et al.  Structure of a large social network. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[20]  M. Newman,et al.  Mixing patterns in networks. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[21]  Cristopher Moore,et al.  On the bias of traceroute sampling: or, power-law degree distributions in regular graphs , 2005, STOC '05.

[22]  Sergey N. Dorogovtsev,et al.  The shortest path to complex networks , 2004, ArXiv.

[23]  Cohen,et al.  Resilience of the internet to random breakdowns , 2000, Physical review letters.

[24]  S N Dorogovtsev,et al.  Comment on "breakdown of the Internet under intentional attack". , 2001, Physical review letters.

[25]  Bruce A. Reed,et al.  A Critical Point for Random Graphs with a Given Degree Sequence , 1995, Random Struct. Algorithms.