Cascade of failures in interdependent networks coupled by different type networks

Modern systems are mostly coupled together. Therefore, they should be modeled as interdependent networks. In this paper, the robustness of interdependent networks coupled with different type networks is studied in detail under both targeted and random attack. The critical fraction of nodes leading to a complete fragmentation of two interdependent networks is analyzed. Some findings are summarized as: (i) For random attack problem, the existence criteria for the giant component in interdependent networks coupled by two different type networks are quite different from those coupled by the same type networks. Different type coupled networks are more vulnerable than the same type coupled-networks. (ii) For targeted attack problem, if the highly connected nodes are protected and only the lowly connected nodes failed, the system leads to a first order percolation phase transition for different type coupled-networks, and a second transition for same type coupled-networks as well. The available result implies that different type coupled-networks are difficult to defend by strategies such as protecting the high degree nodes that can be useful to significantly improve robustness of the same type coupled-networks. (iii) For targeted attack problem, when the lowly connected nodes are protected and only the highly connected nodes failed, coupled scale free networks become more vulnerable than the others.

[1]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Robustness of interdependent networks under targeted attack , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[2]  M. Newman.  Spread of epidemic disease on networks. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[3]  Cesar Ducruet,et al.  Inter-similarity between coupled networks , 2010, ArXiv.

[4]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Catastrophic cascade of failures in interdependent networks , 2009, Nature.

[5]  Stefano Panzieri,et al.  Failures propagation in critical interdependent infrastructures , 2008, Int. J. Model. Identif. Control..

[6]  Wei Li,et al.  Cascading Failures in Interdependent Lattice Networks: The Critical Role of the Length of Dependency Links , 2012, Physical review letters.

[7]  Reuven Cohen,et al.  Percolation in Interdependent and Interconnected Networks: Abrupt Change from Second to First Order Transition , 2011, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[8]  Mohammad Shahidehpour,et al.  Coordinated scheduling of electricity and natural gas infrastructures with a transient model for natural gas flow. , 2011, Chaos.

[9]  Sergey V. Buldyrev,et al.  Critical effect of dependency groups on the function of networks , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  S. Strogatz.  Exploring complex networks , 2001, Nature.

[11]  Beom Jun Kim,et al.  Synchronization in interdependent networks. , 2011, Chaos.

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

[13]  H. Stanley,et al.  Fractal boundaries of complex networks , 2008, 0804.1968.

[14]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Robustness of a Network of Networks , 2010, Physical review letters.

[15]  Duncan J Watts,et al.  A simple model of global cascades on random networks , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  James P. Peerenboom,et al.  Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies , 2001 .

[17]  Christian M Schneider,et al.  Algorithm to determine the percolation largest component in interconnected networks. , 2013, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

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

[19]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[20]  S. Havlin,et al.  Interdependent networks: reducing the coupling strength leads to a change from a first to second order percolation transition. , 2010, Physical review letters.

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

[22]  H. Stanley,et al.  Structure of shells in complex networks. , 2009, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[23]  Shuiming Cai,et al.  The interaction between multiplex community networks. , 2011, Chaos.

[24]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Cascade of failures in coupled network systems with multiple support-dependent relations , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[25]  Baharan Mirzasoleiman,et al.  Cascaded failures in weighted networks. , 2011, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[26]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Preferential attachment in the interaction between dynamically generated interdependent networks , 2012, ArXiv.

[27]  James P. Gleeson,et al.  Cascades on a class of clustered random networks , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[28]  P. Hines,et al.  Do topological models provide good information about electricity infrastructure vulnerability? , 2010, Chaos.

[29]  Wen-Xu Wang,et al.  Cascading dynamics on random networks: crossover in phase transition. , 2012, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[30]  Peter Sheridan Dodds,et al.  Information cascades on degree-correlated random networks. , 2009, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[31]  Chi Ho Yeung,et al.  Networking—a statistical physics perspective , 2011, 1110.2931.

[32]  Hans J. Herrmann,et al.  Towards designing robust coupled networks , 2011, Scientific Reports.

[33]  David J. Hill,et al.  Attack Vulnerability of Complex Communication Networks , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs.

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