社团网络中的级联失效过程

来源:作者: 发布时间:2014-05-16 浏览次数:551

 

  在带有强社团结构的网络中,具有高介数值的顶点很可能是连接社团结构的桥结点,把这些结点进行删除以后应该会使网络的社团结构更为清晰。我们考虑在社团网络中的级联失效过程,构建了无标度的社团网络、随机的社团网络,并且和LFR模型进行对比,来看度的分布形式以及社团结构的清晰程度对于网络的鲁棒性和脆弱性的影响。

 

 

研究成果:

 

Cascading failures in complex networks with community structure

Guoqiang Lin
  • School of Systems Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, P. R.China
Zengru Di
  • School of Systems Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, P. R.China
Ying Fan
  • Corresponding author.
  • School of Systems Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, P. R.China

 

Received: 30 June 2013
Accepted: 30 September 2013
Published: 2 December 2013

 

 

Much empirical evidence shows that when attacked with cascading failures, scale-free or even random networks tend to collapse more extensively when the initially deleted node has higher betweenness. Meanwhile, in networks with strong community structure, high-betweenness nodes tend to be bridge nodes that link different communities, and the removal of such nodes will reduce only the connections among communities, leaving the networks fairly stable. Understanding what will affect cascading failures and how to protect or attack networks with strong community structure is therefore of interest. In this paper, we have constructed scale-free Community Networks (SFCN) and Random Community Networks (RCN). We applied these networks, along with the Lancichinett–Fortunato–Radicchi (LFR) benchmark, to the cascading-failure scenario to explore their vulnerability to attack and the relationship between cascading failures and the degree distribution and community structure of a network. The numerical results show that when the networks are of a power-law distribution, a stronger community structure will result in the failure of fewer nodes. In addition, the initial removal of the node with the highest betweenness will not lead to the worst cascading, i.e. the largest avalanche size. The Betweenness Overflow (BOF), an index that we developed, is an effective indicator of this tendency. The RCN, however, display a different result. In addition, the avalanche size of each node can be adopted as an index to evaluate the importance of the node.

Keywords: Cascading failures; community structure; power-law distribution; LFR benchmark
PACS: 89.75.-k, 89.75.Da

 原文链接:

/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Cascading%20failures%20in%20complex%20networks%20with%20community%20structure.pdf