1: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

2: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

3: 

4: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

5: \usepackage{graphicx,epsf} %Include figure files

6: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point 

7: \usepackage{bm}% bold math \usepackagehyperref}

8: \usepackage{latexsym}

9: \newcommand{\kav}{\langle k \rangle}

10: \newcommand{\xsize}{\epsfxsize=7.0cm}

11: 

12: \begin{document}

13: 

14: \title{Optimization of Network Robustness to Random Breakdowns}

15: 

16: \author{Gerald~Paul}

17: \affiliation{Center for Polymer Studies and Dept.\ of Physics, Boston

18:   University, Boston, MA 02215, USA} 

19: \email{gerryp@bu.edu}

20: 

21: \author{Sameet Sreenivasan}

22: \affiliation{Center for Polymer Studies and Dept.\ of Physics, Boston

23:   University, Boston, MA 02215, USA} 

24: 

25: \author{Shlomo Havlin}

26: \affiliation{Center for Polymer Studies and Dept.\ of Physics, Boston

27:   University, Boston, MA 02215, USA} 

28: \affiliation{ Minerva Center and Department of Physics, Bar Ilan

29: University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel}

30: 

31: \author{H.~Eugene Stanley}

32: \affiliation{Center for Polymer Studies and Dept.\ of Physics, Boston

33:   University, Boston, MA 02215, USA} 

34:  

35: \pacs{89.20.Hh,02.50.Cw,64.60.Ak}

36: 

37: \begin{abstract}

38: 

39: We study network configurations that provide optimal robustness to

40: random breakdowns for networks with a given number of nodes $N$ and a

41: given cost---which we take as the average number of connections per node

42: $\kav$. We find that the network design that maximizes $f_c$, the

43: fraction of nodes that are randomly removed before global connectivity

44: is lost, consists of $q=[(\kav-1)/\sqrt\kav]\sqrt N$ high degree nodes

45: (``hubs'') of degree $\sqrt{\kav N}$ and $N-q$ nodes of degree 1. Also,

46: we show that $1-f_c$ approaches 0 as $1/\sqrt N$---faster than any other

47: network configuration including scale-free networks.  We offer a simple

48: heuristic argument to explain our results.

49: 

50: \end{abstract}  

51: 

52: \maketitle

53: 

54: \section{Introduction}

55: 

56: 

57: Recently there has been much interest in determining network

58: configurations which are robust against various types of attacks

59: \cite{Albert,Paxon,Cohen2000,Callaway,Cohen2001,Cohen2002,Valente2004,Paul2004,Tanizawa}.

60: While there have been studies of complex combinations of different types

61: of attacks, surprisingly, there has been no focused analysis of the the

62: elementary case of robustness against simple random breakdowns or

63: attacks.

64: 

65: We first study simple random networks.  Simple networks contain no self

66: loops or multiple edges neither of which add to the robustness of a

67: network to random removal of nodes.  For simple random networks we can

68: determine the optimal network configuration analytically.  Randomly

69: constructed networks, however, may have disconnected components, so we

70: also consider networks constructed in a way that ensures they consist

71: initially of a single cluster of connected nodes.  These networks are

72: degree correlated. For degree correlated networks, there currently exist

73: no closed-form expressions with which we can determine $f_c$

74: analytically, so we study them using Monte-Carlo simulations.  We find

75: that the optimal configuration for both the randomly constructed and the

76: degree correlated networks consists of $q \sim \sqrt{N}$ high degree

77: nodes ({\it hub\/} nodes) of degree $k_2 \sim \sqrt{ N}$ and $N-q$ nodes

78: of degree 1 ({\it leaf\/} nodes).

79: 

80: \section{Uncorrelated Networks}

81: 

82: \subsection{Theory}

83: 

84: We first treat simple random networks.  It is known

85: \cite{Chung,Burda,Boguna,Catanzaro} that for any desired random degree

86: distribution, simple networks can be created only if $P(k)=0$ for $k$

87: greater than the {\it structural cutoff}

88: %

89: \begin{equation}

90: K_s \equiv \sqrt{ \kav N}

91: \label{KcStruct}

92: \end{equation}

93: % 

94: So we must limit our networks to those with maximum degree less than

95: $\sqrt{\kav N}$.   For networks with this constraint we can use the equation

96: \cite{Cohen2000,Paul2005}

97: %

98: \begin{equation}

99: f_c=1-{1 \over{\kappa-1}}

100: \label{fc}

101: \end{equation}

102: %

103: where

104: %

105: \begin{equation}

106: \kappa \equiv \frac{ \langle k^2 \rangle}{\kav}

107: \label{kappa}

108: \end{equation}

109: %

110: to determine $f_c$. 

111: 

112: Since we fix $\kav$, maximizing $f_c$ is equivalent to maximizing

113: $\langle k^2 \rangle$.  We must maximize

114: %

115: \begin{equation}

116: h(P) \equiv \sum_{k=1}^{K_s} k^2  P(k)

117: \label{ksq}

118: \end{equation} 

119: %

120: under the following constraints

121: %

122: \begin{equation}

123: P(k) \ge 0

124: \label{Pk0}

125: \end{equation}

126: %

127: %

128: \begin{equation}

129: \sum_{k=1}^{K_s} k P(k)=\kav.

130: \label{kavconstraint}

131: \end{equation}

132: %

133: %

134: \begin{equation}

135: \sum_{k=1}^{K_s} P(k)=1

136: \label{norm}

137: \end{equation}

138: %

139: We first show that there can be no more than two unique values of $k$ at

140: which $P(k)$ is non-zero if $h(P)$ is to be maximized. Assume that there

141: are $m>2$ non-zero values $P(k_1), P(k_2), P(k_3) . . . P(k_m)$ needed

142: to maximize $h(P)$. Using the method of Lagrange

143: multipliers~\cite{Arfken} we can write

144: %

145: \begin{eqnarray}

146: \frac{\partial\left(\sum_{i=1}^{K_s} k_i^2 P(k_i)\right)}{\partial P(k_j)} + \lambda_1

147: \frac{\partial\left(\sum_{i=1}^{K_s} k_i P(k_i)-\kav\right)}{\partial

148:   P(k_j)}  \notag \\

149: +\lambda_2 

150: \frac{\partial\left(\sum_{i=1}^{K_s}  P(k_i)\right)}{\partial P(k_j)}=0 

151: \label{lagrange1}

152: \end{eqnarray}

153: %

154: or 

155: %

156: % 

157: \begin{equation}

158: k_j^2  + \lambda_1 k_j +  \lambda_2 =0 \qquad [1 \le j \le m]

159: \label{lagrange2}

160: \end{equation}

161: %

162: where $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ are constants.  Solving

163: (\ref{lagrange2}) we find at most only two unique solutions for the

164: values of $k_j$.

165: 

166: Analyzing the problem now with only two values $k_1$ and $k_2$ for which

167: $P(k)$ are non-zero, we find that $h(P)$ is maximized when $k_1$ and

168: $k_2$ take on the boundary values

169: %

170: \begin{subequations}

171: \label{k1k2}

172: \begin{eqnarray}

173: k_1=1      \\

174: k_2=K_s.

175: \end{eqnarray}

176: \end{subequations}  

177: %

178: and

179: %

180: \begin{subequations}

181: \label{Pk1Pk2}

182: \begin{eqnarray}

183: P(k_1)=1-\frac{\kav-1}{\sqrt{\kav }} \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \\

184: P(k_2)=\frac{\kav-1}{\sqrt{\kav }} \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}

185: \label{Pk2}

186: \end{eqnarray}

187: \end{subequations}  

188: %

189: For these values $1-f_c$ assumes its minimal value

190: %

191: \begin{equation}

192: (1-f_c)_{\rm min}=\frac{\kav \sqrt{\kav N}} { (\kav-1) (1-\kav N +\sqrt{\kav N})}

193: \label{fcmin}

194: \end{equation}

195: %

196: For large $N$,

197: %

198: \begin{equation}

199: (1-f_c)_{\rm min} \sim \frac{\sqrt{\kav}}{(\kav-1)} \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}.

200: \label{fcminN}

201: \end{equation}

202: %

203: 

204: \subsection{Simulations}

205: 

206: We next perform Monte Carlo simulations to test the results found above.

207: We consider the degree distribution that represents a network of $q$ hub

208: nodes and $N-q$ leaf nodes,

209: %

210: \label{pkxx}

211: \begin{equation}

212: P(k)=

213: \begin{cases}

214: {N-q \over N} & k=1 \\

215:   {q \over N} & k=k_2 \\

216:            0  & \mbox{otherwise}, 

217: \end{cases} 

218: \label{pkx}       

219: \end{equation}

220: %

221: where

222: %

223: \begin{equation}

224: k_2={(\kav-1) N + q \over{q}}.

225: \label{k2}

226: \end{equation}

227: %

228: Our aim is to find the value of $q$ which maximizes the robustness of

229: the network.

230: 

231: We create networks using the method described in Ref.~\cite{Molloy}.  We

232: then randomly delete nodes in the network and after each node is

233: removed, we calculate $\kappa$. We use the criterion

234: %

235: \begin{equation}

236: \kappa < 2

237: \label{kappa2}

238: \end{equation}

239: %

240: for loss of global connectivity

241: \cite{Molloy,Cohen2000,Callaway,Cohen2002}.  When $\kappa$ becomes less

242: than 2 we record the number of nodes $n_r$ removed up to that point.  This

243: process is performed for many realizations of random graphs with 

244: the degree distribution of Eq.~(\ref{pkx}) and, for each graph, for many different

245: realizations of the sequence of random node removals. The threshold

246: $f_c$ is defined as

247: %

248: \begin{equation}

249: f_c \equiv \frac{ \langle n_r \rangle}{N}

250: \label{fcdef}

251: \end{equation}

252: %

253: where $\langle n_r \rangle$ is the average value of $n_r$.

254: 

255: 

256: In Fig.~\ref{kav2}(a), we plot $1-f_c$ versus $q$ for $N=10^2,10^3,10^4$

257: and $10^5$ and $\kav=2$.  In Fig. 2(b) we plot the location of the

258: minima $q_{\rm min}$ versus $N$.  As expected $q_{\rm min}$ scales with $N$ as

259: $N^{0.5}$ and as shown in Fig. 2(c) the minimum values of $1-f_c$ scale

260: as $N^{-0.5}$.

261: 

262: Also shown in Fig.~\ref{kav2}(a) are plots for approximations to

263: $f_c$, $f_c^{\rm high}$ and $f_c^{\rm low}$, which we expect to be valid

264: respectively for high and low values of $q$.  We will use these

265: approximations as another way to show that $q_{\rm min}$ and $(1-f_c)_{\rm min}$

266: scale as found above.  The approximations are determined as follows:

267: 

268: \begin{itemize}

269: 

270: \item[{(i)}] When $q \sim N$ (i.e., the network is homogeneous), we

271: expect Eq.~(\ref{fc}) to hold, so $f_c^{\rm high}=1-1/(\kappa-1)$.  For

272: general $\kav$, using the distribution in Eqs.~(\ref{pkx}), we find for

273: $N \gg q \gg 1$

274: %

275: \begin{equation}

276: f_c^{\rm high}=1-{q \over{(\kav-1)N}}.

277: \label{fchigh}

278: \end{equation}

279: %

280: \item[{(ii)}] As found in \cite{Paul2005}, Eq.~(\ref{fc}) is not valid

281: for small $q$.  We must use an approximation based on the

282: fact that for small $q$ the network loses global connectivity when all

283: $q$ high degree nodes are removed. To first order in $1/q$

284: \cite{Paul2005}

285: %

286: \begin{equation}

287: \label{fclow3}

288: 1-f_c^{\rm low}=1-{1 \over{q}}.

289: \end{equation}

290: 

291: \end{itemize}

292: %

293: Equating Eqs.~ (\ref{fchigh}) and  (\ref{fclow3}) we find the value of $q$

294: at which the approximations intersect

295: % 

296: \begin{equation}

297: \label{qintersect}

298: q^*=\sqrt{\kav-1} \sqrt{N}.

299: \end{equation}

300: %

301: From the fact that $q*$ scales like $\sqrt{N}$, we conclude that all

302: characteristic values including the location of the minimum of (1-$f_c$)

303: scale like $\sqrt{N}$ with a prefactor dependent on $\kav$.

304: 

305: From Eqs.~(\ref{fclow3})and (\ref{qintersect}) we find for large $N$,

306: % 

307: \begin{equation}

308: \label{vintersect}

309: 1-f_c^{*}={1 \over{\sqrt{\kav-1}}} {1 \over \sqrt{N}  }.

310: \end{equation}

311: %

312: where $f_c^{*}$ is the value of value of $f_c$ where the approximations

313: intersect.  The scaling of $q^*$ and $1-f_c*$ are shown in

314: Figs.~\ref{kav2}(b) and (c).

315: 

316: 

317: We next study the effect of changing $\kav$.  Figs.~\ref{comb234}(a) and

318: (b) contain plots of $q_{\rm min}$ and $(1-f_c)_{\rm min}$ respectively for

319: $\kav=2,3,$ and 4.  We note that the scaling is independent of $\kav$

320: with only a change in the prefactor.

321: 

322: \section{Correlated Networks}

323: 

324: In Fig.~\ref{example}(a) we show an example of a randomly created graph.

325: Note that, because the graph is created randomly, there are some

326: disjoint portions of the graph consisting of pairs of nodes connected to

327: each other.  Thus the network does not consist of a single connected

328: component.  We now study correlated networks which do not have this

329: shortcoming by disallowing connections between degree one nodes so that

330: the resulting network is a single cluster (see Fig.~\ref{example}(b)

331: which has the same degree distribution as Fig.~\ref{example}(a) ).

332: 

333: For correlated networks, the criteria for network collapse is

334: \cite{Newman2002}

335: % 

336: \begin{equation}

337: \label{detA}

338: det({\bf A})=0

339: \end{equation}

340: % 

341: where {\bf A} is a matrix containing elements $A_{j,k}=k e_{j,k} + q_j

342: \delta_{i,j}$ with $e_{j,k}$ the joint probability of the remaining

343: degrees \cite{remaining}  of the two vertices at either end of a randomly

344: chosen edges and with $q_k$ the probability of the remaining degree of a

345: single vertex at the end of a randomly chosen edge.

346: 

347: We create networks having the degree distribution of Eq.~(\ref{pkx})

348: with $\kav=2$ but with the constraint that leaf nodes cannot be

349: connected to each other.  We proceed as for uncorrelated networks except

350: that after removal of an edge instead of calculating $\kappa$ we

351: calculate $det({\bf A})$ and note the number of nodes removed before

352: $det({\bf A})=0$.

353: 

354: In Fig.~\ref{kav2}(a) we plot $1-f_c$ versus $q$ for $N=10^2,10^3$ and

355: $10^4$ \cite{notex}.  We note that the plots are similar to but slightly

356: higher than the corresponding plots for the random networks. In

357: Fig.~\ref{kav2}(b) we plot the values of $q$ at which $1-f_c$ is minimal

358: and see that they scale in a manner similar to the scaling of the

359: positions of the minima for the random networks.

360: 

361: \section{Comparison with Scale-Free Networks}

362: 

363: Scale-free networks with $\lambda < 3$ are known to be very robust

364: against random attack \cite{Albert,Cohen2000} with $1-f_c$ approaching zero as

365: $N\to\infty$.  Here, we determine the large $N$ behavior of

366: $1-f_c$ for scale-free networks for a given value of $\kav$ and compare

367: the behavior with that of the optimal bimodal network.

368: 

369: We consider a scale-free degree distribution $P(k) \sim k^{-\lambda}$

370: with $m \le k \le K$.  For large $K$ and $2< \lambda <3$

371: \cite{Cohen2000},

372: %

373: \begin{equation}

374: \label{kappa0sf}

375: \kappa={2-\lambda \over{3-\lambda}} m^{\lambda-2} K^{3-\lambda}.

376: \end{equation}

377: %

378: Substituting in Eq.~(\ref{fc}) and setting $K=K_s$ we find that for large $K$

379: %

380: \begin{equation}

381: \label{fcsf}

382: 1-f_c \sim K^{3-\lambda} \sim N^{(\lambda-3) \over{2}}.

383: \end{equation}

384: %

385: Only in the limit of $\lambda$ approaching 2, does $1-f_c \sim N^{-0.5}$

386: similar to Eq.~(\ref{fcminN}).

387: For $\lambda<2$,

388: %

389: \begin{equation}

390: \label{kappa0sfx}

391: \kappa=\frac{2-\lambda}{3-\lambda} K \sim \sqrt{N}.

392: \end{equation}

393: %

394: and

395: %

396: \begin{equation}

397: \label{fcsfx}

398: 1-f_c \sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{N} }.

399: \end{equation}

400: but for $\lambda \le 2$, $\kav$ diverges with increasing K.  Thus for a

401: given value of $\kav$, $1-f_c$ for the optimal bimodal network always

402: approaches 0 faster than the optimal scale-free network \cite{sf}.

403: 

404: 

405: 

406: For completeness, to ensure that large variance is not a deficiency of

407: the optimal network, we now study how the variance in $f_c$ of the

408: optimal network compares with the variance of the scale-free networks .

409: Specifically in Fig.~\ref{pdevcomp} we plot the standard deviation

410: %

411: \begin{equation}

412: \sigma=\frac{\sqrt{ \langle (n_r -\langle n_r \rangle )^2 \rangle}}{N}

413: \label{sigma}

414: \end{equation}

415: %

416: vs $N$ for the optimal bimodal network with $\kav=2$ and for a

417: scale-free network with $\lambda=2$. For the scale-free network with

418: $\lambda=2$, $1-f_c \sim N^{-0.5}$ although it has a large value

419: of $\kav$.  We see that the standard deviation of $f_c$ of both networks

420: decreases as $N^{-0.5}$ with the scale-free network having a somewhat

421: smaller prefactor than the optimal network.  Thus the variance of $f_c$

422: is not a deficiency of the optimal network.

423: 

424: 

425: \section{Heuristic Argument for Optimal Configuration}

426: 

427: We now provide a heuristic argument for the optimal configuration which

428: applies to random or correlated networks. As shown above, the

429: configuration consists of $q \sim \sqrt{N}$ high degree nodes (hubs) of

430: degree $\sqrt{\kav N}$ and $N-q$ nodes of degree 1.  Intuitively, we

431: suspect that the optimal configuration is one in which there are many

432: leaf nodes with degree 1 connected to a network core composed of a much

433: smaller number of highly connected hubs node.  Removing a leaf node has

434: only a minimal impact on the connectivity of the network while removing

435: a hub has a much greater impact---but is much less probable.  It is not

436: obvious, however, how many hubs there should be. One might initially

437: suppose that the most robust network would be a single hub node

438: connected to all the remaining nodes (a {\it star} network).  It is easy

439: to show \cite{Paul2005}, however, that $f_c=1/2$ for this network which

440: is far from optimal.  To determine the number of hubs we proceed as

441: follows.  Consider first that there are $\kav N$ connections available

442: to construct the network.  Let $q$ denote the number of hubs. The number

443: of connections needed to connect the hubs to the leaf nodes is $2(N-q)$.

444: If we then make the argument that we want the hubs to form a complete

445: graph using the remaining connections we have

446: %

447: \begin{equation}

448:  q(q-1)=\kav N -2(N-q).

449: \label{complete}

450: \end{equation}

451: %

452: Solving for $q$ for large $N$ we have

453: %

454: \begin{equation}

455: q \sim \sqrt{\kav-2}\cdot\sqrt{N}

456: \label{completeN}

457: \end{equation}

458: %

459: and we again find that the number of hubs scales as $\sqrt{N}$ in a

460: manner similar to that implied by Eq.~(\ref{Pk2}), 

461: %

462: \begin{equation}               

463: q=\left({\kav-1\over\sqrt\kav}\right)\sqrt N,

464: \end{equation} 

465: %

466: for the optimal network with a different prefactor.

467: 

468: \section{Discussion and Summary}

469: 

470: We have shown analytically and confirmed numerically using Monte Carlo

471: simulations that networks with bimodal degree distributions, with

472: $q \sim \sqrt{N}$ high degree nodes (hubs) and $N-q$ nodes of degree 1, are

473: most robust to random breakdown.  Also we have shown that $1-f_c$

474: approaches $0$ as $1/\sqrt N$, faster than any other network

475: configuration including scale free networks. Finally, we have offered a

476: simple heuristic argument which explains these results.

477: 

478: \section{Acknowledgment}

479: We thank ONR for support.

480: 

481: 

482: \newpage

483: 

484: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

485: 

486: \bibitem{Albert} R.~Albert, H.~Jeong, and A.-L.~Barab\'asi, Nature

487:     (London) {\bf 406}, 378 (2000).

488: 

489: \bibitem{Paxon} V.~Paxon, IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking {\bf 5}, 601 (1997).

490: 

491: \bibitem{Cohen2000} R.~Cohen, K.~Erez, D.~ben-Avraham, and S.~Havlin,

492:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 85}, 4626 (2000).

493: 

494: \bibitem{Callaway} D.~S.~Callaway, M.~E.~J.~Newmann, S.~H.~Strogatz, and

495:   D.~J.~Watts, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 85}, 5468 (2000).

496: 

497: \bibitem{Cohen2001} R.~Cohen, et al., Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 86}, 3682 (2001).

498:   

499: \bibitem{Cohen2002} R.~Cohen, D.~ben-Avraham, and S.~Havlin, {\it

500:   Handbook of Graphs and Networks}, edited by S.~Bornholdt and

501:   H.~G.~Schuster (Wiley-VCH, New York, 2002), Chap.~4.

502: 

503: \bibitem{Valente2004} A.~Valente, A.~Sarkar, and H.~A.~Stone,

504:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 92}, 118702 (2004).

505: 

506: \bibitem{Paul2004} G.~Paul, T.~Tanizawa, S.~Havlin, and H.~E.~Stanley,

507:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ B {\bf 38}, 187 (2004);

508:   cond-mat/0404331.

509: 

510: \bibitem{Tanizawa} T.~Tanizawa, G.~Paul, R.~Cohen, S.~Havlin, and

511: H.~E.~Stanley, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 71}, 047101 (2005); cond-mat/0406567.

512: 

513: 

514: 

515: \bibitem{Chung} F. Chung and L. Lu, Ann. Combinatorics {\bf 6}, 125 (2002).

516: 

517: \bibitem{Burda} Z. Burda and A. Krzywicki, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 67} 046118 (2003).

518: 

519: \bibitem{Boguna} M. Bogu$\tilde{\rm n}$\'a, R. Pastor-Satorras, and

520: A. Vespignani, Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 38}, 205 (2004).

521:    

522: \bibitem{Catanzaro} M. Catanzaro, M. Bogu$\tilde{\rm n}$\'a, and

523: R. Pastor-Satorras, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 71}, 027103 (2005).

524: 

525: 

526: \bibitem{Paul2005} G. Paul, S. Sreenivasan, and H. E. Stanley, preprint

527: cond-mat/0507202.

528: 

529: 

530: \bibitem{Arfken} G. Arfken "Lagrange Multipliers."  Mathematical

531: Methods for Physicists, 3rd ed. Orlando, FL. Academic Press,

532: pp. 945-950, 1985.

533: 

534: 

535: 

536: 

537: \bibitem{Molloy}M. Molloy and B. Reed, Random Struct. Algorithms {\bf 6},161

538:   (1995).

539: 

540: 

541: \bibitem{Newman2002} M.~E.~J.~Newman, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 11},208701 (2002).

542: 

543: 

544: 

545: \bibitem{remaining}The {\it remaining degree} of a vertex is defined as the

546: degree of the vertex -1.

547: 

548: \bibitem{notex}Because of the computation complexity of finding the

549: determinant of {\bf A} we do not treat $N=10^5$ as we did for random networks.

550: 

551: \bibitem{sf} We have also performed simulations that show that even when

552: $K > K_s$, $1-f_c$ does not approach $0$ faster than $1/ \sqrt{N}$ for any

553: value of $\lambda$.

554: 

555: \end{thebibliography}

556: 

557: 

558: 

559: 

560: 

561: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

562: \begin{figure}

563: \centerline{

564: \xsize

565: \epsfclipon

566: \epsfbox{p2a.ps}

567: }

568: 

569: \centerline{

570: \xsize

571: \epsfclipon

572: \epsfbox{p2b.ps}

573: }

574: 

575: \centerline{

576: \xsize

577: \epsfclipon

578: \epsfbox{p2c.ps}

579: }

580: \caption{For $\kav=2$ and for (from left to right) $N=10^2,10^3,10^4$

581:   and for random networks only $10^5$ (a) $1-f_c$ vs. number of hubs

582:   $q$.  The solid and dotted lines represent uncorrelated and correlated

583:   networks respectively.  Dashed lines(short) are approximation

584:   $f_c^{low}$; dashed lines(long) are approximation $f_c^{high}$.

585:   (b) Values of $q$, $q_{\rm min}$, at which $1-f_c$ is minimal vs. $N$.

586:   Squares and triangles represent uncorrelated and correlated networks

587:   respectively; circles represent $q^*$ the value of $q$ at

588:   which the approximations $f_c^{high}$ and $f_c^{low}$

589:   intersect. (c) Minimum values of $1-f_c$ versus $N$.  Squares and

590:   triangles represent uncorrelated and correlated networks respectively;

591:   circles represent the values of $(1-f_c)$ at $q=q^*$. }

592: \label{kav2}

593: \end{figure}

594: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

595: 

596: 

597: 

598: 

599: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

600: \begin{figure}

601: \centerline{

602: \xsize

603: \epsfclipon

604: \epsfbox{pqcomb.ps}

605: }

606: 

607: 

608: \centerline{

609: \xsize

610: \epsfclipon

611: \epsfbox{pvcomb.ps}

612: }

613:  \caption{(a) Values of $q$, $q_{\rm min}$, at which $1-f_c$ is minimal vs. $N$.

614:   Squares, triangles and circles represent network with $\kav=2,3,$ and

615:   4 respectively (b) Minimum values of $1-f_c$ versus $N$. Squares,

616:   triangles and circles represent networks with $\kav=2,3,$ and 4

617:   respectively}

618: \label{comb234}

619: \end{figure}

620: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

621: 

622: 

623: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

624: \begin{figure}

625: \centerline{

626: \xsize

627: \epsfclipon

628: \epsfbox{exa.eps}

629: }

630: 

631: \centerline{

632: \xsize

633: \epsfclipon

634: \epsfbox{exb.eps}

635: }

636: \caption{Examples of 100 node networks with degree distribution given by

637:  Eqs.~(\ref{pkx}) with $\kav=2$.  (a) uncorrelated network.  Note that

638:  there are disconnected pairs of nodes of degree 1.  (b) correlated

639:  network in which each degree 1 node is connected to a high degree node.

640:  }

641: \label{example}

642: \end{figure}

643: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

644: 

645: 

646: 

647: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

648: \begin{figure}

649: \centerline{

650: \xsize

651: \epsfclipon

652: \epsfbox{pdevcomp.ps}

653: }

654: \caption{Standard deviation in $f_c$ vs. $N$.  Squares represent optimal

655: bimodal configuration for $\kav=2$.  Triangles represent scale-free

656: configuration with $\lambda=2$}.

657: \label{pdevcomp}

658: \end{figure}

659: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

660: 

661: 

662: 

663: \end{document}

664: