Robustness and modular structure in networks

Complex networks have recently attracted much interest due to their prevalence in nature and our daily lives [1, 2]. A critical property of a network is its resilience to random breakdown and failure [3-6], typically studied as a percolation problem [7-9] or by modeling cascading failures [10-12]. Many complex systems, from power grids and the Internet to the brain and society [13-15], can be modeled using modular networks comprised of small, densely connected groups of nodes [16, 17]. These modules often overlap, with network elements belonging to multiple modules [18, 19]. Yet existing work on robustness has not considered the role of overlapping, modular structure. Here we study the robustness of these systems to the failure of elements. We show analytically and empirically that it is possible for the modules themselves to become uncoupled or non-overlapping well before the network disintegrates. If overlapping modular organization plays a role in overall functionality, networks may be far more vulnerable than predicted by conventional percolation theory.Comment: 14 pages, 9 figure

Robustness surfaces of complex networks

Despite the robustness of complex networks has been extensively studied in the last decade, there still lacks a unifying framework able to embrace all the proposed metrics. In the literature there are two open issues related to this gap: (a) how to dimension several metrics to allow their summation and (b) how to weight each of the metrics. In this work we propose a solution for the two aforementioned problems by defining the $R^*$-value and introducing the concept of \emph{robustness surface} ($\Omega$). The rationale of our proposal is to make use of Principal Component Analysis (PCA). We firstly adjust to 1 the initial robustness of a network. Secondly, we find the most informative robustness metric under a specific failure scenario. Then, we repeat the process for several percentage of failures and different realizations of the failure process. Lastly, we join these values to form the robustness surface, which allows the visual assessment of network robustness variability. Results show that a network presents different robustness surfaces (i.e., dissimilar shapes) depending on the failure scenario and the set of metrics. In addition, the robustness surface allows the robustness of different networks to be compared.Comment: submitted to Scientific Report