Abstract
Assessing network systems for failures is critical to mitigate the risk and develop proactive responses. In this paper, we investigate devastating consequences of link failures in networks. We propose an exact algorithm and a spectral lower-bound on the minimum number of removed links to incur a significant level of disruption. Our exact solution can identify optimal solutions in both uniform and weighted networks through solving a well-constructed mixed integer program. Also, our spectral lower-bound derives from the Laplacian eigenvalues an estimation on the vulnerability of large networks that are intractable for exact methods. Through experiments on both synthetic and real-world networks, we demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed methods.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Addis B, Summa MD, Grosso A (2013) Identifying critical nodes in undirected graphs: complexity results and polynomial algorithms for the case of bounded treewidth. Discrete Appl Math 161(1617):2349–2360. doi:10.1016/j.dam.2013.03.021. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166218X13001686
Albert R, Albert I, Nakarado GL (2004) Structural vulnerability of the North American power grid. Phys Rev E 69(2):10
Albert R, Jeong H, Barabasi A (2000) Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature 406(6794):378–382. doi:10.1038/35019019
Arulselvan A, Commander CW, Elefteriadou L, Pardalos PM (2009) Detecting critical nodes in sparse graphs. Comput Oper Res 36(7):2193–2200. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2008.08.016
Banerjee S, Shirazipourazad S, Sen A (2011) Design and analysis of networks with large components in presence of region-based faults. In: IEEE international conference on communications (ICC), 2011, pp 1–6. doi:10.1109/icc.2011.5962427
Barabasi A, Albert R, Jeong H (2000) Scale-free characteristics of random networks: the topology of the world-wide web. Physica 281:69–77
Bazgan C, Toubaline S, Vanderpooten D (2013) Complexity of determining the most vital elements for the p-median and p-center location problems. J Comb Optim 25(2):191–207. doi:10.1007/s10878-012-9469-8
Bazgan C, Toubaline S, Vanderpooten D (2013) Critical edges/nodes for the minimum spanning tree problem: complexity and approximation. J Comb Optim 26(1):178–189. doi:10.1007/s10878-011-9449-4
Bissias G, Levine BN, Rosenberg AL (2007) Bounding damage from link destruction with application to the internet (extended abstract). In: Proc. ACM SIGMETRICS, pp 367–368. http://prisms.cs.umass.edu/brian/pubs/bissias.sigmetrics.abstract.2007.pdf
Bissias GD (2010) Bounds on service quality for networks subject to augmentation and attack. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Blackford LS, Choi J, Cleary A, D’Azeuedo E, Demmel J, Dhillon I, Hammarling S, Henry G, Petitet A, Stanley K, Walker D, Whaley RC (1997) ScaLAPACK user’s guide. SIAM
Borgatti SP (2006) Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Comput Math Organ Theory 12(1):21–34. doi:10.1007/s10588-006-7084-x
Boyd S, Vandenberghe L (2004) Convex optimization. Cambridge University Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=mYm0bLd3fcoC
Chung FRK (1997) Spectral graph theory (CBMS regional conference series in mathematics, No. 92). American Mathematical Society, Providence. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike07-20&path=ASIN/0821803158
Di Summa M, Grosso A, Locatelli M (2012) Branch and cut algorithms for detecting critical nodes in undirected graphs. Comput Optim Appl 53(3):649–680. doi:10.1007/s10589-012-9458-y
Dinh TN, Thai MT (2011) Precise structural vulnerability assessment via mathematical programming. In: Proc. of IEEE MILCOM
Dinh TN, Thai MT (2014) Network under joint node and link attacks: vulnerability assessment methods and analysis. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 99:00–12. doi:10.1109/TNET.2011.2170849
Dinh TN, Xuan Y, Thai MT, Park EK, Znati T (2010) On approximation of new optimization methods for assessing network vulnerability. INFOCOM. IEEE Press, Piscataway, pp 2678–2686
Donath WE, Hoffman AJ (1973) Lower bounds for the partitioning of graphs. IBM J Res Dev 17. doi:10.1147/rd.175.0420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1147/rd.175.0420
Erdos P, Renyi A (1960) On the evolution of random graphs. Publ Math Inst Hungary Acad Sci 5:17–61
Goldberg AV, Tarjan RE (1986) A new approach to the maximum flow problem. In: Proceedings of the eighteenth annual ACM symposium on theory of computing, STOC ’86, pp 136–146. ACM, New York, NY, USA. doi:10.1145/12130.12144. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/12130.12144
Grubesic TH, Matisziw TC, Murray AT, Snediker D (2008) Comparative approaches for assessing network vulnerability. Int Reg Sci Rev 31. doi:10.1177/0160017607308679
Leskovec J, Kleinberg J, Faloutsos C (2005) Graphs over time: densification laws, shrinking diameters and possible explanations. In: KDD, ACM, pp 177–187. doi:10.1145/1081870.1081893
Matisziw TC, Murray AT (2009) Modeling s–t path availability to support disaster vulnerability assessment of network infrastructure. Comput Oper Res 36:16–26. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2007.09.004
Mohar B, Poljak S (1992) Eigenvalue in combinatorial optimization. In: Combinatorial and graph–theoretical problems in linear algebra
Murray AT, Matisziw TC, Grubesic TH (2008) A methodological overview of network vulnerability analysis. Growth Change 39(4):573–592. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2257.2008.00447.x
Neumayer S, Zussman G, Cohen R, Modiano E (2011) Assessing the vulnerability of the fiber infrastructure to disasters. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 1610–1623
Oosten M, Rutten JHGC, Spieksma FCR (2007) Disconnecting graphs by removing vertices: a polyhedral approach. Stat Neerl 61(1):35–60. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9574.2007.00350.x
Sen A, Murthy S, Banerjee S (2009) Region-based connectivity—a new paradigm for design of fault-tolerant networks. In: HPSR
Shen S, Smith JC (2012) Polynomial-time algorithms for solving a class of critical node problems on trees and series–parallel graphs. Networks 60(2):103–119. doi:10.1002/net.20464
Shen Y, Dinh T, Thai M (2012) Adaptive algorithms for detecting critical links and nodes in dynamic networks. In: Military communications conference, 2012—MILCOM 2012, pp 1–6. doi:10.1109/MILCOM.2012.6415629
Shen Y, Nguyen NP, Xuan Y, Thai MT (2013) On the discovery of critical links and nodes for assessing network vulnerability. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 21(3):963–973. doi:10.1109/TNET.2012.2215882
Su B, Xu Q, Xiao P (2008) Finding the anti-block vital edge of a shortest path between two nodes. J Comb Optim 16(2):173–181. doi:10.1007/s10878-007-9120-2
Ventresca M, Aleman D (2014) A derandomized approximation algorithm for the critical node detection problem. Comput Oper Res 43(0):261–270. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2013.09.012. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305054813002827
Veremyev A, Boginski V, Pasiliao E (2014) Exact identification of critical nodes in sparse networks via new compact formulations. Optim Lett 8(4):1245–1259. doi:10.1007/s11590-013-0666-x
Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of ’small-world’ networks. Nature 393(6684):440–442. doi:10.1038/30918
White S, Smyth P (2005) A spectral clustering approach to finding communities in graph. In: SDM
Acknowledgments
This work is partially supported by NSF CAREER Award #0953284.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 Proof of Lemma 2 from Bissias (2010)
Let \(\varvec{H}\) be an \(n \times k\) indicator matrix where
and \(\varvec{h}_j\) denote the \(j\)th column of \(\varvec{H}\), i.e., the membership vector for the \(j\)th subset.
We have
and the total weights of edges going out of the \(j\)th subset is given by
Therefore
Since \(\varvec{L}\) is symmetric and positive semidefinite, it has \(n\) real non-negative eigenvalues \(\lambda _1 \le \lambda _2 \le \cdots \le \lambda _n\), and the corresponding eigenvectors \(u_1, u_2, \ldots , u_n\) form a complete orthonormal basis, i.e., \(\varvec{L} = \sum _{i=1}^n \lambda _i \varvec{u}_i \varvec{u}_i^T\).
Hence
Let \(x_{ij} = \left( \varvec{u}_i^T \varvec{h}_j \right) ^2/m_j\). Substituting \(x_{ij}\), we have
We can verify that
Since \(\lambda _1\) is the smallest and \(m_1\) is the largest, the Eq. (36) is minimized when \(x_{ii}=1\) and \(x_{ij} = 0\ \forall i \ne j\), i.e.,
1.2 Dynamic programming algorithm (ILB)
We present a dynamic programming algorithm to compute the exact solution of the QP (14–17).
For \(k \le l \le n\) and \(p \le \beta {n \atopwithdelims ()2}\), define \(\mathcal {L}_k(l, p)\) to be the minimum spectral bound obtained by first \(k\) subsets that the total sizes is \(l\) and the total pairwise connectivity is at most \(p\). That is
Then the optimal objective value QP (14–17) shall be given by \(Q_\beta = \mathcal {L}_{n}(n, \beta {n \atopwithdelims ()2})\).
By Lemma 3, we pay attention only to partitions satisfying \(s_1 \ge s_2 \ge \ldots \ge s_n\). We now derive the recursive formula for \(\mathcal {L}_p(l, k)\) based on the sub-optimal structure of the QP problem. Consider two possible cases of \(s_k\)
-
\(s_k = 0\) There are at most \(k-1\) partitions whose sizes sum up to \(l\). Hence, for this case \(\mathcal {L}(l, k)=\mathcal {L}_{k-1}(l, p)\).
-
\(s_k > 0\) Since \(s_1 \ge s_2 \ge \ldots \ge s_k > 0\). Let \(\tilde{s}_i = s_i -1 \ge 0\), the vector \(\tilde{s}=\{ \tilde{s}_1, \tilde{s}_2,\ldots ,\tilde{s}_k\}\) satisfies simultaneously the following
$$\begin{aligned} \sum _{i=1}^k \lambda _i \tilde{s}_i&= \sum _{i=1}^k \lambda _i s_i - \sum _{i=1}^{k} \lambda _i \\ \sum _{i=1}^k \tilde{s}_i&= \sum _{i=1}^k s_i - k = l - k\\ \sum _{i=1}^k { \tilde{s}_i \atopwithdelims ()2}&= \sum _{i=1}^k \left[ { s_i \atopwithdelims ()2} - s_i+1 \right] \\&= \sum _{i=1}^k { s_i \atopwithdelims ()2} - l + k\le p - l + k \end{aligned}$$Therefore, in this case \(\mathcal {L}_k(l, p)= \mathcal {L}_k(l - k, p - l + k) + \sum _{i=1}^k \lambda _i\) In summary, we have
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {L}_k(l, p)= \min \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mathcal {L}_{k-1}(l, p),\\ \mathcal {L}_k(l - k, p - l + k) + \sum _{i=1}^k \lambda _i \end{array} \right\} \end{aligned}$$
We compute value of \(\mathcal {L}_p(l, k)\) in increasing order of \(p\) and \(l\) but in decreasing order of \(k\). The base cases for \(\mathcal {L}_p(l, k)\) are as follow.
where \(p_{\min }(l, k) = { \lceil l/k\rceil \atopwithdelims ()2 } (l \,\hbox {mod}\, k) + { \lfloor l/k\rfloor \atopwithdelims ()2 } (k - l \,\hbox {mod}\, k)\) and \(p_{\max }(l, k) = {l \atopwithdelims ()2}\) that are the minimum and maximum pairwise connectivity of a graph with \(l\) vertices and \(k\) connected components, respectively.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dinh, T.N., Thai, M.T. & Nguyen, H.T. Bound and exact methods for assessing link vulnerability in complex networks. J Comb Optim 28, 3–24 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-014-9742-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-014-9742-0