4.6 Article

Predicting the cascading failure of dynamical networks based on a new dimension reduction method

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2022.128160

关键词

Complex networks; Cascading failure; Dimension reduction method; Robustness; Mean -field theory

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province
  3. Fund of the Key Laboratory of Equipment Integrated Support Technology, China
  4. [72071153]
  5. [2020JM-486]
  6. [6142003190102]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article investigates the occurrence and prediction of disaster events in networks. By using a dynamical overload model, the study successfully distinguishes the effects of network structure and dynamic mechanisms on system robustness, and helps predict individual behavior in cascading processes.
Many disaster events occurring frequently on the network are usually triggered by some trivial events, which are often difficult to be accurately predicted. One of the main reasons lies in that the behavior and structure of the network are highly coupled together, which is difficult to be analyzed and separated mathematically. With a universal dynamical overload model capturing the interaction between pairs of nodes in networks, various dynamical systems ranging from epidemic process, to birth-death process, biochemical and regulatory dynamics, are mapped into a one-dimension state space, which can help separate the role of the structure and the dynamic mechanism on the system robustness against cascading failure. Moreover, it can help predict the individual behavior in the cascading process. The theoretical solutions match well with the simulation results on Scale-Free and Erdos-Renyi networks for the four dynamical models, showing that even for networks with the same structure, different dynamic mechanisms have different effects on the robustness. Our research can provide ideas for designing more robust networked systems.(c) 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据