Thus scale- free networks appear to be much more resilient to failures than random networks. However, the opposite seems true for attacks: scale-free networks collapse much more quickly than random networks.
Jan 12, 2006
Aug 23, 2005 · In this paper we deepen the study of the differences in the behavior of these two kinds of networks when facing failures or attacks. We moderate ...
In this paper we deepen the study of the differences in the behavior of these two kinds of networks when facing failures or attacks. We moderate the general ...
This paper moderate the general affirmation that scale-free networks are much more sensitive than random networks to attacks by showing that the number of ...
Researchers have shown that scale free networks are highly sensitive to targeted attacks and very robust against random attack strategies [7,8]. ... ... These ...
In this paper we deepen the study of the differences in the behavior of these two kinds of networks when facing failures or attacks. We moderate the general ...
We moderate the general affirmation that scale-free networks are much more sensitive than random networks to attacks by showing that the number of links to.
People also ask
What is the difference between a random network and a scale-free network?
What is the most common type of computer and network related failures?
In this paper we deepen the study of the differences in the behavior of these two kinds of networks when facing failures or attacks. We moderate the general ...
Resistance to failures and attacks: analysis of the global characteristics. BA scale-free graphs (SFBA) are compared with random graphs (EXP). In both cases we ...
While fc for failures decreases monotonically with γ, fc for attacks can have a non-monotonic behavior: it increases for small γ and decreases for large γ. fc ...
Missing: Comparison | Show results with:Comparison