2013
DOI: 10.1038/srep01736
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Minimum Dominating Sets in Scale-Free Network Ensembles

Abstract: We study the scaling behavior of the size of minimum dominating set (MDS) in scale-free networks, with respect to network size N and power-law exponent γ, while keeping the average degree fixed. We study ensembles generated by three different network construction methods, and we use a greedy algorithm to approximate the MDS. With a structural cutoff imposed on the maximal degree we find linear scaling of the MDS size with respect to N in all three network classes. Without any cutoff (kmax = N – 1) two of the … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
45
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We keep the average degree z = 10. For the generation of uncorrelated SF networks [35,36] (N = 10 4 , z = 10, with power law constant γ = 3) we employ the configuration model [36,37] with a structural cut-off, and a maximum possible node degree set to √ N , using a high accuracy look-up table from [38].…”
Section: Network Structuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We keep the average degree z = 10. For the generation of uncorrelated SF networks [35,36] (N = 10 4 , z = 10, with power law constant γ = 3) we employ the configuration model [36,37] with a structural cut-off, and a maximum possible node degree set to √ N , using a high accuracy look-up table from [38].…”
Section: Network Structuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The authors are grateful to Ferenc Molnár Jr. for his assistance on the generation of scale-free networks with the desired and accurate cutoffs and average degree [38].…”
Section: Acknowledgmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Applying this local-consensus mechanism to the ER network of Fig. 2, the server fraction of obtained solutions is n 1 ≈ 0.140, which is a big drop as compared with the server fraction of n 1 ≈ 0.240 of the best-response mechanism, and it is only slightly beyond the server fraction of Comparing the performances of the local-consensus selection mechanism and the greedy highest-impact algorithm [28,31,32] on an ER network of N = 10 5 nodes and M = 5 × 10 5 links. Each histogram P (n1) of server fraction n1 is obtained by sampling 960 independent solutions.…”
Section: The Local-consensus Mechanismmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…However, e.g. van der Hofstad remarks, that true values of might be higher, because some estimates are biased [19], and even supporters admits that exceptional cases α < 2 are known [6], [8]. For example, in [5] the scaling exponent for an outdegree distribution of Internet graph is only γ = −1.75.…”
Section: Vertex Degree Distributionmentioning
confidence: 99%