Approach to network failure due to intrinsic fluctuations

M. S. Santhanam; Shaunak Roy; Vimal Kishore

arxiv: 2506.11464 · v3 · pith:F5KPV5W4new · submitted 2025-06-13 · ❄️ cond-mat.stat-mech

Approach to network failure due to intrinsic fluctuations

Shaunak Roy , Vimal Kishore , M. S. Santhanam This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 10:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.stat-mech

keywords network failureintrinsic fluctuationsextreme eventsnodal failure regimesscale-free networksErdős–Rényi networkstransportation networksflux fluctuations

0 comments

The pith

Modeling intrinsic flux fluctuations as extreme events reveals three successive nodal failure regimes that precede complete network collapse.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

A network can lose function when its nodes can no longer carry the required flux, and this loss can arise from internal random variations in the flow rather than from external damage. The paper treats those random variations as rare extreme events and tracks how they cause nodes to fail one after another. This produces three identifiable stages of increasing nodal failure before the network as a whole stops working. The same ordered sequence of stages appears on square lattices, fully connected graphs, scale-free networks, and Erdős–Rényi networks. The authors supply an approximate analytical description for the fully connected case and confirm the pattern on an actual airline route network.

Core claim

By modeling intrinsic fluctuations in flux as extreme events, three distinct nodal failure regimes can be identified before a complete network failure takes place, and the approach to network failure through these regimes is qualitatively similar on a square lattice, all-to-all, scale-free, and Erdős–Rényi networks, with an approximate analytical description obtained for the all-to-all case and numerical demonstration on a real transportation network.

What carries the argument

Modeling intrinsic flux fluctuations as extreme events to identify three successive nodal failure regimes.

If this is right

Three regimes of nodal failure occur in sequence before total collapse.
The sequence of regimes remains qualitatively the same across square-lattice, all-to-all, scale-free, and Erdős–Rényi topologies.
An approximate analytical description of the failure path exists for all-to-all networks.
The same regime sequence appears in a real airline transportation network.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Early detection of the first regime transition might serve as a practical warning signal for engineered flow networks.
The same fluctuation-driven mechanism could be examined in biological transport or financial flow systems that exhibit internal noise.
If the extreme-event modeling holds, it may allow topology-independent estimates of the time to collapse once the first regime is observed.

Load-bearing premise

Intrinsic fluctuations in flux can be validly modeled as extreme events that produce three distinct, identifiable nodal failure regimes before total collapse.

What would settle it

Numerical simulation or empirical measurement on a controlled network that shows either a different number of regimes or a qualitatively different order of nodal failures before collapse.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11464 by M. S. Santhanam, Shaunak Roy, Vimal Kishore.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Approach to network failure is depicted as a function of time and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Approach to network failure on a square lattice. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

A networked system can fail when most of its components are unable to support flux through the nodes and edges. As studied earlier this scenario can be triggered by an external perturbation such as an intentional attack on nodes or for internal reasons such as due to malfunction of nodes. In either case, the asymptotic failure of the network is preceded by a cascade of nodal failures. In this work, we focus on the nodal failure arising from the intrinsic fluctuations in the flux passing through the nodes. By modeling these as extreme events, it is shown that three distinct nodal failure regimes can be identified before a complete network failure takes place. Further, the approach to network failure through the three regimes is shown to be qualitatively similar on a square lattice, all-to-all, scale free, and Erdos-Renyi networks. We obtain approximate analytical description of the approach to failure for an all-to-all network. This is also demonstrated numerically for real transportation network of flights.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper treats intrinsic flux fluctuations as extreme events to identify three failure regimes that appear similar across several network types, but the independence assumption may break once load is rerouted after early failures.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that modeling intrinsic flux fluctuations as extreme events leads to three distinct nodal failure regimes before total collapse, and the sequence of regimes looks qualitatively the same on square lattices, all-to-all graphs, scale-free networks, Erdős–Rényi graphs, and a real flight network. They also give an approximate analytic treatment for the all-to-all case. The numerical checks across regular, random, heterogeneous, and empirical topologies are the clearest strength; that spread makes it harder to dismiss the regimes as an artifact of one graph family. The real-data demonstration adds a bit of practical grounding. The soft spot is the handling of flux after the first failures. Once a node drops out, the remaining load must redistribute, which changes both the mean and the variance seen by surviving nodes. If the extreme-event statistics are treated as stationary and independent until each failure, the three-regime picture could shift once that back-reaction is included. The abstract gives no sign of how the model incorporates rerouting, so the reported similarity across topologies might be tied to the approximation rather than the underlying dynamics. A reader already working on cascade models or early-warning signals in networks would find the regime description useful as an incremental step. Outsiders will see it as a modest extension of prior work on network failure. The paper is coherent on its own terms and the evidence base is broad enough that it deserves a serious referee rather than a desk reject. I would send it out, asking the referee to check whether the load-redistribution step alters the regime count or the cross-topology similarity.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper models intrinsic flux fluctuations in networks as extreme events to identify three distinct nodal failure regimes preceding complete network collapse. It reports that the sequence of regimes is qualitatively similar across square-lattice, all-to-all, scale-free, and Erdős–Rényi topologies, supplies an approximate analytical description for the all-to-all case, and illustrates the phenomenology numerically on a real flight-transportation network.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions hold, the work supplies a statistical-mechanics framework for internal precursors to network failure that is distinct from external-attack or percolation scenarios. The claimed cross-topology universality and the analytic approximation for the complete-graph case would be useful additions to the literature on cascade dynamics in transport and infrastructure networks.

major comments (1)

[modeling section / extreme-event formulation] The central modeling step treats fluctuations as a sequence of independent extreme events whose statistics remain stationary until each nodal failure. It is not clear from the derivation whether flux is conserved and redistributed after a node is removed; if the three regimes are obtained under a fixed-load or independent-node approximation, both the regime count and the reported qualitative similarity across topologies become sensitive to that approximation rather than to the underlying dynamics. This assumption is load-bearing for the main claims.

minor comments (1)

[abstract] The abstract states that three regimes were identified and that an approximate analytical description was obtained, but supplies no equations, data-exclusion rules, or error-bar information; these details should be added to the abstract or to a dedicated methods paragraph.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of the significance of our work and for the constructive comment on the modeling assumptions. We address this point in detail below and will incorporate clarifications into a revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central modeling step treats fluctuations as a sequence of independent extreme events whose statistics remain stationary until each nodal failure. It is not clear from the derivation whether flux is conserved and redistributed after a node is removed; if the three regimes are obtained under a fixed-load or independent-node approximation, both the regime count and the reported qualitative similarity across topologies become sensitive to that approximation rather than to the underlying dynamics. This assumption is load-bearing for the main claims.

Authors: We appreciate the referee drawing attention to this central modeling choice. Our formulation deliberately models the flux through each node as subject to independent extreme-event fluctuations whose statistics are taken to be stationary until the node fails. This is an intrinsic-fluctuation scenario, distinct from load-redistribution cascades that arise after node removal in percolation or attack models. Consequently, we do not impose explicit flux conservation and redistribution upon removal; the load on remaining nodes remains governed by the original network topology and the stationary fluctuation process. The three regimes are identified from the cumulative statistics of these extremes, and the observed qualitative similarity across topologies (square lattice, all-to-all, scale-free, Erdős–Rényi) follows from the topology-dependent initial flux distribution rather than from post-failure dynamics. We acknowledge that this constitutes a fixed-load / independent-node approximation and that a full dynamical treatment with redistribution could alter quantitative details. We will revise the modeling section to state this assumption explicitly, discuss its implications for the reported regimes, and add a brief limitations paragraph comparing the approach to redistribution-based cascade models. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; claims rest on modeling and cross-topology numerics

full rationale

The derivation begins from the modeling choice of treating intrinsic flux fluctuations as extreme events, then identifies three nodal failure regimes and demonstrates qualitative similarity across square-lattice, all-to-all, scale-free, Erdős–Rényi, and real flight networks, plus an approximate analytic treatment for the all-to-all case. No equations or steps are shown that reduce a claimed prediction or regime count to a fitted parameter by construction, nor do any load-bearing premises collapse to self-citations whose content is itself unverified within the paper. The central results are therefore grounded in the stated modeling assumptions and numerical/analytic demonstrations rather than circular reductions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted; the central modeling step of treating flux fluctuations as extreme events is stated but not detailed enough to list specific assumptions or fitted quantities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5693 in / 1305 out tokens · 31898 ms · 2026-05-19T10:06:49.565061+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

By modeling these as extreme events, it is shown that three distinct nodal failure regimes can be identified before a complete network failure takes place.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/ArithmeticFromLogic.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We obtain approximate analytical description of the approach to failure for an all-to-all network.

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

[1]

Albert, I

R. Albert, I. Albert, and G. L. Nakarado, Structural vul- nerability of the north american power grid, Phys. Rev. E 69, 025103 (2004)

work page 2004
[2]

Kaiser, V

F. Kaiser, V. Latora, and D. Witthaut, Network isola- tors inhibit failure spreading in complex networks, Na- ture communications 12, 3143 (2021)

work page 2021
[3]

Bianconi, A

G. Bianconi, A. Arenas, J. Biamonte, L. D. Carr, B. Kahng, J. Kertesz, J. Kurths, L. L¨ u, C. Masoller, A. E. Motter, M. Perc, F. Radicchi, R. Ramaswamy, F. A. Ro- drigues, M. Sales-Pardo, M. S. Miguel, S. Thurner, and T. Yasseri, Complex systems in the spotlight: next steps after the 2021 nobel prize in physics, Journal of Physics: Complexity 4, 010201 (2023)

work page 2021
[4]

G. A. Pagani and M. Aiello, The power grid as a complex network: A survey, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 392, 2688 (2013)

work page 2013
[5]

L. D. Valdez, L. Shekhtman, C. E. La Rocca, X. Zhang, S. V. Buldyrev, P. A. Trunfio, L. A. Braunstein, and S. Havlin, Cascading failures in complex net- works, Journal of Complex Networks 8, cnaa013 (2020), https://academic.oup.com/comnet/article- pdf/8/2/cnaa013/33582729/cnaa013.pdf

work page 2020
[6]

A. K. Dey, Y. R. Gel, and H. V. Poor, What network motifs tell us about resilience and reli- ability of complex networks, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 19368 (2019), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1819529116

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1819529116 2019
[7]

Heitzig, N

J. Heitzig, N. Fujiwara, K. Aihara, and J. Kurths, In- terdisciplinary challenges in the study of power grid resilience and stability and their relation to extreme weather events (2014)

work page 2014
[8]

J. Dias, A. N. Montanari, and E. E. N. Macau, Power- grid vulnerability and its relation with network structure, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 33, 033122 (2023), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/cha/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0137919/16789015/033122 1 online.pdf

work page doi:10.1063/5.0137919/16789015/033122 2023
[9]

Tamhane and G

V. Tamhane and G. Ambika, Structure and stability of the indian power transmission network, Journal of Physics: Complexity 4, 025014 (2023)

work page 2023
[10]

Gross and L

T. Gross and L. Barth, Network robustness revis- ited, Frontiers in Physics 10, 10.3389/fphy.2022.823564 (2022)

work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2022.823564 2022
[11]

X. Liu, D. Li, M. Ma, B. K. Szymanski, H. E. Stanley, and J. Gao, Network resilience, Physics Reports 971, 1 (2022), network Resilience

work page 2022
[12]

Cohen and S

R. Cohen and S. Havlin, Complex networks: structure, robustness and function (Cambridge university press, 2010)

work page 2010
[13]

Albert, H

R. Albert, H. Jeong, and A.-L. Barab´ asi, Error and at- tack tolerance of complex networks, nature 406, 378 (2000)

work page 2000
[14]

Y.-C. Lai, A. E. Motter, and T. Nishikawa, Attacks and cascades in complex networks, Complex networks , 299 (2004)

work page 2004
[15]

Cohen, K

R. Cohen, K. Erez, D. ben Avraham, and S. Havlin, Breakdown of the internet under intentional attack, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3682 (2001)

work page 2001
[16]

robust yet fragile

J. C. Doyle, D. L. Alderson, L. Li, S. Low, M. Roughan, S. Shalunov, R. Tanaka, and W. Willinger, The “robust yet fragile” nature of the internet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, 14497 (2005), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.0501426102

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0501426102 2005
[17]

A. E. Motter and Y.-C. Lai, Cascade-based attacks on complex networks, Phys. Rev. E 66, 065102 (2002). 8

work page 2002
[18]

Kornbluth, G

Y. Kornbluth, G. Barach, Y. Tuchman, B. Kadish, G. Cwilich, and S. V. Buldyrev, Network overload due to massive attacks, Phys. Rev. E 97, 052309 (2018)

work page 2018
[19]

Crucitti, V

P. Crucitti, V. Latora, and M. Marchiori, Model for cas- cading failures in complex networks, Phys. Rev. E 69, 045104 (2004)

work page 2004
[20]

B. A. Carreras, V. E. Lynch, I. Dobson, and D. E. New- man, Complex dynamics of blackouts in power trans- mission systems, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 14, 643 (2004)

work page 2004
[21]

Y. Yang, T. Nishikawa, and A. E. Motter, Small vulnera- ble sets determine large network cascades in power grids, Science 358, eaan3184 (2017)

work page 2017
[22]

R. A. Shuvro, P. Das, J. S. Jyoti, J. M. Abreu, and M. M. Hayat, Data-integrity aware stochastic model for cascad- ing failures in power grids, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 38, 142 (2023)

work page 2023
[23]

Witthaut, F

D. Witthaut, F. Hellmann, J. Kurths, S. Kettemann, H. Meyer-Ortmanns, and M. Timme, Collective nonlinear dynamics and self-organization in decentralized power grids, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015005 (2022)

work page 2022
[24]

Nesti, F

T. Nesti, F. Sloothaak, and B. Zwart, Emergence of scale- free blackout sizes in power grids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 058301 (2020)

work page 2020
[25]

Jung and Y.-H

J.-H. Jung and Y.-H. Eom, Empirical analysis of conges- tion spreading in seoul traffic network, Phys. Rev. E108, 054312 (2023)

work page 2023
[26]

Z. Chen, C. Yang, J.-H. Qian, D. Han, and Y.-G. Ma, Recursive traffic percolation on ur- ban transportation systems, Chaos: An Inter- disciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 33, 033132 (2023), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/cha/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0137726/16789779/033132 1 online.pdf

work page doi:10.1063/5.0137726/16789779/033132 2023
[27]

Vivek and H

S. Vivek and H. Conner, Urban road network vulnera- bility and resilience to large-scale attacks, Safety Science 147, 105575 (2022)

work page 2022
[28]

Xing, Cascading failures in internet of things: Review and perspectives on reliability and resilience, IEEE In- ternet of Things Journal 8, 44 (2021)

L. Xing, Cascading failures in internet of things: Review and perspectives on reliability and resilience, IEEE In- ternet of Things Journal 8, 44 (2021)

work page 2021
[29]

Engsig, A

M. Engsig, A. Tejedor, and Y. Moreno, Robustness as- sessment of complex networks using the idle network, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L042050 (2022)

work page 2022
[30]

Final report on the august 14, 2003 blackout in the united states and canada : Causes and recom- mendations, https://www.energy.gov/oe/articles/ blackout-2003-final-report-\protect\penalty-\ @M/august-14-2003-blackout-united-states-\ protect\penalty-\@M/and-canada-causes-and (), accessed: 18-02-2024

work page 2003
[31]

Report on the grid disturbances on 30th – 31st july, 2012, http://cercind.gov.in/2012/orders/Final_ Report_Grid_Disturbance.pdf (), accessed: 18-02-2024

work page 2012
[32]

Kishore, M

V. Kishore, M. S. Santhanam, and R. E. Amritkar, Ex- treme events on complex networks, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 188701 (2011)

work page 2011
[33]

Gandhi and M

G. Gandhi and M. S. Santhanam, Biased random walkers and extreme events on the edges of complex networks, Phys. Rev. E 105, 014315 (2022)

work page 2022
[34]

Nag Chowdhury, A

S. Nag Chowdhury, A. Ray, S. K. Dana, and D. Ghosh, Extreme events in dynamical systems and random walk- ers: A review, Physics Reports 966, 1 (2022), extreme events in dynamical systems and random walkers: A re- view

work page 2022
[35]

Gupta and M

K. Gupta and M. Santhanam, Extreme events in nagel– schreckenberg model of traffic flow on complex networks, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 230, 3201 (2021)

work page 2021
[36]

Kishore, M

V. Kishore, M. S. Santhanam, and R. E. Amritkar, Ex- treme events and event size fluctuations in biased random walks on networks, Phys. Rev. E 85, 056120 (2012)

work page 2012
[37]

Kishore, A

V. Kishore, A. R. Sonawane, and M. S. Santhanam, Ma- nipulation of extreme events on scale-free networks, Phys. Rev. E 88, 014801 (2013)

work page 2013
[38]

J. D. Noh and H. Rieger, Random walks on complex net- works, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 118701 (2004)

work page 2004
[39]

Abramowitz and I

M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathe- matical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathe- matical Tables (Dover Publications, New York, 1964)

work page 1964
[40]

A. A. Hagberg, D. A. Schult, and P. J. Swart, Explor- ing network structure, dynamics, and function using net- workx, in Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Con- ference, edited by G. Varoquaux, T. Vaught, and J. Mill- man (Pasadena, CA USA, 2008) pp. 11 – 15

work page 2008
[41]

R. A. Rossi and N. K. Ahmed, The network data repos- itory with interactive graph analytics and visualization, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2015)

work page 2015
[42]

Gajduk, M

A. Gajduk, M. Todorovski, and L. Kocarev, Stability of power grids: An overview, The European Physical Jour- nal Special Topics 223, 2387 (2014)

work page 2014

[1] [1]

Albert, I

R. Albert, I. Albert, and G. L. Nakarado, Structural vul- nerability of the north american power grid, Phys. Rev. E 69, 025103 (2004)

work page 2004

[2] [2]

Kaiser, V

F. Kaiser, V. Latora, and D. Witthaut, Network isola- tors inhibit failure spreading in complex networks, Na- ture communications 12, 3143 (2021)

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Bianconi, A

G. Bianconi, A. Arenas, J. Biamonte, L. D. Carr, B. Kahng, J. Kertesz, J. Kurths, L. L¨ u, C. Masoller, A. E. Motter, M. Perc, F. Radicchi, R. Ramaswamy, F. A. Ro- drigues, M. Sales-Pardo, M. S. Miguel, S. Thurner, and T. Yasseri, Complex systems in the spotlight: next steps after the 2021 nobel prize in physics, Journal of Physics: Complexity 4, 010201 (2023)

work page 2021

[4] [4]

G. A. Pagani and M. Aiello, The power grid as a complex network: A survey, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 392, 2688 (2013)

work page 2013

[5] [5]

L. D. Valdez, L. Shekhtman, C. E. La Rocca, X. Zhang, S. V. Buldyrev, P. A. Trunfio, L. A. Braunstein, and S. Havlin, Cascading failures in complex net- works, Journal of Complex Networks 8, cnaa013 (2020), https://academic.oup.com/comnet/article- pdf/8/2/cnaa013/33582729/cnaa013.pdf

work page 2020

[6] [6]

A. K. Dey, Y. R. Gel, and H. V. Poor, What network motifs tell us about resilience and reli- ability of complex networks, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 19368 (2019), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1819529116

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1819529116 2019

[7] [7]

Heitzig, N

J. Heitzig, N. Fujiwara, K. Aihara, and J. Kurths, In- terdisciplinary challenges in the study of power grid resilience and stability and their relation to extreme weather events (2014)

work page 2014

[8] [8]

J. Dias, A. N. Montanari, and E. E. N. Macau, Power- grid vulnerability and its relation with network structure, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 33, 033122 (2023), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/cha/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0137919/16789015/033122 1 online.pdf

work page doi:10.1063/5.0137919/16789015/033122 2023

[9] [9]

Tamhane and G

V. Tamhane and G. Ambika, Structure and stability of the indian power transmission network, Journal of Physics: Complexity 4, 025014 (2023)

work page 2023

[10] [10]

Gross and L

T. Gross and L. Barth, Network robustness revis- ited, Frontiers in Physics 10, 10.3389/fphy.2022.823564 (2022)

work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2022.823564 2022

[11] [11]

X. Liu, D. Li, M. Ma, B. K. Szymanski, H. E. Stanley, and J. Gao, Network resilience, Physics Reports 971, 1 (2022), network Resilience

work page 2022

[12] [12]

Cohen and S

R. Cohen and S. Havlin, Complex networks: structure, robustness and function (Cambridge university press, 2010)

work page 2010

[13] [13]

Albert, H

R. Albert, H. Jeong, and A.-L. Barab´ asi, Error and at- tack tolerance of complex networks, nature 406, 378 (2000)

work page 2000

[14] [14]

Y.-C. Lai, A. E. Motter, and T. Nishikawa, Attacks and cascades in complex networks, Complex networks , 299 (2004)

work page 2004

[15] [15]

Cohen, K

R. Cohen, K. Erez, D. ben Avraham, and S. Havlin, Breakdown of the internet under intentional attack, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3682 (2001)

work page 2001

[16] [16]

robust yet fragile

J. C. Doyle, D. L. Alderson, L. Li, S. Low, M. Roughan, S. Shalunov, R. Tanaka, and W. Willinger, The “robust yet fragile” nature of the internet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, 14497 (2005), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.0501426102

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0501426102 2005

[17] [17]

A. E. Motter and Y.-C. Lai, Cascade-based attacks on complex networks, Phys. Rev. E 66, 065102 (2002). 8

work page 2002

[18] [18]

Kornbluth, G

Y. Kornbluth, G. Barach, Y. Tuchman, B. Kadish, G. Cwilich, and S. V. Buldyrev, Network overload due to massive attacks, Phys. Rev. E 97, 052309 (2018)

work page 2018

[19] [19]

Crucitti, V

P. Crucitti, V. Latora, and M. Marchiori, Model for cas- cading failures in complex networks, Phys. Rev. E 69, 045104 (2004)

work page 2004

[20] [20]

B. A. Carreras, V. E. Lynch, I. Dobson, and D. E. New- man, Complex dynamics of blackouts in power trans- mission systems, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 14, 643 (2004)

work page 2004

[21] [21]

Y. Yang, T. Nishikawa, and A. E. Motter, Small vulnera- ble sets determine large network cascades in power grids, Science 358, eaan3184 (2017)

work page 2017

[22] [22]

R. A. Shuvro, P. Das, J. S. Jyoti, J. M. Abreu, and M. M. Hayat, Data-integrity aware stochastic model for cascad- ing failures in power grids, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 38, 142 (2023)

work page 2023

[23] [23]

Witthaut, F

D. Witthaut, F. Hellmann, J. Kurths, S. Kettemann, H. Meyer-Ortmanns, and M. Timme, Collective nonlinear dynamics and self-organization in decentralized power grids, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 015005 (2022)

work page 2022

[24] [24]

Nesti, F

T. Nesti, F. Sloothaak, and B. Zwart, Emergence of scale- free blackout sizes in power grids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 058301 (2020)

work page 2020

[25] [25]

Jung and Y.-H

J.-H. Jung and Y.-H. Eom, Empirical analysis of conges- tion spreading in seoul traffic network, Phys. Rev. E108, 054312 (2023)

work page 2023

[26] [26]

Z. Chen, C. Yang, J.-H. Qian, D. Han, and Y.-G. Ma, Recursive traffic percolation on ur- ban transportation systems, Chaos: An Inter- disciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 33, 033132 (2023), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/cha/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0137726/16789779/033132 1 online.pdf

work page doi:10.1063/5.0137726/16789779/033132 2023

[27] [27]

Vivek and H

S. Vivek and H. Conner, Urban road network vulnera- bility and resilience to large-scale attacks, Safety Science 147, 105575 (2022)

work page 2022

[28] [28]

Xing, Cascading failures in internet of things: Review and perspectives on reliability and resilience, IEEE In- ternet of Things Journal 8, 44 (2021)

L. Xing, Cascading failures in internet of things: Review and perspectives on reliability and resilience, IEEE In- ternet of Things Journal 8, 44 (2021)

work page 2021

[29] [29]

Engsig, A

M. Engsig, A. Tejedor, and Y. Moreno, Robustness as- sessment of complex networks using the idle network, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L042050 (2022)

work page 2022

[30] [30]

Final report on the august 14, 2003 blackout in the united states and canada : Causes and recom- mendations, https://www.energy.gov/oe/articles/ blackout-2003-final-report-\protect\penalty-\ @M/august-14-2003-blackout-united-states-\ protect\penalty-\@M/and-canada-causes-and (), accessed: 18-02-2024

work page 2003

[31] [31]

Report on the grid disturbances on 30th – 31st july, 2012, http://cercind.gov.in/2012/orders/Final_ Report_Grid_Disturbance.pdf (), accessed: 18-02-2024

work page 2012

[32] [32]

Kishore, M

V. Kishore, M. S. Santhanam, and R. E. Amritkar, Ex- treme events on complex networks, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 188701 (2011)

work page 2011

[33] [33]

Gandhi and M

G. Gandhi and M. S. Santhanam, Biased random walkers and extreme events on the edges of complex networks, Phys. Rev. E 105, 014315 (2022)

work page 2022

[34] [34]

Nag Chowdhury, A

S. Nag Chowdhury, A. Ray, S. K. Dana, and D. Ghosh, Extreme events in dynamical systems and random walk- ers: A review, Physics Reports 966, 1 (2022), extreme events in dynamical systems and random walkers: A re- view

work page 2022

[35] [35]

Gupta and M

K. Gupta and M. Santhanam, Extreme events in nagel– schreckenberg model of traffic flow on complex networks, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 230, 3201 (2021)

work page 2021

[36] [36]

Kishore, M

V. Kishore, M. S. Santhanam, and R. E. Amritkar, Ex- treme events and event size fluctuations in biased random walks on networks, Phys. Rev. E 85, 056120 (2012)

work page 2012

[37] [37]

Kishore, A

V. Kishore, A. R. Sonawane, and M. S. Santhanam, Ma- nipulation of extreme events on scale-free networks, Phys. Rev. E 88, 014801 (2013)

work page 2013

[38] [38]

J. D. Noh and H. Rieger, Random walks on complex net- works, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 118701 (2004)

work page 2004

[39] [39]

Abramowitz and I

M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathe- matical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathe- matical Tables (Dover Publications, New York, 1964)

work page 1964

[40] [40]

A. A. Hagberg, D. A. Schult, and P. J. Swart, Explor- ing network structure, dynamics, and function using net- workx, in Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Con- ference, edited by G. Varoquaux, T. Vaught, and J. Mill- man (Pasadena, CA USA, 2008) pp. 11 – 15

work page 2008

[41] [41]

R. A. Rossi and N. K. Ahmed, The network data repos- itory with interactive graph analytics and visualization, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2015)

work page 2015

[42] [42]

Gajduk, M

A. Gajduk, M. Todorovski, and L. Kocarev, Stability of power grids: An overview, The European Physical Jour- nal Special Topics 223, 2387 (2014)

work page 2014