arxiv: v1 [cs.cc] 9 Oct 2012

Transcription

1 Improved Approximation Lower Bounds for Vertex Cover on Power Law Graphs and Some Generalizations Mikael Gast Mathias Hauptmann Marek Karpinski arxiv:0.698v [cs.cc] 9 Oct 0 Abstract We prove new explicit inapproximability results for the Vertex Cover Problem on the Power Law Graphs and some functional generalizations of that class of graphs. Our results depend on special bounded degree amplifier constructions for those classes of graphs and could be also of independent interest. Introduction Recently the study of large-scale real-world networks revealed common topological signatures and statistical features that are not easily captured by classical uniform random graphs such as generated by the Gn, p-model due to Erdős and Rényi [ER60]. As of 999 Kumar et al. [Kum+00; Bro+00], Kleinberg et al. [Kle+99; KL0] and Faloutsos, Faloutsos, and Faloutsos [FFF99; Sig+03] measured the degree sequence of the World-Wide Web and independently observed that it is well approximated by a power-law distribution, i.e. the number of nodes y i of a given degree i is proportional to i β where β > 0. This was later verified for a large number of existing real-world networks such as protein-protein interactions, gene regulatory networks, peer-to-peer networks, mobile call networks and social networks [JAB0; Gue+0; Ses+08; Eub+04]. In fact, power-law distributions had also been observed considerably earlier for the distribution of income, city sizes, word frequencies and for citations of academic chemist literature [Par96; Aue3; Est6; Lot6]. Besides these and other early investigations, the idea of associating power-law distributions with real-life systems and its popularization is generally attributed to Zipf [Zip50] and is therefore often referred to as an associated Zipfian distribution also heavy-tail distribution or Pareto distribution. The model of preferential attachment is most often referred to as the mechanism underlying the construction of the above graphs, featuring the role of evolutionary growth or rewiring processes. First mentioned and described by Yule in [Yul5], Simon in [Sim55] and de Solla Price in [Pri65; Pri76] this concept was introduced to a broader audience by Barabási and Albert in [BA99] and later was more rigorously and mathematically defined by Bollobás and Riordan in [BR05]. In this model, a newly introduced vertex will connect to already existing vertices with a probability depending on their current degree. This principle of network growth is therefore customary described as the rich get richer or preferential attachment. But preferential attachment is only one of several mechanisms that can produce graphs with power-law degree distributions, so called Scale-Free Networks or, especially, Power-Law Graphs PLG. Dept. of Computer Science, University of Bonn and B-IT Research School. gast@cs.uni-bonn.de Dept. of Computer Science, University of Bonn. hauptman@cs.uni-bonn.de Dept. of Computer Science and the Hausdorff Center for Mathematics, University of Bonn. Research partially supported by the grant EXC marek@cs.uni-bonn.de

2 Motivated by the behavior of massive graphs derived from data in telecommunications, Aiello, Chung, and Lu [ACL00; ACL0] proposed a model that ensures a power-law degree distribution by fixing a degree sequence via two parameters α, β and then to take the space of random graphs with this degree sequence. Thus their approach somehow complements the above generation models in that it does not aim to explain how power-laws arise, but, given that a graph has a power-law degree sequence, allows to derive structural properties and statistical features which hold with asymptotically high probability probability tending to while the size of the graph approaches. Furthermore the derived results are true not only for certain instances of the random graph model, but for the majority of graphs with the given degree sequence. This model will be referred to as the α, β-model or ACL-model for random PLG. The corresponding graph class will be called α, β-plg. Apart from these modeling approaches there exists practical evidence that combinatorial optimization in PLG is easier than in general graphs [PL0; GMS03; Eub+04; KSG06]. In [GH] Gast and Hauptmann construct an approximation algorithm for the Minimum Vertex Cover Problem Min-VC with an expected approximation ratio of fβ for random PLG in the ACL-model, where fβ is a strictly positive function of the model parameter β. Note that fβ does not depend on the size V of the graph and thus for large graph sizes falls below current upper bounds for Min-VC in general graphs which is Θ log n as stated by Karakostas in [Kar09]. Contrasting this Ferrante, Pandurangan, and Park [FPP08] and Shen, Nguyen, and Thai [SNT0; She+] studied the approximation hardness of certain optimization problems in combinatorial PLG in the ACL-model and showed NP-hardness and APX-hardness for classical problems such as Minimum Vertex Cover Min-VC, Maximum Independent Set Max- IS and Minimum Dominating Set Min-DS. Let us give a brief summary of previous results regarding approximation lower bounds of Min-VC in α, β-plg. In [FPP08] Ferrante, Pandurangan, and Park showed NP-hardness of Max-IS, Min-DS, and Min-VC in simple disconnected α, β-plg for β > 0. In [SNT0] Shen, Nguyen, and Thai proved APX-hardness of the same problems in disconnected α, β- PLG multigraphs for β >. Table summarizes the results of Shen et al., showing the inapproximability factors of Max-IS, Min-DS, and Min-VC in simple disconnected α, β-plg and disconnected α, β-plg multigraphs presented in [She+] for β >. Note that in particular, the above results do not directly imply hardness and inapproximability in connected PLG and for power-law exponents β. An open question regarding the hardness of Max-IS, Min-DS, and Min-VC in connected α, β-plg is posed in [FPP08]. Problem α, β-plg multigraphs α, β-plg Max-IS + 40ζβ3 β ε + ε 0ζβ3 β Min-DS ζβ3 β 30ζβ3 β Min-VC + log log c +o c log c ζβc β +c β c + +oc log log c log c ζβc β c+ Table : Inapproximability factors of Max-IS and Min-DS under condition P NP, Min-VC under UGC in disconnected power-law graphs with β > due to [She+]. In this paper we show the APX-hardness of Min-VC in connected α, β-plg multigraphs for 0 < β < β max.48 and give explicit approximation lower bounds for this problem. For β > β max, α, β-plg are not connected anymore. Our results are based on the construction of special bounded degree amplifiers. A similar method has already been used in [BK99; BK0;

3 BK03] to obtain explicit lower bounds for the approximability of bounded degree and small occurrence optimization problems. Our reductions consist of multigraph embeddings of bounded degree graphs into α, β-plg, based on appropriate wheel constructions. We also extend the model of α, β-plg and consider degree distributions where β is of the form β = ± /fn for a sufficiently fast growing function fn. These distributions converge to those of α, β-plg for β = and can be seen as a combinatorial variant of the preferential attachment PLG. The paper is organized as follows: In Section we give the formal definition of α, β-power- Law Graphs in the ACL-model. Section 3 gives an outline of the methodology of the reduction, i.e. the algorithm for the construction of the wheel and the general embedding technique for d-bounded graphs into connected α, β-plg. In Section 4 we give the detailed description of our reduction from Min-VC in d-bounded degree graphs to Min-VC in connected α, β-plg for the parameter β in the interval β, β max ]. Section 5 deals with the case β 0, ] and gives the details of the reduction of Min-VC in d-bounded degree graphs to Min-VC in d-bounded degree graphs which provide a perfect matching and then to Min-VC in connected α, β-plg. Furthermore, we give a thorough error term analysis for this case. Figure shows the global organization of the paper, pointing to the different ranges and the phase transitions of the parameter β. Section 5 Section 4 0 β max Section 5.3 Section 4. Figure : Organization of the paper with respect to the phase transitions and different ranges of the model parameter β. Furthermore, we prove explicit lower bounds for the approximability of Min-VC in α, β- PLG which only depend on the degree bound d, the parameter β and on the lower bounds ε d for d-bounded Min-VC. The resulting inapproximability factors are summarized in Table. Inapprox. factors β 0, ] β, ] β, β max ] + ε d +d + ε d +d ζβ d+β + ε d +dd+ β β+ +ζβ β d+ β Table : Inapproximability factors of Min-VC in connected α, β-plg multigraphs for the three half-open intervals between 0 and β max. Figure shows a comparison of the resulting inapproximability factors for various d and corresponding lower bounds ε d for d-bounded Min-VC on the subintervals β 0, ], β, ] and β, β max ]. Figure 3 is a plot of the inapproximability factors over the whole interval 0, β max ] for d = 3 and ε d = 7/6, where the points of discontinuity jumps correspond to the phase transitions at β = and β =. In Section 6 and Section 7 we consider an extension of the ACL-Model where the parameter β is not constant but a function of the size of the graph. We give explicit approximation lower bounds for the case β = fn and β = + fn where fn is a sufficiently fast growing unbounded function. This extension is motivated by the fact that in the preferential attachment models, the degree distribution only converges to a power-law distribution in the limit. Hence this model can be seen as a combinatorial version of the preferential attachment PLGs which 3

4 allows to derive approximation hardness results. It can be seen as a dynamic power-law model which allows the power-law exponent to vary over time as a function of recent data, i.e. the size of a growing network or time β β β d = 3, ε d = 7/6 d = 5, ε d =.009 d = 7, ε d =.666 log log d d = 9, ε d = o log d Figure : Comparison of the inapproximability factors for Min-VC in connected α, β-plg multigraphs for various d and ε d on the subintervals β 0, ], β, ] and β, β max.. inapprox. factors. ρ ρ ρ 0 β max 3 β Figure 3: Plot of the inapproximability factor for Min-VC in connected α, β-plg multigraphs for d = 3 and ε d = 7/6 on the interval 0, β max. α, β-power-law Graphs In this section we give the formal definition of α, β-power Law Graphs and describe the random PLG-model proposed by Aiello, Chung, and Lu [ACL0]. Furthermore we give a formula for the expected cut-size in this model in terms of the degree sequences of the two sides of the cut. This will give support to our constructions, which are basically embeddings of bounded degree 4

5 graphs G d into α, β-plg G α,β such that the size of the cut between G d and G α,β \ G d is at least linear in the size of G d. Definition α, β-power Law Graphs [ACL0]. An α, β-plg is an undirected multigraph possibly containing self-loops G α,β = V, E of maximum degree = /β such that for i =,...,, G α,β contains y i nodes of degree i, where y i = i β + if i > or i= is even i β otherwise. Here, i and y i satisfy log y i = α β log i. Furthermore, α is the logarithm of the size of the graph and β is the log-log growth rate. The number n = /β of nodes and the number m = /β i= i β of edges of an α, β-plg satisfy ζβe α if β > n α if β = β β if 0 < β < i= i β ζβ eα if β > m 4 αeα if β = β β if 0 < β < As already stated in [ACL0], the rounding error which results from working with the real numbers eα, i β β instead of their integer counterparts is a lower order term in the case β >. For our construction, the crucial point will be to give a precise estimate of the rounding errors in the case β. The random graph model for α, β-plg proposed by Aiello, Chung, and Lu [ACL0] is the distribution P α, β on the set of all α, β-plg which is obtained in the following way:. Generate a set L of degv distinct copies of each vertex v V.. Generate a random matching on the elements of L. 3. For each pair of vertices u and v, the number of edges joining u and v in G is equal to the number of edges in the matching of L which join copies of u to copies of v see Figure 4. degv = degv = degv = 3 V L edge self-loop multi-edge Figure 4: Generation of edges, self-loops and multi-edges in the random graph model for α, β-plg via random matching of vertex copies in L. We will now deal with the expected cut sizes in the random PLG-model P α, β. For a given degree sequence d,..., d n, let the set L be defined as L = n i= L i with L i = {v i,,..., v i,di } Note that in the case of an α, β-plg, the degree sequence is }. {{.. }... j... j... = /β. }{{} j β 5

6 Now let n = n j= d j, and let M n denote the set of all matchings on the set L. Furthermore, for v, v L, let M n v,v be the set of all matchings which contain the edge {v, v }. We have n! M n n! = n/ and M n n! v,v = n n /!. Hence the probability for an edge e = {v, v } to be an element of a random matching M over n vertices is Pre = {v i, v j } M n = Mn v,v M n = n! n n /! n! n/ n! = n. Thus we obtain the following result. Lemma. Consider the random PLG-model P α, β and let A, B be disjoint subsets of vertices of the resulting PLG. Then the expected number of edges between A and B is E#edges between A and B = w A degw u B degu v V degv 3 Outline of the Method For each parameter β [0, β max as well as for the functional cases β = ± fn we will construct a polynomial time reduction R β from Min-VC d Min-VC in d-bounded graphs to Min-VC α,β. R β embeds any d-bounded graph G d into a multigraph R β G d = G α,β which consists of a multigraph copy µg d of G d attached to a multigraph wheel W. Furthermore all the degree nodes of G α,β are attached to wheel nodes amplifiers of W. In any case the size of G α,β will be linear in the size of G d. We let Γ denote the set of neighbors of G d in the wheel W, and W denotes the set of wheel nodes which are adjacent to at least one degree- node in G α,β see Figure 5. We will make use of the notion of an interval in a PLG. Let G α,β = V, E an α, β-plg. An interval of nodes in G α,β is a set [a, b] = {v V a degv b}, where a b = /β. Due to the different behavior of the power-law distributions, we have to distinguish the two cases < β < β max.48 and 0 < β. For < β < β max we construct the PLG G α,β = µg d W in such a way that the set Γ of neighbors of G d in the wheel W satisfies Γ W and Γ = Θn. This means every neighbor of nodes from G d in the wheel is also adjacent to at least one node of degree. Neighbors of degree- nodes have the property that every vertex cover either contains this node or all its degree- neighbors. This implies that any optimum vertex cover C OPT in G α,β contains the set Γ, and hence the intersection of C OPT with µg d corresponds to an optimum vertex cover Cd OPT in G d. In the case 0 < β and also in the functional cases β = fn and β = + fn, the behavior of the power-law distributions is rather different. In these cases, the number of degree- nodes in α, β-plg is too small to attach a degree- node to every neighbor of µg d in W. Hence we cannot guarantee anymore that every optimum vertex cover in G α,β contains an optimum vertex cover in G d. And another problem occurs: In order to obtain G α,β = O G d, the nodes of µg d must have high degree in G α,β. Since the set Γ is too small to realize this degree of nodes in G d, we need to replace the edges of G d by sufficiently many multi-edges. In order to keep track of the node-degrees and to implement the power-law distribution, we will first map G d to a graph G d+ which contains a perfect matching. This allows us to increase the node degrees inside G d+ in a controlled manner, namely pairwise along the edges of a perfect matching. Then we construct G α,β = R β G d in such a way that Γ = on. This means in 6

7 W Γ degree i + G d W degree i degree i + Figure 5: Embedding construction of the reduction R β. Any d bounded graph G d is attached to a multigraph wheel W more precisely, to a subset of vertices Γ with a number of edges linear in G d. The residual degrees of the power-law degree sequence are realized inside W in a cyclic increasing order via degree vertices and multi-edges. W V W denotes the subset of wheel nodes which have a degree vertex attached. the cases 0 < β and in the functional cases β = fn and β = + fn, our reduction from Min-VC d to Min-VC α,β is the composition of a reduction from Min-VC d to Min-VC P M d+ Min-VC restricted to d + -bounded degree graphs which provide a perfect matching and a reduction from Min-VC P M d+ to Min-VC α,β. We will show that any approximation algorithm for Min-VC α,β also yields an approximation algorithm with almost the same approximation ratio for the problem of constructing a minimum size vertex cover for G α,β which contains the set Γ. This special version of the vertex cover problem for graphs G α,β = R β G d will be denoted as Min-VC α,β. In both cases, our polynomial time reduction from Min-VC d to Min-VC α,β has the following general structure. Map G d to a multigraph µg d. In the case β >, µg d is equal to G d. In the case β and in the functional cases β = fn and β = + fn, we first apply our polynomial time reduction from Min-VC d to Min-VC P d+ M - the Vertex Cover Problem restricted to d + -bounded degree graphs which provide a perfect matching. This yields a graph G d+ of size 4 G d which contains a perfect matching M. Then we replace the edges of M by multi-edges such as to increase the degree of nodes in G d+ appropriately. Choose the parameter α as small as possible such that µg d [x, y ] and possibly other constraints are satisfied as well 3 Construct the set of wheel-nodes W. Assign to every node v in µg d W a node degree deg α,β v the desired degree. Generate the multi-edges from µg d to the set Γ W. The wheel will be constructed in such a way that wheel nodes of the same degree always form an induced connected subgraph in W. 7

8 4 Connect the degree- nodes to the wheel W. 5 Construct edges inside W such that the resulting multigraph is an α, β-plg. In order to keep track of the node degrees and the edges being already constructed in steps - 5 of this reduction, we keep track of the residual degrees deg r v of nodes v in the graph G α,β. The completion step 5 of the reduction consists of the algorithm Fill_Wheel which we will describe now. This algorithm gets as an input the set of wheel nodes W with residual degrees deg r w, w W. It generates the missing edges degree-wise in a cyclic order. If w j,,..., w j,nj are the nodes of degree deg α,β w j,l = j in the wheel W, then the following invariant will be maintained. Invariant. In every stage of the construction, for every j {,..., }, deg r w j,... deg r w j,nj and deg r w j,nj deg r w j,. We are now ready to give the pseudo-code description of the algorithm Fill_Wheel. Algorithm : Fill_Wheel Input: The set of wheel nodes {w j,l } V W with j {3,..., }, l {,..., n j } and residual degrees deg r w j,l. Output: A graph W with residual degrees deg r w j,l = 0. for j = 3,..., do while deg r w j,nj > 0 do choose l min such that deg r w j,l is max; if l < n j then generate edge {w j,l, w j,l+ }; deg r w j,l := deg r w j,l ; deg r w j,l+ := deg r w j,l+ ; else if l = n j, deg r w j, > 0 then generate edge {w j,l, w j, }; deg r w j,l := deg r w j,l ; deg r w j, := deg r w j, ; else if l = n j, deg r w j, = 0, j < then generate edge {w j,l, w j+, }; deg r w j,l := deg r w j,l ; deg r w j+, := deg r w j+, ; else take degree- node w and generate edge {w j,l, w }; deg r w j,l := deg r w j,l ; 4 Case β > We will now consider the case when the parameter β is in the range < β < β max.48. We distinguish the subcases < β <, β = and < β < β max which differ by the choice of the intervals and the analysis of the construction. 8

9 4. Subcase < β < Given a degree-d-bounded graph G d, we construct G α,β = R β G d as follows: W is the set of wheel nodes, W W is the set of nodes w W which are adjacent to at least one node of degree, and the set Γ of neighbors of G d in the wheel satisfies Γ W W. We want to choose W = [j 0, ] as small as possible such as to meet the following requirements:. Sufficient amount of node degree in the wheel: + n j=j0 j n j. Enough degree- nodes: Γ, which holds if j=j0 j β n j 3. Node degrees of G d : j β n j j =,..., d + The first constraint ensures that a sufficient amount of node degree is available in the set W, such as to let all the nodes from G d and all the degree nodes be adjacent to nodes from W. The second constraint guarantees that every node in the neighborhood Γ of G d can be adjacent to at least one degree node. Since we may assume that G d does not contain any node of degree and since every node in G d will have one neighbor in Γ, the third constraint ensures that the degree distribution of the embedded graph µg d fits into the power-law distribution of the graph G α,β. Lemma. If n, then the constraint 3 is satisfied. d+ β Hence we choose = d + β n. In order to minimize the size of W, we want to choose j 0 as large as possible. This yields the requirement *. j=j0 j j β which is equivalent to n + [ x ] β j 0 ζβ n + d + β n β j β 0 β + j β d + β + ζβ Lemma 3. This inequality holds for j 0 = hn with hn = u, > u > β. Proof. for the special case β β const. hn β where q is a polynomial of degree l = β = β β. = l Z In this case the requirement is equivalent to β const. β hn q /l hn, Hence we can choose the parameter u = +β = β and W = [ u, ] and obtain W = j= u = o G j β α,β = on. We are now ready to give the description of our reduction in the case < β < in algorithm Reduction β>. Resulting Lower Bound. Suppose Min-VC d is hard to approximate within + ε d. Suppose A β is an approximation algorithm for Min-VC on α, β-plg with an approximation ratio +ε β. This yields an approximation algorithm A d for Min-VC d. As we have seen before, we may assume 9

10 Algorithm : Reduction β> Input: G d = V, E Degree-d-bounded graph with V = {v,..., v n } such that deg Gd v... deg Gd v n d Output: α, β-plg G α,β = V α,β, E α,β with V α,β = V W choose u = β { ; } let α = min α [ u, ] n and n ; d+ β 3 Generation of the Wheel Nodes: n j := nodes of degree j in G d j =,..., d; V α,β := V d W W = j= W j with W j = {w j,l l 4 Rim Edges and Residual Degrees: Generate edges {w j,l, w j,l+ } j =,..., and l =,..., W j ; Generate edges {w j, Wj, w j+, } and one edge {w,, w, } j =,..., ; let deg r w j,l := j j =,...,, l W j ; 5 Edges from G d to W : for c =, j = u ; c n; j ++ do for l = ; l < W j c n; l ++, c ++ do Generate an edge {v c, w j,l } and set deg r w j,l := deg r w j,l ; j β n j }, j =,..., ; 6 Degree- Nodes: for j = u, c = 0; j < c < ; j ++ do for l = ; l < W j c < ; l = l == W j? : l + do Generate one edge {w,c, w j,l } and set c := c +, deg r w j,l := deg r w j,l ; 7 Remaining Edges: Apply algorithm Fill_Wheel; let E α,β be the union of E and the set of all edges generated in steps 4-7 ; return V α,β, E α,β 0

11 that on given input R β G d, algorithm A β constructs a vertex cover C d W OPTW \ W and A d on input G d returns the cover C d. By assumption, C d + W + OPTW \ W + ε β OPT d + W + OPTW \ W C d + ε β OPT d + ε β W + OPTW \ W Since W \ W = ζβ d + β n n on, we obtain C d + ε β OPT d + ε β on + ζβ d + β n n on + ε β OPT d + ε β on + ζβ d + β o d OPT d = OPT d + ε β + o + ζβ d + β o d, and hence the following result. Theorem 4. Suppose Min-VC d is hard to approximate within approximation ratio + ε d. Then for < β <, Min-VC α,β is hard to approximate within + ε β = + 4. Subcase β = ε d +d ζβ d+β For this case we choose again W = [j 0, ] and consider the corresponding optimization problem Minimize j 0 such that n and d+ β e α j j j=j β 0 n + Suppose we first choos such that d + β n + holds. Then the first constraint holds as well. For β =, assuming, we have the following chain of implications: : = = e α j j j=j β n + 0 eα j 0 + eα n + eα j j j=j 0 j=j 0 j j 0 + e j=j α j 0 j=j d + β + 0 = ln lnj 0 j 0 + ζ d + β + Hence we choose j 0 = c with c = + d+ β + ζ = O. This implies W = on, and thus we obtain the same lower bound as for the case < β < as stated in Theorem 4.

12 4.3 Subcase β > For the case < β < β max = inf{x ζx ζx 0} we consider the following construction. We construct the wheel in such a way that W consists of all the wheel nodes of degree 3. This yields W = j=3 n j β j and W \ W = eα n β = eα. We obtain β C d + ε β OPT d + ε β eα β + ζβeα n eα β = + ε β OPT d + ε β OPT d + ε β + β + ζβ d + β β + ζβ β+ β d + β d + β d If instead we choose W = j=4 n j β j, then we obtain W \ W = eα n β }{{} + eα n 3 β. This yields + + β + 3 β C d + ε β OPT d + ε d ζβ β 3 β = OPT d + ε β + d + β d ζβ β+ 3 β We obtain the following theorem. =0 n + n + n n + n + n. Theorem 5. Suppose Min-VC d is NP-hard to approximate within approximation ratio + ɛ d. Then, for < β < β max = inf{x ζx ζx 0}.48, Min-VC α,β is hard to approximate ε within approximation ratio + d 5 Case β. +dd+ β β+ +ζβ β d+ β We consider now the case 0 < β. Again we construct a polynomial time reduction which embeds any d-bounded graph G d into an α, β-plg G α,β. Since in the case 0 < β, the nodes of G d need to have high degree in G α,β, we will first map G d to a d + -bounded degree graph G d+ which provides a perfect matching M. Then the edges of M are duplicated in order to increase the degree of vertices in G d+. 5. Min-VC in Bounded Degree Graphs which provide a Perfect Matching We will now describe the polynomial time reduction from Min-VC d to Min-VC P d+ M. Given a graph G d of maximum degree d with a vertex set V = {v,..., v n }, we construct the graph G d+ = Ṽ, Ẽ as follows: The set of vertices Ṽ consists of four disjoint copies of the vertex set V, namely Ṽ := V V V 3 V 4 with V i = {v i,j, j n}, i =,..., 4 Ẽ := E E P, where G d = V, E and G d = V, E are disjoint copies of G d, i.e. E i = {{v i,j, v i,l } {v j, v l } E} 3 P := n j= {{v,j, v 3,j }, {v 3,j, v 4,j }, {v 4,j, v,j }, {v 3,j, v,j }, {v,j, v 4,j }}

13 G d V 3 V 4 G d G d Figure 6: Example G d+ after the construction step of reduction R P M that converts any d-bounded graph G d into a d + -bounded graph which provides a perfect matching e.g. via the thick edges of the set P. The nodes + denote covering vertices and denote non-covering vertices. The construction is shown in Figure 6. Let R PM be this reduction, i.e. for any d-bounded degree graph G d, R PM G = G d+. Now suppose C is a vertex cover in G d+ with C = C C C 3 C 4, where C i = C V i, i 4. We observe that C and C are vertex covers of G and G, respectively. Furthermore, for every j {,..., n} the following holds see also Figure 6: If v,j C and v,j C, then C also contains one of the nodes v 3,j, v 4,j. If v,j C and v,j C, then C contains both nodes v 3,j, v 4,j. If v,j C and v,j C or vice versa, then C contains both nodes v 3,j, v 4,j. Hence, C = C + C + C C + V \ C C + C C = 3 C C + 3 C C + V \ C C = C C + C C + V = C C + V. This shows that a minimum is obtained by choosing C = C and minimizing the cardinality of this set. Hence we can restrict ourselves to vertex covers C with the property C = C formally: C and C being copies of the same vertex cover C d in G d. Thus we obtain the following lemma. Lemma 6. There is a polynomial time algorithm T which transforms any vertex cover C = C C C 3 C 4 of a graph G d+ = R PM G d into a vertex cover C = T G d, C of G d+ such that C = C = argmin{ C, C } and C = min{ C, C } + V C. Resulting lower bound. Now suppose Min-VC d is hard to approximate within ratio + ε d. Suppose A is a polynomial time + ε-approximation algorithm for Min-VC P d+ M. Then the algorithm B which on input G d constructs the vertex cover C = T A R PM G d = 4 C i= i and then returns C is an approximation algorithm for Min-VC d. We have, C + ε OPT G d+ = + ε OPTG d + n. 3

14 Furthermore due to the proof of the previous Lemma 6, C = C + n. Thus from Equation we obtain C + ε OPTG d + ε n + ε + d ε OPTG d, where the second inequality holds due to the fact that OPTG d n d. Thus it must be that ε d d + ε. Finally we note that if G d has maximum degree at most d, then the maximum degree of G d+ = R PM G d is at most d +. Altogether we obtain the following result. Theorem 7. If Min-VC d is hard to approximate within approximation ratio + ε d, then Min-VC P d+ M is hard to approximate within approximation ratio + ε d +d. 5. Subcase 0 < β < We consider now the subcase 0 < β <. We start by giving an estimate of the cardinality of node intervals [x, y ] in α, β-plg. Although the rounding errors in the case β < can be of order Θ G α,β, our estimates will enable us to choose the interval sizes appropriately and to obtain explicit lower bounds for Min-VC α,β. Lemma 8. Sizes of Intervals Let 0 < β < and let G α,β = V, E be an α, β-plg. For every 0 < x < y <, the cardinality of the interval [x, y ] = {v V x deg α,β v y } is in [ y β x β y x, β y β x β + β Proof. We first observe that y e α y e [x, y ] = j β α j β y x, y j=x j=x j=x Since, for 0 < β <, χ β y j=x j β = = y is a convex function, we obtain χ β dχ, x [ ] χ β y, y β x [ y β x β, β χ β dχ + x [ ] χ β y β x β y β x x β ] y β. + x β y β y β x β + β x β y β j β ] We want to choose 0 x < y < z in such a way that the vertices of G d+ will be contained in the interval [x, y ] and Γ in the interval y, z ]. The preceding Lemma 8 shows that, in order to achieve G α,β = On, we have to choose y = Ω. The next lemma shows that we can even choose y = o and x = o, which then implies [x, y ] = o G α,β. Lemma 9. Let x = d+, y = + Furthermore, j=y + e α j β β β and z =. Then [x, y ] = o G α,β. j d n 3 4

15 Proof. Due to the previous Lemma 8, [x, y ] + β β β β d + β y Hence we cannot apply Lemma 8 directly to the interval [x, y ], since the rounding error y x is of order Ω = Ω G α,β. Instead, we apply the lemma to the complement of [x, y ] in G α,β : [x, y ] = G α,β y, ] G α,β β d e α j j= + β β β } {{ } =o + β β + Θ β Since G α,β = Θ, we obtain [x, y ] = o G α,β. Now we show that for this choice of x and y, the main inequality 3 of this lemma holds as well. j=y + e α j β j j=y + j y jβ }{{} = y =o = j eα y o jβ y β j=y χ β dχ χ β dχ y β eα y o y β y y now using the fact that y β = o [ ] = χ β [ ] χ β eα y o β β y β y y = β β y β β β β + y β eα y o β y β }{{}}{{} =Θy β = + β =z= + β β y β y β β Θ observe that β = β α e β = β Θ = y β +β Θ = y β +β o β β Therefore, j=y + j = ω. Since d n = On = O, inequality 3 j β holds. The next lemma shows that G α,β = + o n. 5

16 Lemma 0. Let α = min{α [x, y ] n}, where x = d+ and y = + [x, y ] = + o n. Proof. For α = min{α [x, y ] n}, [x, y ] = τα where τα = o. Hence { β α = min α α β ln τα β = β ln + lnn o which implies G α,β = β = n β + lnn and + o, β o eo β = + on n, } β Z β β. Then, We obtain a polynomial time reduction from Min-VC d to Min-VC α,β for the case 0 < β < in algorithm Reduction β. Resulting Lower Bound. Suppose Min-VC P d+ M is NP-hard to approximate within approximation ratio + ε 0. Let G d = V d, E d be the d-bounded degree graph and G α,β = RG d. Let V d = n. Let W denote the wheel in G α,β. We have W c n. Let Γ be the neighborhood of G d in G α,β with Γ = γ = on. Suppose A is a polynomial time approximation algorithm for Min-VC in power-law graphs with an approximation ratio + ε. On input G α,β = RG d, algorithm A constructs a vertex cover C = C d C W with C d = C V d and C W = C W. Since no vertex from W can cover any edge in G d, C d is a vertex cover of G d. Let OPT denote a minimum cost vertex cover of G α,β. Let OPT d = OPT V d and OPT W = OPT W. Then C + ε OPT, C d > n d and OPT = OPT d OPT W OPT d + OPT W + Γ + o OPT d OPT W = + o OPT Hence the approximation algorithm B which on input G α,β first computes the cover C = AG α,β and then replaces C W by the union of Γ and an optimum vertex cover for W \ Γ which can be computed efficiently by dynamic programming has approximation ratio + ε 0 + o for the instances G α,β = G d W = RG d of Min-VC. We will now show that algorithm B has also a similar approximation ratio for a slightly modified optimization problem: Problem Min-VC. Input: d-bounded degree graph G d. Output: Vertex cover C for RG d = G d W such that Γ C. Objective: Minimize C. Let ÔPTG d denote an optimum solution for instance G d of this modified optimization problem. Furthermore let OPTG d and OPTW \ Γ denote minimum cost vertex covers for G d and the graph W \ Γ, respectively. Then ÔPTG d = OPTG d Γ OPTW \ Γ. 6

17 Algorithm 3: Reduction β Input: G d = V, E a d-bounded graph with V = {v,..., v n } such that deg Gd v... deg Gd v n d Output: α, β-plg G α,β = V α,β, E α,β with V α,β = V W Generate the Perfect Matching Graph: let G d+ = R PM G d = Ṽ, Ẽ; let M = {e,..., e n } be a perfect matching in G d+ ; Choos, x and y: let α := min {α [x, y ] G } d+ ; let x := d+ and y := + β ; β 3 Duplicate Edges and generate Residual Degrees of G d+ : Assign degrees deg α,β v i to the nodes v i of G d+ such that x deg α,β v i y, respecting the α, β power-law; let deg r v i = deg α,β v i deg Gd+ v i ; for i =,..., n do let e i = {v i, v i }; Replace e i by min{deg r v i, deg r v i } parallel edges; Update deg r v i, deg r v i accordingly; let µg d the resulting multigraph; 4 Generation of the Wheel Nodes: n j := nodes v i with deg α,β v i = j in G d+ j =,..., ; V α,β := Ṽd+ W W = j= W j with } W j = {w j,l l n j j =,..., ; j β 5 Rim Edges and Residual Degrees: Generate edges {w j,l, w j,l+ } j =,..., and l =,..., W j ; Generate edges {w j, Wj, w j+, } and one edge {w,, w, } j =,..., ; let deg r w j,l := j j =,...,, l W j ; 6 Edges from µg d to W : for c =, j = y + ; c 4n; j ++ do for l = ; l < W j c 4n; do Generate min{deg r v c, deg r w j,l } parallel edges between v c and w j,l ; Update deg r v c, deg r w j,l accordingly; if deg r w j,l = 0 then j ++; if deg r v c = 0 then c ++; 7 Degree- Nodes: Connect the nodes w,l to y <j W j; /* c.f. step 6 of Reduction β> */ 8 Remaining Edges: Apply algorithm Fill_Wheel; let E α,β be the set of edges generated in steps 3-8 ; return V α,β, E α,β ; 7

18 We observe that if OPT = OPT d OPT W is an optimum vertex cover for G α,β = RG d, then OPT d OPTG d + Γ We have ÔPTG d OPT + Γ + O = + o OPT.We show that algorithm B has approximation ratio + o + ε for the modified optimization problem. Then we can conclude: C d Γ OPTW \ Γ + o + ε ÔPTG d which yields = + o + ε OPTG d Γ OPTW \ Γ C d + o + ε OPTG d + ε Γ OPTW \ Γ Now since Γ OPTW \ Γ W c n and OPTG d n d, we obtain Γ OPTW \ Γ c d OPTG d and therefore C d + o + ε + ε c d OPTG d and thus ε + c d o ε 0. For our choice of the parameters x, y, z we obtain c = o, and thus the following theorem holds. Theorem. If Min-VC d is hard to approximate within ratio + ɛ d, then for 0 < β <, Min-VC α,β is hard to approximate within approximation ratio Subcase β = ɛ d +d. The case β = differs from the case 0 < β < by how we choose the intervals [x, y ] and y, z ]. Nevertheless, we will obtain the same lower bound as in the case β =. Lemma. Sizes of Intervals Let G α,β be an α, β-plg with β =. Then for all 0 < x < y, the size of the interval [x, y ] = {v V G α,β x degv y } satisfies [ [x, y ] lny lnx y x +, lny lnx + x ] y Proof. First we give a bound for the rounding error: y j=x j y e α y x + j j=x y j=x j For the term y j=x j we get the following bounds: y y y j χ dχ, χ dχ + x y j=x x x [ = lny lnx, lny lnx + x ] y [ = lny lnx, lny lnx + x ] y Thus the lemma follows. 8

19 In the case β < we have mapped G d to a subinterval [x, y = {v V G α,β x degv < y }, where 0 < x < y < and x, y are constant. However, in the case β = the size of such an interval is Θ which is o G α,. This means we have to choose the interval bounds in a different way. Lemma 3. Let G α,β = V, E be an α, -PLG. For 0 c < c and x = e c α, y = e cα with c, c being constant, the size of the set [x, y ] = {v V x degv y } satisfies [x, y = oc c α = Θ α. Proof. Due to the preceding lemma, [x, y ] lny lnx y x + = c cα O = o c c α The next lemma shows that if we choos as small as possible such as to be able to embed G d into the interval [x, y ], then we obtain [x, y ] = + on. Lemma 4. For x =, y = e c α e c α n [x, y n + tn where tn = y x + O, especially tn = on. and α = min{α [x, y n}, Proof. The equation tn = y x + O follows directly from the choice of x and y. It remains to show that tn = on. From tn = o G α,β and [x, y = Θ G α,β we obtain tn = o [x, y. The inequality n [x, y n + tn then implies n = Θ [x, y, whence tn = on. Finally we show that we can choose Γ = y, z ] with z = c, c = c + o. Lemma 5. Let 0 c < c < be constants and c = c + α, and let x = ec α, y = e c α and z = e c α. Then y, z ] = oα and z e α j = ω G α,β j j=y + Proof. Using the preceding lemma, e α y, z ] = [y, z ] y Furthermore, z e α j j j=y + c c α + e cα e c α = + e cα e c α = o G α,β = z j=y + z j=y j j j z y z j z y z eα y z y + lnz lny z y z eα y y z = o = ω α 9

20 Thus for β =, we obtain basically the same polynomial time reduction from Min-VC d to Min-VC α, as in the case 0 < β <. The only difference is how we choose the parameters x, y, z. We obtain the following result. Theorem 6. If Min-VC d is hard to approximate within ratio +ɛ d, then for β =, Min-VC α,β is hard to approximate within approximation ratio + 6 Functional Case β = fn ɛ d +d. We consider now the case of β = fn being a function of the number of nodes n, converging to from below. Here is a precise description of the model. Definition. α, β-plg for β = fn Let fn be a monotone increasing unbounded function. For β = fn, an α, β-plg G α,β is a multigraph with n nodes which has the following properties: The maximum degree of G α,β is f = /β. There are j β nodes of degree j j =,..., f Thus an α, β-plg G α,β satisfies the equation n = j= j β. In this section we will show that the approximation lower bound for Min-VC α, also holds for the functional case β = fn We achieve this by showing that the crucial parameters maximum degree, sizes of intervals of α, β-plg in the functional case converge to those in the case β =. Let us start by giving an outline of the main steps. We may first ask when do the single terms i fn converge to i. The differences Local Error are i fn fn We have log i = i fn i n /fn = logn fn n fn i, hence for fn = ωlog n the nominator converges to 0. Another fn. i estimate of the local error can be obtained as follows: /fn i Then we are going to deal with the global error, i.e. we consider the sum i= i β = eα fn fn i= i fn fn! = n /fn i = n fn We will show that this sum will differ from the according sum of the terms i by an amount of α α fn e fn, which is a lower oder term provided fn = ωα. We will also give fn bound on the rounding error when we replace the terms /j β by their fractional counterparts. Detailed Description. We let f = fn fn and =. Thus f = e α fn + o provided f satisfies fn = ωα. In the case β = fn we have n = f j=. j β We want to give upper and lower bounds for this term. Since f = + o, we obtain j= + o jβ f j= j β f f e α j= 0 j β f j= j β =

21 The right-hand side of this inequality the upper bound can be further bounded as follows: f j= j β = = = j= j= j= j β + f eα β = j β + o eα fn = + o + o eα jβ j= j= j β + o fn j β + o eα fn where the last equality holds again due to the fact that fn = ωα. Thus we obtain the following lemma. Lemma 7. If fn = ωα, then j= f + o jβ j= e α j β = n j= j β + o We also need similar bounds for the sizes of intervals. It will turn out that we can restrict ourselves to intervals [an, bn] in α, β-plg where bn instead of bn f = fn fn. Lemma 8. Suppose fn = ωα. Let a, b: N N such that for all n, an < bn. Then bn j=an bn bn an + [an, bn] = jβ e α bn j β j=an j=an The next lemma gives the desired bounds for the sizes of intervals in the functional case β = fn. The upper and lower bounds are sums of terms eα e j instead of α. Afterwards we j β f will use this result to show that we can actually choose the same parameters x, y, z as in the case β =. Lemma 9. Convergence of Sizes of Intervals For each pair of functions a, b: N N with an < bn f, j β bn j=an j n bn logn [an, bn] + εn j=an j 4 where εn = n fn. Especially εn = o for fn = ωlogα, which implies o bn j=an j [an, bn] + o bn j=an Proof. The second inequality in Equation 4 holds if for each j, j fn j fn j + εn j, i.e. + εn j + εn fn f + εn fn. This last inequality is equivalent

22 α to e fn α + εn and taking logarithm fn α we obtain εn e fn = n o fn, hence for εn = n fn ln + εn. Since fn = ωα, fn we obtain bn j=an j bn an + [an, bn] + εn bn j=an j We have bn an + f = + o. Now we consider the last inequality for the special case when an = and bn = f. We obtain: + o j= f j + o = which implies n = + o α. j= j + o n = [, f ], Now let x =, y = e c α, z = e with 0 cα e c α c < c < c = c + α. Combining Lemma 9 with the proof of Lemma, we obtain c c α n logn [x, y ] c c α + x + o y n logn eα y β f y, z ] + z y + o which yields [x, y ] = ± oc c α and y, z ] = oα. Now choose c = α and c = d+. Then j=y + e α j β f j j=y = j β f z y y χ /fn dχ fn fn + = e o + o + o e + fn y + fn α + e fn Gα,βf = ω + o e Hence we can map G d to the interval [x, y ] and choose Γ y, z ] note that we choose = instead of f = /β f and obtain the same hardness result as in the case β when β is a constant. We have the following result. Theorem 0. Suppose Min-VC d is hard to approximate within ratio + ɛ d. Let f : N N be a function such that fn = ωlogn. Then for β f = fn, the problem Min-VC α,β f is hard to approximate within approximation ratio + 7 Functional Case β = + fn ɛ d +d. It turns out that even in the functional case β = + fn, we obtain the same hardness result as in the case β. This is especially interesting since we have the phase transition at β =, which is also reflected by our hardness results for β being a constant. Again, our result is based on an estimate of the sizes of intervals [an, bn].

23 Lemma. Let β f = + fn with fn = ωα, and let f = j {,..., f }, [ j τn, ], j where τn = fn + fn Proof. We have j β f j β f. Especially τn 0 as n goes to infinity. [ j tj, j ] for tj = j j β /β f. Then for each = jβ f. It suffices to show that tj j β f = x x x +/fn fn τn = /fn. Since for fixed n, the derivative of the function x x/fn +/fn is equal to x + + fn x fn 0, the inequality tj t = τn holds, and thus the lemma follows. If we combine this result with our techniques from previous sections, the resulting estimate for sizes of intervals is rather weak. For the number of nodes of th, β-plg, we obtain α + fn fn fn+ α+o e+ +/fn [, f ] ± oα We will make use of the following estimate of the local rounding errors. [ Lemma. For every j {,..., f }, j + fn n fn j, j ]. Proof. We just observe that decreasing. j + fn = j j /fn, and the function x x /fn is monotone This gives the following estimate of sizes of intervals. Lemma 3. Sizes of Intervals In the case β f = + fn, for any a < b f = [a, b] = {v V G α,β a degv b} is in [ n fn /β f, the size of the interval lnb lna b a +, lnb lna + a ] b Since for fn = ωlnn, we have convergence n fn estimates. n, we obtain the following Corollary. For fn = ωlnn, the number of nodes of an α, β f -PLG G α,βf satisfies [, f ] = ±o α. Furthermore, for the parameters x =, y = e c α, z = e cα e c α with 0 c < c < c = c+ α, [x f, y f ] = ±o [, f ] and y f, z f ] = ±o = o G α,βf. Now we show that if we choose the parameters x, y, z such that z =, then the amount of node-degree in the interval y f, z f ] suffices to connect all the nodes from G d as well as the 3

24 degree- nodes. Namely, choose c =, c = α. Then we obtain f j=y f + e α f j β j eα f j j j n/fn j=y f = eα n /fn y f eα = o Finally we obtain the following result. f n /fn j=y f + + fn +fn e j Gα,βf = ω Theorem 4. Suppose Min-VC d is hard to approximate within ratio + ɛ d. Let f : N N be a function such that fn = ωlogn. Then for β f = + fn, the problem Min-VC α,β f is hard to approximate within approximation ratio + 8 Further Research ɛ d +d. In this paper we have given explicit lower bounds for the approximability of Min-VC in connected α, β-plg. It remains an important open question to close the gaps between inapproximability and approximability bounds of the underlying problems. We also believe that our results for the two functional cases β = ± fn can be extended to hold for any β f = β ± fn with 0 < β < β max.48. It would also be interesting to study the approximation complexity of various network design problems on Power-Law Graphs, e.g. the Steiner Tree Problem and related problems. References [ACL00] [ACL0] [Aue3] [BA99] [BK0] [BK03] [BK99] [BR05] W. Aiello, F. Chung, and L. Lu. A random graph model for massive graphs. Proceedings of the 3nd annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. STOC 00. ACM Press, 000, pp doi: 0.45/ W. Aiello, F. Chung, and L. Lu. A random graph model for power law graphs. Experimental Mathematics 0. 00, pp F. Auerbach. Das Gesetz der Bevölkerungskonzentration. Petermann s Geographische Mitteilungen 59 93, pp A.-L. Barabási and R. Albert. Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. Science /999, pp doi: 0.6/science P. Berman and M. Karpinski. Efficient amplifiers and bounded degree optimization. ECCC TR P. Berman and M. Karpinski. Improved approximation lower bounds on small occurrence optimization. ECCC TR P. Berman and M. Karpinski. On some tighter inapproximability results. Proceedings of the 6th international Conference on Automata, Languages and Programming. ICALP 99. Springer-Verlag, 999, pp doi: 0.007/ _7. B. Bollobás and O. M. Riordan. Mathematical results on scale-free random graphs. Handbook of Graphs and Networks 005, pp. 34. doi: 0.00/ ch. 4

25 [Bro+00] A. Broder, R. Kumar, F. Maghoul, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, R. Stata, A. Tomkins, and J. Wiener. Graph structure in the Web. Computer Networks /000, pp doi: 0.06/S [ER60] [Est6] [Eub+04] [FFF99] [FPP08] [GH] [GMS03] [Gue+0] [JAB0] [Kar09] P. Erdős and A. Rényi. On the evolution of random graphs. Publications of the Mathematical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences 5 960, pp J.-B. Estoup. Les Gammes Sténographiques. Institut Sténographique de France 96. S. Eubank, V. S. A. Kumar, M. V. Marathe, A. Srinivasan, and N. Wang. Structural and algorithmic aspects of massive social networks. Proceedings of the 5th annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. SODA 04. SIAM, 004, pp doi: 0.45/ M. Faloutsos, P. Faloutsos, and C. Faloutsos. On power-law relationships of the Internet topology. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 9.4 0/999, pp doi: 0.45/ A. Ferrante, G. Pandurangan, and K. Park. On the hardness of optimization in power-law graphs. Theoretical Computer Science /008, pp doi: 0.06/j.tcs M. Gast and M. Hauptmann. Approximability of the Vertex Cover Problem in Power Law Graphs. Arxiv preprint arxiv: /0, pp. 6. arxiv: C. Gkantsidis, M. Mihail, and A. Saberi. Conductance and congestion in power law graphs. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review 3. 06/003, pp doi: 0.45/ N. Guelzim, S. Bottani, P. Bourgine, and F. Képès. Topological and causal structure of the yeast transcriptional regulatory network. Nature Genetics 3. 05/00, pp doi: 0.038/ng873. M. Jovanović, F. S. Annexstein, and K. A. Berman. Modeling peer-to-peer network topologies through small-world models and power laws. IX Telecommunications Forum, TELFOR. 00. G. Karakostas. A better approximation ratio for the vertex cover problem. ACM Transactions on Algorithms 5.4 0/009, pp. 8. doi: 0.45/ [KL0] J. M. Kleinberg and S. Lawrence. The structure of the Web. Science /00, pp doi: 0.6/science [Kle+99] [KSG06] [Kum+00] J. M. Kleinberg, R. Kumar, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, and A. S. Tomkins. The Web as a graph: measurements, models and methods. Proceedings of the 5th annual international Conference on Computing and Combinatorics. COCOON 99. Springer-Verlag, 999, pp. 7. doi: 0.007/ _. M. Koyutürk, W. Szpankowski, and A. Grama. Assessing significance of connectivity and conservation in protein interaction networks. Journal of Computational Biology , pp doi: 0.089/cmb.007.R04. R. Kumar, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, D. Sivakumar, A. S. Tomkins, and E. Upfal. Stochastic models for the Web graph. Proceedings of the 4st annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. FOCS 00. IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, 000, pp doi: 0.09/SFCS

26 [Lot6] A. J. Lotka. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of Washington Academy Sciences 96. [Par96] V. F. Pareto. Cours d economie politique. Librairie Droz, 896. [PL0] K. Park and H. Lee. On the effectiveness of route-based packet filtering for distributed DoS attack prevention in power-law internets. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 3.4 0/00, pp doi: 0.45/ [Pri65] D. J. d. S. Price. Networks of scientific papers. Science /965, pp doi: 0.6/science [Pri76] [Ses+08] [She+] [Sig+03] D. J. d. S. Price. A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science /976, pp doi: 0.00/asi M. Seshadri, S. Machiraju, A. Sridharan, J. Bolot, C. Faloutsos, and J. Leskovec. Mobile call graphs. Proceeding of the 4th ACM SIGKDD international Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. KDD 08. ACM Press, 08/008, pp doi: 0.45/ Y. Shen, D. T. Nguyen, Y. Xuan, and M. T. Thai. New techniques for approximating optimal substructure problems in power-law graphs. Theoretical Computer Science /0, pp doi: 0.06/j.tcs G. Siganos, M. Faloutsos, P. Faloutsos, and C. Faloutsos. Power laws and the ASlevel Internet topology. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.4 08/003, pp doi: 0.09/TNET [Sim55] H. A. Simon. On a class of skew distribution functions. Biometrika 4.3/4 /955, pp doi: 0.307/ [SNT0] [Yul5] [Zip50] Y. Shen, D. T. Nguyen, and M. T. Thai. On the hardness and inapproximability of optimization problems on power law graphs. Proceedings of the 4th international Conference on Combinatorial Optimization and Applications. COCOA 0. Springer- Verlag, 00, pp. 97. doi: 0.007/ _7. G. U. Yule. A mathematical theory of evolution, based on the conclusions of Dr. J.C. Willis, F.R.S. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 3.Series B 95, pp. 87. G. K. Zipf. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Journal of Clinical Psychology /950, p doi: 0.00/ :3<306:: AID-JCLP >3.0.CO;-7. 6