Heuristically Optimized Trade-Offs: A New Paradigm for Power Laws in the Internet

  • Alex Fabrikant
  • Elias Koutsoupias
  • Christos H. Papadimitriou
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2380)


We propose a plausible explanation of the power law distributions of degrees observed in the graphs arising in the Internet topology [Faloutsos, Faloutsos, and Faloutsos, SIGCOMM 1999] based on a toy model of Internet growth in which two objectives are optimized simultaneously: “last mile” connection costs, and transmission delays measured in hops. We also point out a similar phenomenon, anticipated in [Carlson and Doyle, Physics Review E 1999], in the distribution of file sizes. Our results seem to suggest that power laws tend to arise as a result of complex, multi-objective optimization.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Béla Bollobás, Oliver Riordan, Joel Spencer, and Gábor Tusnády. The degree sequence of a scale-free random graph process. Random Structures and Algorithms, 18(3):279–290, 2001.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. M. Carlson and J. Doyle. Highly optimized tolerance: a mechanism for power laws in designed systems. Physics Review E, 60(2):1412–1427, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Manuel Castells. The Internet Galaxy: Re ections on the Internet, Business, and Society. Oxford, 2001. http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-924153-8.
  4. 4.
    Colin Cooper and Alan M. Frieze. A general model of undirected web graphs. In ESA, pages 500–511, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Faloutsos, M. Faloutsos, and P. Faloutsos. On power-law relationships of the internet topology. In Proc. SIGCOMM, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    X. Gabaix. Zipf’s law for cities: an explanation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114:739–767, 1999.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Govindan. Private communication.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Kumar, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, D. Sivakumar, A. Tomkins, and E. Upfal. Stochastic models for the web graph. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 57–65, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Kumar, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, and A. Tomkins. Extracting large scale knowledge bases from the Web. In Proceedings of the 25th VLDB Conference, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Mandlebrot. An informational theory of the statistical structure of languages. In W. Jackson, editor, Communication theory, pages 486–502. Betterworth, 1953.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Mihail and C. Papadimitriou. Power law distribution of the Internet eigenvalues: An explanation. Unpublished.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Mitzenmacher. A brief history of generative models for power law and lognormal distributions. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    V. Pareto. Cours d’Economie Politique. Dronz, Geneva Switzerland, 1896.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Tangmunarunkit, R. Govindan, S. Jamin, S. Shenker, and W. Willinger. Network topologies, power laws, and hierarchy. Technical Report 01-746, Computer Science Department, University of Southern California, 2001. To appear in Computer Communication Review.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Zipf. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge MA, 1949.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alex Fabrikant
    • 1
  • Elias Koutsoupias
    • 2
  • Christos H. Papadimitriou
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DivisionUniversity of California at BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Athens and UCLALos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations