Role of Subgraphs in Epidemics over Finite-Size Networks under the Scaled SIS Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In previous work, we developed the scaled SIS process, which models the dynamics of SIS epidemics over networks. With the scaled SIS process, we can consider networks that are finite-sized and of arbitrary topology (i.e., we are not restricted to specific classes of networks). We derived for the scaled SIS process a closed-form expression for the time-asymptotic probability distribution of the states of all the agents in the network. This closed-form solution of the equilibrium distribution explicitly exhibits the underlying network topology through its adjacency matrix. This paper determines which network configuration is the most probable. We prove that, for a range of epidemics parameters, this combinatorial problem leads to a submodular optimization problem, which is exactly solvable in polynomial time. We relate the most-probable configuration to the network structure, in particular, to the existence of high density subgraphs. Depending on the epidemics parameters, subset of agents may be more likely to be infected than others; these more-vulnerable agents form subgraphs that are denser than the overall network. We illustrate our results with a 193 node social network and the 4941 node Western US power grid under different epidemics parameters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".