Small Cluster in Cyber Physical Systems: Network Topology, Interdependence and Cascading Failures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In cyber physical system (CPS), computational resources and physical resources are strongly correlated and mutually dependent. Cascading failures occur between coupled networks, cause the system more fragile than single network. Besides widely used metric giant component, we study small cluster (small component) in interdependent networks after cascading failures occur. We first introduce an overview on how small clusters distribute in various single networks. Then we propose a percolation theory based mathematical method to study how small clusters be affected by the interdependence between two coupled networks. We prove that the upper bounds exist for both the fraction and the number of operating small clusters. Without loss of generality, we apply both synthetic network and real network data in simulation to study small clusters under different interdependence models and network topologies. The extensive simulations highlight our findings: except the giant component, considerable proportion of small clusters exists, with the remaining part fragmenting to very tiny pieces or even massive isolated single vertex; no matter how the two networks are tightly coupled, an upper bound exists for the size of small clusters. We also discover that the interdependent small-world networks generally have the highest fractions of operating small clusters. Three attack strategies are compared: Inter Degree Priority Attack, Intra Degree Priority Attack and Random Attack. We observe that the fraction of functioning small clusters keeps stable and is independent from the attack strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".