Robust Critical Node Selection by Benders Decomposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The critical node selection problem (CNP) has important applications in telecommunication, supply chain design, and disease propagation prevention. In practice, the weights on the connections are often uncertain or hard to estimate. For this reason, robust optimization approaches have been considered recently for CNP. In this article, we address very general uncertainty sets, only requiring a linear optimization oracle for the set of potential scenarios. In particular, we can deal with discrete scenario based uncertainty, gamma uncertainty, and ellipsoidal uncertainty. For this general class of robust critical node selection problems, we propose an exact solution method based on Benders decomposition. The Benders subproblem, which in our approach is a robust optimization problem, is efficiently solved by applying the Floyd-Warshall algorithm. The presented approach is tested on 384 instances based on Forest-Fire, Barabási-Albert, Erdős-Rényi, and Watts-Strogatz graphs with different number of nodes and edges, where running times are compared to CPLEX being directly applied to the robust problem formulation. The computational results show the advantage of the proposed approach in handling the uncertainty thus outperforming CPLEX most notably for the ellipsoidal uncertainty cases.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".