Constrained target controllability of complex networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is of great theoretical interest and practical significance to study how to control a system by applying perturbations to only a few driver nodes. Recently, a hot topic of modern network researches is how to determine driver nodes that allow the control of an entire network. However, in practice, to control a complex network, especially a biological network, one may know not only the set of nodes which need to be controlled (i.e. target nodes), but also the set of nodes to which only control signals can be applied (i.e. constrained control nodes). Compared to the general concept of controllability, we introduce the concept of constrained target controllability (CTC) of complex networks, which concerns the ability to drive any state of target nodes to their desirable state by applying control signals to the driver nodes from the set of constrained control nodes. To efficiently investigate the CTC of complex networks, we further design a novel graph-theoretic algorithm called CTCA to estimate the ability of a given network to control targets by choosing driver nodes from the set of constrained control nodes. We extensively evaluate the CTC of numerous real complex networks. The results indicate that biological networks with a higher average degree are easier to control than biological networks with a lower average degree, while electronic networks with a lower average degree are easier to control than web networks with a higher average degree. We also show that our CTCA can more efficiently produce driver nodes for target-controlling the networks than existing state-of-the-art methods. Moreover, we use our CTCA to analyze two expert-curated bio-molecular networks and compare to other state-of-the-art methods. The results illustrate that our CTCA can efficiently identify proven drug targets and new potentials, according to the constrained controllability of those biological networks.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".