MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125629652 · doi:10.1287/opre.2020.2014

Multilevel Approaches for the Critical Node Problem

2021· article· en· W3125629652 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOperations Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNode (physics)Game theoryMathematical optimizationOperations researchMathematical economicsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multilevel programming can provide the right mathematical formulations for modeling sequential decision-making problems. In such cases, it is implicit that each level anticipates the optimal reaction of the subsequent ones. Defender–attacker–defender trilevel programs are a particular case of interest that encompasses a fortification strategy, followed by an attack, and a consequent recovery defensive strategy. In “Multilevel Approaches for the Critical Node Problem,” Baggio, Carvalho, Lodi, and Tramontani study a combinatorial sequential game between a defender and an attacker that takes place in a network. The authors propose an exact algorithmic framework. This work highlights the significant improvements that the defender can achieve by taking the three-stage game into account instead of considering fortification and recovery as isolated. Simultaneously, the paper contributes to advancing the methodologies for solving trilevel programs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it