MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3147273484 · doi:10.1109/ipdps.2006.1639553

Network decontamination with local immunization

2006· article· en· W3147273484 on OpenAlexaff
Linda Pagli, Nicola Santoro

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsynchronous communicationUpper and lower boundsTree (set theory)Computer scienceTorusConstant (computer programming)Task (project management)Vertex (graph theory)ImmunizationServerDistributed computingComputer networkMathematicsGraphTheoretical computer scienceEngineeringCombinatoricsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem of decontaminating a network infected by a mobile virus. The goal is to perform the task using as small a team of antiviral agents, avoiding any recontamination of disinfected areas, and minimizing the amount of agents' movements across the network. In all the existing literature, it is assumed that the immunity level of a disinfected site is nil. In this paper we consider the network decontamination problem under a new model of immunity to recontamination: we consider the case when a disinfected vertex, after the cleaning agent has gone, will become recontaminated only if a weak majority of its neighbours are infected. We study the effects of this level of immunity on the number of antiviral agents necessary to decontaminate the entire network. We focus on tori and on trees, and establish lower-bounds on the team size; we also establish lower bounds on the number of moves performed by an optimal-size time of cleaners. We design and present strategies for disinfecting tori and trees; we prove that these strategies are optimal in terms of both team size and number of moves. In particular, the upper and lower bounds are tight for tree networks and for synchronous tori; the bounds are within a constant factor of each other in the case of asynchronous tori.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207