MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232471133 · doi:10.1002/net.20237

Reformulation and sampling to solve a stochastic network interdiction problem

2008· article· en· W4232471133 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNetworks · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsInterdictionFlow networkMathematical optimizationComputer scienceBernoulli's principleStochastic programmingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The network interdiction problem involves interrupting an adversary's ability to maximize flow through a capacitated network by destroying portions of the network. A budget constraint limits the amount of the network that can be destroyed. In this article, we study a stochastic version of the network interdiction problem in which the successful destruction of an arc of the network is a Bernoulli random variable, and the objective is to minimize the maximum expected flow of the adversary. Using duality and linearization techniques, an equivalent deterministic mixed integer program is formulated. The structure of the reformulation allows for the application of decomposition techniques for its solution. Using a parallel algorithm designed to run on a distributed computing platform known as a computational grid, we give computational results showing the efficacy of a sampling‐based approach to solve the problem. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NETWORKS, 2008

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.206 · 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