MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287586005 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.00232

A Mean-Field Team Approach to Minimize the Spread of Infection in a\n Network

2020· preprint· en· W4287586005 on OpenAlexaff
Jalal Arabneydi, Amir G. Aghdam

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationPopulationComputer scienceMarkov chainMarkov processFinite setDynamic network analysisMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a stochastic dynamic control strategy is presented to prevent\nthe spread of an infection over a homogeneous network. The infectious process\nis persistent, i.e., it continues to contaminate the network once it is\nestablished. It is assumed that there is a finite set of network management\noptions available such as degrees of nodes and promotional plans to minimize\nthe number of infected nodes while taking the implementation cost into account.\nThe network is modeled by an exchangeable controlled Markov chain, whose\ntransition probability matrices depend on three parameters: the selected\nnetwork management option, the state of the infectious process, and the\nempirical distribution of infected nodes (with not necessarily a linear\ndependence). Borrowing some techniques from mean-field team theory the optimal\nstrategy is obtained for any finite number of nodes using dynamic programming\ndecomposition and the convolution of some binomial probability mass functions.\nFor infinite-population networks, the optimal solution is described by a\nBellman equation. It is shown that the infinite-population strategy is a\nmeaningful sub-optimal solution for finite-population networks if a certain\ncondition holds. The theoretical results are verified by an example of rumor\ncontrol in social networks.\n

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207