The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Identifying Propagation Sources in Networks: State-of-the-Art and Comparative Studies
Open accessAbstract
It has long been a significant but difficult problem to identify propagation sources based on limited knowledge of network structures and the varying states of network nodes. In practice, real cases can be locating the sources of rumors in online social networks and finding origins of a rolling blackout in smart grids. This paper reviews the state-of-the-art in source identification techniques and discusses the pros and cons of current methods in this field. Furthermore, in order to gain a quantitative understanding of current methods, we provide a series of experiments and comparisons based on various environment settings. Especially, our observation reveals considerable differences in performance by employing different network topologies, various propagation schemes, and diverse propagation probabilities. We therefore reach the following points for future work. First, current methods remain far from practice as their accuracy in terms of error distance (δ) is normally larger than three in most scenarios. Second, the majority of current methods are too time consuming to quickly locate the origins of propagation. In addition, we list five open issues of current methods exposed by the analysis, from the perspectives of topology, number of sources, number of networks, temporal dynamics, and complexity and scalability. Solutions to these open issues are of great academic and practical significance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification
Freeman, L. C. (1978) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7 · Cited by 17,062
Error and attack tolerance of complex networks
Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabási, A.-L. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35019019 · Cited by 7,534
Newman, M. (2010) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199206650.001.0001 · Cited by 6,595
Everyone's an influencer: quantifying influence on twitter
Bakshy, E., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., & Watts, D. J. (2011) · Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining · doi:10.1145/1935826.1935845 · Cited by 1,689
The Minimum Description Length Principle
Grünwald, P. D. (2007) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4643.001.0001 · Cited by 1,644
The Hidden Geometry of Complex, Network-Driven Contagion Phenomena
Brockmann, D., & Helbing, D. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1245200 · Cited by 1,253
Cited by
A Survey of IoT Applications in Blockchain Systems: Architecture, Consensus, and Traffic Modeling
Lao, L., Li, Z., Hou, S., Xiao, B., Guo, S., & Yang, Y. (2021) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3372136 · Cited by 304
Multiple Rumor Source Detection with Graph Convolutional Networks
Dong, M., Zheng, B., Quoc Viet Hung, N., Su, H., & Li, G. (2019) · Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management · doi:10.1145/3357384.3357994 · Cited by 119
Insider Threat Identification Using the Simultaneous Neural Learning of Multi-Source Logs
Liu, L., Chen, C., Zhang, J., De Vel, O., & Xiang, Y. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2957055 · Cited by 31
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Jiang, J., Wen, S., Yu, S., Xiang, Y., & Zhou, W.
- Venue
- IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
- Published
- 2017
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 465-481
- ISSN
- 1553-877X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2528339895
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 15.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.