The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Identifying Infection Sources and Regions in Large Networks
Open accessAbstract
Identifying the infection sources in a network, including the index cases that introduce a contagious disease into a population network, the servers that inject a computer virus into a computer network, or the individuals who started a rumor in a social network, plays a critical role in limiting the damage caused by the infection through timely quarantine of the sources. We consider the problem of estimating the infection sources and the infection regions (subsets of nodes infected by each source) in a network, based only on knowledge of which nodes are infected and their connections, and when the number of sources is unknown a priori. We derive estimators for the infection sources and their infection regions based on approximations of the infection sequences count. We prove that if there are at most two infection sources in a geometric tree, our estimator identifies the true source or sources with probability going to one as the number of infected nodes increases. When there are more than two infection sources, and when the maximum possible number of infection sources is known, we propose an algorithm with quadratic complexity to estimate the actual number and identities of the infection sources. Simulations on various kinds of networks, including tree networks, small-world networks and real world power grid networks, and tests on two real data sets are provided to verify the performance of our estimators.
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
Finding and evaluating community structure in networks
Newman, M. E. J., & Girvan, M. (2004) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.69.026113 · Cited by 13,931
Measuring user influence in twitter: The million follower fallacy
Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., & Gummadi, K. (2010) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v4i1.14033 · Cited by 3,022 · cited 1×
“A modern social network like Twitter have millions of active users [1].”
BackgroundEveryone'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
Maximal planar networks with large clustering coefficient and power-law degree distribution
Zhou, T., Yan, G., & Wang, B.-H. (2005) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.71.046141 · Cited by 265
Cited by
CSI: A Hybrid Deep Model for Fake News Detection
Ruchansky, N., Seo, S., & Liu, Y. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management · doi:10.1145/3132847.3132877 · Cited by 1,039
Data based identification and prediction of nonlinear and complex dynamical systems
Wang, W.-X., Lai, Y.-C., & Grebogi, C. (2016) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.06.004 · Cited by 299
Metadata
- Authors
- Luo, W., Tay, W. P., & Leng, M.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing
- Published
- 2013-06
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2850-2865
- ISSN
- 1053-587X (ISSN-L)
- 1941-0476
- OpenAlex
- W1966006953
- Cited by
- 200
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 14.11
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Identifying Infection Sources and Regions in Large Networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tsp.2013.2256902
- The paper
- Luo, W., Tay, W. P., & Leng, M. (2013). Identifying Infection Sources and Regions in Large Networks. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsp.2013.2256902
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.