ArticleScientific reports2018
A comparative analysis of approaches to network-dismantling.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The recipe similarity network: a new algorithm to extract relevant information from cookbooks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A large-scale data set of aircraft interaction networks.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Exploring the landscape of dismantling strategies based on the community structure of networks.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A comparison of node vaccination strategies to halt SIR epidemic spreading in real-world complex networks.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Balancing capacity and epidemic spread in the global airline network.Applied network science · 2021Article
- Influencer identification in dynamical complex systems.Journal of complex networks · 2020Review
- US social fragmentation at multiple scales.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2019Article
- The heterogeneity in link weights may decrease the robustness of real-world complex weighted networks.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Estimating, understanding, and improving the robustness of networks has many application areas such as bioinformatics, transportation, or computational linguistics. Accordingly, with the rise of network science for modeling complex systems, many methods for robustness estimation and network dismantling have been developed and applied to real-world problems. The state-of-the-art in this field is quite fuzzy, as results are published in various domain-specific venues and using different datasets. In this study, we report, to the best of our knowledge, on the analysis of the largest benchmark regarding network dismantling. We reimplemented and compared 13 competitors on 12 types of random networks, including ER, BA, and WS, with different network generation parameters. We find that network metrics, proposed more than 20 years ago, are often non-dominating competitors, while many recently proposed techniques perform well only on specific network types. Besides the solution quality, we also investigate the execution time. Moreover, we analyze the similarity of competitors, as induced by their node rankings. We compare and validate our results on real-world networks. Our study is aimed to be a reference for selecting a network dismantling method for a given network, considering accuracy requirements and run time constraints.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.