ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2025
Logical interdependencies in infrastructure: What are they, how to identify them, and what do they mean for infrastructure risk analysis?
Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modeling Logical Interdependencies: Quantifying Systemic Risk From Rule-Governed Actions.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2026Article
- Logical interdependencies in infrastructure: What are they, how to identify them, and what do they mean for infrastructure risk analysis?Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A useful theoretical lens that has emerged for understanding urban resilience is the four basic types of interdependencies in critical infrastructures: the physical, geographic, cyber, and logical types. This paper is motivated by a conceptual and methodological limitation-although logical interdependencies (where two infrastructures affect the state of each other via human decisions) are regarded as one of the basic types of interdependencies, the question of how to apply the notion and how to quantify logical relations remains under-explored. To overcome this limitation, this study focuses on institutions (rules), for example, rules and planned tasks guiding human interactions with one another and infrastructure. Such rule-mediated interactions, when linguistically expressed, have a syntactic form that can be translated into a network form. We provide a foundation to delineate these two forms to detect logical interdependence. Specifically, we propose an approach to quantify logical interdependence based on the idea that (1) there are certain network motifs indicating logical relations, (2) such network motifs can be discerned from the network form of rules, and that (3) the higher the frequency of these motifs between two infrastructures, the greater the extent of logical interdependency. We develop a set of such motifs and illustrate their usage using an example. We conclude by suggesting a revision to the original definition of logical interdependence. This rule-focused approach is relevant to understanding human error in risk analysis of socio-technical systems, as human error can be seen as deviations from constraints that lead to accidents.
Indexed as
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.