Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society

Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society / 2017 / Article
Special Issue

Epidemic Processes on Complex Networks

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2017 |Article ID 2836865 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2836865

Xulong Zhang, Chenquan Gan, "Optimal and Nonlinear Dynamic Countermeasure under a Node-Level Model with Nonlinear Infection Rate", Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, vol. 2017, Article ID 2836865, 16 pages, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2836865

Optimal and Nonlinear Dynamic Countermeasure under a Node-Level Model with Nonlinear Infection Rate

Academic Editor: Jose R. C. Piqueira
Received20 Jan 2017
Accepted15 May 2017
Published12 Jun 2017

Abstract

This paper mainly addresses the issue of how to effectively inhibit viral spread by means of dynamic countermeasure. To this end, a controlled node-level model with nonlinear infection and countermeasure rates is established. On this basis, an optimal control problem capturing the dynamic countermeasure is proposed and analyzed. Specifically, the existence of an optimal dynamic countermeasure scheme and the corresponding optimality system are shown theoretically. Finally, some numerical examples are given to illustrate the main results, from which it is found that (1) the proposed optimal strategy can achieve a low level of infections at a low cost and (2) adjusting nonlinear infection and countermeasure rates and tradeoff factor can be conductive to the containment of virus propagation with less cost.

1. Introduction

In order to study the long-term behavior of computer virus and suppress viral spread macroscopically, a large number of dynamical models have been proposed in the past few decades (for the related references, see, e.g., [111]). From the perspective of the division scale of computers on networks, these models can be roughly divided into two categories: compartment-level models and node-level models.

Compartment-level models are those models that regard computers having the same state as an object to study. This work can be traced back to the 1980s. The first compartment-level model is proposed by Kephart and White [1], who followed the suggestions recommended by Cohen [12] and Murray [13]. Since then, multifarious propagation models have been developed (see, e.g., [1422]). It is worth noticing that Zhu et al. [6] proposed the original compartment-level SICS (susceptible-infected-countermeasured-susceptible) model with linear static countermeasure based on the CMC (Countermeasure Competing) strategy presented by Chen and Carley [23]. However, compartment-level models ignore the effect of network eigenvalue on viral spread. Consequently, node-level models are considered.

Node-level models are those models that regard a single computer as an object to investigate. The first node-level model (i.e., SIS (susceptible-infected-susceptible) model) is proposed by Van Mieghem et al. [7]. Since then, Sahneh and Scoglio [8] presented the node-level SAIS (susceptible-alert-infected-susceptible) model, and Yang et al. [9, 10] considered the node-level SLBS (susceptible-latent-breaking-susceptible) and SIRS (susceptible-infected-recovered-susceptible) models, respectively. Very recently, Gan [11] established the node-level SIES (susceptible-infected-external-susceptible) model. Besides, for the other related work about this topic, one can refer to [2428] and the references cited therein.

Inspired by the above-mentioned work and based on the compartment-level SICS model, this paper considers a controlled node-level SICS model. Different from the conventional node-level models, this paper mainly addresses the issue of how to effectively distribute dynamic countermeasure by optimal control strategy (for the related references of optimal models, see, e.g., [2933]). An optimal control problem is proposed and the existence of an optimal control is proved. The corresponding optimality system is also derived. Finally, some numerical examples are made, from which it can be seen that the proposed optimal strategy can achieve a low level of infections at a low cost.

The subsequent materials of this paper are organized as follows. Sections 2 and 3 formulate the controlled node-level model and analyze the optimal control problem, respectively. Numerical examples are provided in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 closes this work.

2. The Controlled Node-Level Model

In this paper, the propagation network of computer virus and countermeasure is represented by a graph with nodes labelled , where each node and edge stand for a computer and a network link, respectively. Thus, the graph can be described by its adjacency matrix , where .

As was treated in the traditional SICS model [6], at any time all nodes in the graph are divided into three groups: -nodes (susceptible nodes are uninfected but have no immunity), -nodes (infected nodes), and -nodes (countermeasured nodes are uninfected and have temporary immunity due to the presence of countermeasures). Let , , and denote the probability of node being susceptible, infected, and countermeasured at time , respectively. Then the vector probabilistically captures the state of the network at time .

For convenience, two important functions, which will be used in the sequel, are defined as follows:Clearly, .where is a controllable rate, , ; and are positive constants, .

Now, a set of probabilistic assumptions on the state transition of node are made (see also Figure 1).(A1)An -node becomes infected at rate .(A2)An - or -node becomes countermeasured at rate .(A3)An -node becomes susceptible at a constant rate .(A4)A -node loses immunity at constant rate .

Let be a very small time interval and be a higher-order infinitesimal. Assumptions (A1)–(A4) imply that the probabilities of state transition of node satisfy the following relations:

Invoking the total probability formulas and letting , the controlled node-level model (i.e., controlled node-level SICS model) can be derived.with initial condition where

The admissible control set iswhere .

3. The Optimal Control Problem

As , , system (5) can be reduced to the following system:with initial condition where

Then system (9) can be written in matrix notation aswith initial condition .

Now, the objective is to find a control variable so as to minimize both the prevalence of infected computers and the total budget for dynamic countermeasure during the time period . That is, the following optimal control problem needs to be solved: subject to system (12), where is the Lagrangian and is a tradeoff factor based on the control effect and control cost of dynamic countermeasure.

3.1. Existence of an Optimal Control

First, a lemma, which plays a critical role afterwards, is introduced.

Lemma 1 (see [34, 35]). We have an optimal control problem subject towith , where is positively invariant for system (15). The problem has an optimal control if the following six conditions hold simultaneously. (C1)There is such that system (15) is solvable.(C2) is convex.(C3) is closed.(C4) is bounded by a linear function in .(C5) is convex on .(C6) for some , , and .

In order to prove the existence of an optimal control, six lemmas, one for each condition in Lemma 1, should be proved.

Lemma 2. There is such that system (9) or (12) is solvable.

Proof. Substituting into system (12), one can get the uncontrolled system: with . Then the function is continuously differentiable, and is positively invariant for the system. Hence, the claimed result follows from the Continuation Theorem for differential equations [36].

Lemma 3. The admissible set is convex.

Proof. Let As is a real vector space, one can obtain Then, the convexity of follows by the observation that Hence, the claimed result follows.

Lemma 4. The admissible set is closed.

Proof. Let be a limit point of and be a sequence of points in such that From the completeness of , one can get Hence, the closeness of follows from the observation that

Lemma 5. is bounded by a linear function in .

Proof. Note that, for system (9) and for , Thus, the claimed result follows.

Lemma 6. is convex on .

Proof. Note that the Hessian matrix of with respect to is as follows:For any , is real symmetric and its eigenvalues are all positive. Then, is positive definite. Hence, the convexity of follows by the result in [37].

Lemma 7. for some , , and .

Proof. Let , , and . Then, . Thus, the proof is complete.

Now, it is time to examine the main result of this subsection.

Theorem 8. The optimal control problem has a solution.

Proof. Lemmas 27 show that the six conditions in Lemma 1 are all met. Hence, the proof is complete.

3.2. The Optimality System

In this subsection, a necessary condition for an optimal control of problem is drawn.

Theorem 9. Suppose is an optimal control for problem and is the solution to system (9) with . Then, there exist functions and , , , such thatwith transversality conditions Furthermore, one can get

Proof. The corresponding Hamiltonian is where , are undetermined, .
According to the Pontryagin Minimum Principle [35], there exist functions and , , , such that Thus, system (26) follows by direct calculations. As the terminal cost is unspecified and the final state is free, the transversality conditions hold. By using the optimality condition one can obtain that, for and for , either or or . Hence, the proof is complete.

By combining the above discussions, one can get the optimality system for problem as follows: with and .

4. Numerical Examples

In this section, the effectiveness of the optimal dynamic countermeasure will be verified by some numerical examples.

For our purpose, three networks are considered: a synthetic small-world network (WS network [38]), a synthetic scale-free network (BA network [39]), and a partial Facebook network [40], with nodes, respectively. The parameters of system (33) are set as , (the value of comes from a report on some real infection probabilities in [41]), , , , , and , , and the initial conditions are set as and , . The optimality system (33) is solved by invoking the backward-forward Euler scheme with step size 0.01. Here we have to point out that some parameter values are chosen hypothetically due to the unavailability of real world data.

Suppose is an optimal control for problem and is a solution to the corresponding controlled system. Let and denote the average control and the proportion of infected nodes under , respectively, where

Example 1. Take a WS network with 150 nodes and 150 links as the propagation network.

Figure 2 exhibits the average control and under different control strategies. Table 1 gives the final proportion of infected nodes and the value of objective function under different control strategies, where the value of static control is an average of several real curing probabilities reported in [42]. From Figure 2 and Table 1, one can conclude that is indeed the optimal control strategy to minimize the objective function and reduce virus prevalence to a low level simultaneously.



0.00890.02830.02310.00720.0053
172.55218.97211.61181.14177.27

Figure 3 demonstrates the average control for different and . From this figure, one can see that (a) enhancing and roughly reduces , (b) the smaller is, the longer stays at , and (c) has a more significant impact on than does.

Figure 4 displays for different and . From this figure, it can be seen that (a) lower favors virus spreading, whereas lower is conducive to the containment of virus prevalence, (b) affects more significantly than does, which implies that dynamic countermeasure plays a dominant role in the suppression of virus diffusion, and (c) linear infection rate overestimates virus prevalence, which is in accordance with the result in [7].

Figure 5 depicts the final proportion of infected nodes and the objective function for varied and . From this figure, it can be seen that is decreasing and increasing with respect to and , respectively, which makes a suggestion that enhancing and diminishing are beneficial to the containment of viral spread and reduce to a low level simultaneously.

Figure 6 shows , , , and for different . From this figure, it is found that decreasing is effective on the suppression of virus propagation and attains a lower simultaneously, although it creates more control cost. This is in good agreement with the fact that when the control effect (i.e., to obtain a low level of infections) is given priority (i.e., with lower ), often the decision is made to spend enough control cost. Hence, the tradeoff factor plays a critical role in the balance between control effect and control cost.

Example 2. Take a BA network with 150 nodes and 150 links as the propagation network.

Figure 7 displays and under different control strategies. Table 2 shows the values of and under different control strategies. Figures 8 and 9 depict and for different and , respectively. Figure 10 demonstrates and for different and . Figure 11 exhibits , , , and for different . From them, one can get the same results in Example 1. So they are omitted here for brevity.



0.01320.02880.02080.01110.0097
169.84219.58202.91185.27185.65

Example 3. Take a partial Facebook network with 150 nodes and 603 links as the propagation network.

Figure 12 shows and under different control strategies. Table 3 gives the values of and under different control strategies. Figures 13 and 14 display and for different and , respectively. Figure 15 demonstrates and for varied and . Figure 16 depicts , , , and for different .



0.00130.05040.00350.00080.0006
61.91373.77112.3183.5386.17

Most of the results concluded from this example are the same as those in Example 1 except the two phenomena listed as follows: (a) higher increases , which is contrary to the results in Figures 3(b) and 8(b), and (b) has a negligible impact on and . This indicates that the network structure, to some extent, determines the control cost and virus diffusion.

Combining the above numerical examples, the main results are listed below.(a) is indeed the optimal control strategy to minimize the objective function and reduce the infections to a low level simultaneously.(b)Linear infection rate overestimates the prevalence of virus.(c)Enhancing and diminishing are conductive to the containment of viral propagation and reduce to a low level simultaneously.(d) has more significant influences on , , and than does.(e)Decreasing the tradeoff factor is beneficial to the suppression of virus spread and obtains a lower simultaneously, although it brings more control cost.

Additionally, the structure of network, to some extent, determines the virus prevalence and the control cost. Thus, we shall investigate how the network topology affects virus spreading and control cost in the next work.

5. Concluding Remarks

This paper has studied the issue of how to work out an optimal dynamic countermeasure for achieving a low level of infections with a low cost. In this regard, a controlled node-level SICS model with nonlinear infection rate has been established. Furthermore, an optimal control problem has been proposed. The existence of an optimal control and the corresponding optimality system have also been derived. Additionally, some numerical examples have been given to illustrate the main results. Specifically, it has been found that the proposed optimal countermeasure scheme can achieve a low level of infections at a low cost.

In our opinions, the next work could be made as follows. First, the quadratic cost functions may be generalized to some generic functions. Second, delays [4345], pulses [46, 47], and random fluctuations [15] may be incorporated to controlled node-level models. Last, but not least, it is worthy to carry out research on the impact of the network topology [9, 25, 48, 49] on the dynamic countermeasure strategy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant nos. 61572006 and 61503307), Science and Technology Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission (Grant nos. KJ1500415, KJ1704080, and KJ1704081), and Doctoral Scientific Research Foundation of Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications (Grant nos. A2015-02 and A2016-10).

References

  1. J. O. Kephart and S. R. White, “Directed-graph epidemiological models of computer viruses,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, pp. 343–359, Oakland, Calif, USA, May 1991. View at: Google Scholar
  2. J. R. C. Piqueira, A. A. de Vasconcelos, C. E. C. J. Gabriel, and V. O. Araujo, “Dynamic models for computer viruses,” Computers and Security, vol. 27, no. 7-8, pp. 355–359, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. B. K. Mishra and S. K. Pandey, “Dynamic model of worms with vertical transmission in computer network,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 217, no. 21, pp. 8438–8446, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  4. C. Gan, X. Yang, W. Liu, Q. Zhu, and X. Zhang, “Propagation of computer virus under human intervention: a dynamical model,” Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, vol. 2012, Article ID 106950, 8 pages, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. L.-X. Yang, X. Yang, L. Wen, and J. Liu, “A novel computer virus propagation model and its dynamics,” International Journal of Computer Mathematics, vol. 89, no. 17, pp. 2307–2314, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  6. Q. Zhu, X. Yang, L.-X. Yang, and X. Zhang, “A mixing propagation model of computer viruses and countermeasures,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 1433–1441, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  7. P. Van Mieghem, J. Omic, and R. Kooij, “Virus spread in networks,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. F. D. Sahneh and C. M. Scoglio, “Optimal information dissemination in epidemic networks,” in Proceedings of the 51st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC '12), pp. 1657–1662, December 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. L.-X. Yang, M. Draief, and X. Yang, “The impact of the network topology on the viral prevalence: a node-based approach,” PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 7, article e0134507, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. L.-X. Yang, M. Draief, and X. Yang, “The optimal dynamic immunization under a controlled heterogeneous node-based SIRS model,” Physica A, vol. 450, pp. 403–415, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  11. C. Gan, “Modeling and analysis of the effect of network eigenvalue on viral spread,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 1727–1733, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  12. F. Cohen, “Computer viruses: theory and experiments,” Computers & Security, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 22–35, 1987. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. W. H. Murray, “The application of epidemiology to computer viruses,” Computers and Security, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 139–145, 1988. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. J. R. Piqueira and V. O. Araujo, “A modified epidemiological model for computer viruses,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 213, no. 2, pp. 355–360, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  15. C. Zhang, Y. Zhao, Y. Wu, and S. Deng, “A stochastic dynamic model of computer viruses,” Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, vol. 2012, Article ID 264874, 16 pages, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  16. J. Amador and J. R. Artalejo, “Stochastic modeling of computer virus spreading with warning signals,” Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol. 350, no. 5, pp. 1112–1138, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  17. Y. Yao, X. Feng, W. Yang, W. Xiang, and F. Gao, “Analysis of a delayed Internet worm propagation model with impulsive quarantine strategy,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Article ID 369360, 18 pages, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  18. C. Gan, X. Yang, W. Liu, and Q. Zhu, “A propagation model of computer virus with nonlinear vaccination probability,” Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 92–100, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  19. L.-X. Yang and X. Yang, “A new epidemic model of computer viruses,” Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1935–1944, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  20. J. Ren, Y. Xu, and J. Liu, “Investigation of dynamics of a virus-antivirus model in complex network,” Physica A, vol. 421, pp. 533–540, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. B. K. Mishra, K. Haldar, and D. N. Sinha, “Impact of information based classification on network epidemics,” Scientific Reports, vol. 6, article 28289, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. J. Ren, J. Liu, and Y. Xu, “Modeling the dynamics of a network-based model of virus attacks on targeted resources,” Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, vol. 31, no. 1-3, pp. 1–10, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  23. L. C. Chen and K. M. Carley, “The impact of countermeasure propagation on the prevalence of computer viruses,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics B Cybernetics, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 823–833, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. Y. Wang, D. Chakrabarti, C. Wang, and C. Faloutsos, “Epidemic spreading in real networks: an eigenvalue viewpoint,” in Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS '03), pp. 25–34, Florence, Italy, October 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. M. Youssef and C. Scoglio, “An individual-based approach to SIR epidemics in contact networks,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 283, no. 1, pp. 136–144, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  26. Y. Lin, J. C. S. Lui, K. Jung, and S. Lim, “Modelling multi-state diffusion process in complex networks: theory and applications,” Journal of Complex Networks, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 431–459, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. C. Nowzari, V. M. Preciado, and G. J. Pappas, “Stability analysis of generalized epidemic models over directed networks,” in Proceedings of the 2014 53rd IEEE Annual Conference on Decision and Control, CDC 2014, pp. 6197–6202, December 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. R. Pastor-Satorras, C. Castellano, P. Van Mieghem, and A. Vespignani, “Epidemic processes in complex networks,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 925–979, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  29. Q. Zhu, X. Yang, L.-X. Yang, and C. Zhang, “Optimal control of computer virus under a delayed model,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 218, no. 23, pp. 11613–11619, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  30. L. Chen, K. Hattaf, and J. Sun, “Optimal control of a delayed SLBS computer virus model,” Physica A, vol. 427, pp. 244–250, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  31. L.-X. Yang, M. Draief, and X. Yang, “The optimal dynamic immunization under a controlled heterogeneous node-based {SIRS} model,” Physica A. Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 450, pp. 403–415, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  32. C. Zhang and H. Huang, “Optimal control strategy for a novel computer virus propagation model on scale-free networks,” Physica A, vol. 451, pp. 251–265, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  33. C. Gan, M. Yang, Z. Zhang, and W. Liu, “Global dynamics and optimal control of a viral infection model with generic nonlinear infection rate,” Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, Article ID 7571017, 9 pages, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  34. M. I. Kamien and N. L. Schwartz, Dynamic Optimization: The Calculus of Variations and Optimal Control in Economics and Management, Elsevier Science, The Netherlands, 2000.
  35. D. Liberzon, Calculus of Variations and Optimal Control Theory: A Concise Introduction, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 2012. View at: MathSciNet
  36. R. C. Robinson, An Introduction to Dynamical Systems: Continuous and Discrete, Prentice Hall, New York, NY, USA, 2004. View at: MathSciNet
  37. R. T. Rockafellar, Convex Analysis, Princeton Mathematical Series, No. 28, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 1970. View at: MathSciNet
  38. D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, “Collective dynamics of "small-world" networks,” Nature, vol. 393, no. 6684, pp. 440–442, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. A.-L. Barabási and R. Albert, “Emergence of scaling in random networks,” Science, vol. 286, no. 5439, pp. 509–512, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  40. http://snap.stanford.edu/data/egonets-Facebook.html.
  41. http://green.wangminjie.cn/newsinfo-136730.html.
  42. http://pcedu.pconline.com.cn/pingce/pingcesystem/1109/2527365_all.html.
  43. B. K. Mishra and D. K. Saini, “SEIRS epidemic model with delay for transmission of malicious objects in computer network,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 188, no. 2, pp. 1476–1482, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  44. Y. Yao, X.-w. Xie, H. Guo, G. Yu, F.-X. Gao, and X.-j. Tong, “Hopf bifurcation in an Internet worm propagation model with time delay in quarantine,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 57, no. 11-12, pp. 2635–2646, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  45. J. Ren and Y. Xu, “Stability and bifurcation of a computer virus propagation model with delay and incomplete antivirus ability,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Article ID 475934, 9 pages, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  46. Y. Yao, L. Guo, H. Guo, G. Yu, F. Gao, and X. Tong, “Pulse quarantine strategy of internet worm propagation: modeling and analysis,” Computers and Electrical Engineering, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 1047–1061, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. L.-X. Yang and X. Yang, “The pulse treatment of computer viruses: a modeling study,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 1379–1393, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  48. C. Gan, X. Yang, W. Liu, Q. Zhu, J. Jin, and L. He, “Propagation of computer virus both across the Internet and external computers: a complex-network approach,” Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 2785–2792, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
  49. Y. Yang, G. Xie, and J. Xie, “Mining important nodes in directed weighted complex networks,” Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, vol. 2017, Article ID 9741824, 7 pages, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet

Copyright © 2017 Xulong Zhang and Chenquan Gan. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views556
Downloads501
Citations

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.