Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Overall research workflow of this paper.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

An example of the cascading failure propagation process.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Schematic of the cascading failure process.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Flowchart of critical nodes identification process.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 1.

Statistical summary of USAir97.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 5.

Basic topological information with centrality measures.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 2.

Total variance explained.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

The performance evaluation results: Cohen’s d, Inference time and Spearman correlation.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 6.

Performance evaluation on critical node identification.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Changes in evaluation metrics of the GraphSAGE model under β -ablation experiments.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Targeted vs. Random Attacks: GraphSAGE versus baseline methods.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Comparing GraphSAGE to baseline methods for node ranking.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Table 4.

Changes in evaluation metrics of the GraphSAGE model: comparison of input feature vectors before and after PCA ablation.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 10.

Sensitivity analysis of resilience metric weights.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Effect of β on cascade failure ratio and network resilience.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Targeted β tuning for improved resilience at critical nodes.

More »

Fig 12 Expand