arxiv: 2605.03775 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-05 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph

Recognition: 3 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Rumor Propagation and Supervision during Confrontation: An Importance-Driven SIRQS Network Model

Wenjie Zhang , Juan Wu , Minyu Feng , Qin Li , Matja\v{z} Perc

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 18:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph

keywords rumor propagationSIRQS modelconfrontation mechanismimportance-driven supervisionrandom walkmicroscopic Markov chainsocial network controlrumor stifling

0 comments

The pith

A SIRQS model with vigilant states and confrontation shows supervision subject, supervisor preferences, and direct pushback largely determine rumor control effectiveness.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a framework to capture the ongoing tension between rumor spreading and active suppression on networks rather than treating them separately. It extends the standard SIRS model to SIRQS by adding a vigilant state for individuals under supervision and a confrontation process where supervisors directly influence spreaders. Supervisors move according to random walks prioritized by each node's importance for rumor propagation, focusing effort on high-risk spots. Simulations on networks of different sizes, topologies, and one real-world example find that who receives supervision, how supervisor numbers create preference effects, and the confrontation dynamic itself are the main drivers of successful control. If accurate, these insights point to practical ways to allocate monitoring resources to limit misinformation harm.

Core claim

We extend the classical SIRS model into an SIRQS framework by introducing a vigilant state and a confrontation mechanism to capture subtle differences in individual states during rumor propagation and in their confrontational behavior toward supervisors. Supervisors patrol the network through random walks guided by node propagation importance, enabling targeted monitoring of rumor spreaders and high-risk individuals. Using a microscopic Markov chain approach, we characterize heterogeneous node behavior and couple the propagation and supervision processes to model state transition patterns. Simulations on networks with three different sizes, various topologies, and a real-world network show 1

What carries the argument

The SIRQS framework with vigilant states, confrontation between spreaders and supervisors, and importance-driven random walk supervision, coupled through microscopic Markov chain transitions.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes microscopic Markov chains accurately represent heterogeneous node behaviors and that random-walk supervision guided by propagation importance reflects real monitoring dynamics without empirical validation against actual data.

What would settle it

Track a real rumor outbreak on a documented social network, record the actual number and targeting of supervisors or moderators, then compare the observed final spread fraction against the SIRQS simulation output for matching parameters and network structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03775 by Juan Wu, Matja\v{z} Perc, Minyu Feng, Qin Li, Wenjie Zhang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1 view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2 view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3 view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6 view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The societal impact of rumor spreading is becoming increasingly severe; yet, current research remains relatively one-sided, typically focusing on either rumor propagation or rumor control while neglecting the confrontational and dynamically evolving relationship between them. To address this gap, we propose a novel confrontation framework for rumor modeling. We extend the classical Susceptible-Infected-Recovered-Susceptible (SIRS) model into an Ignorant-Spreader-Stifler-Vigilant-Ignorant (SIRQS) framework by introducing a vigilant state and a confrontation mechanism, thereby capturing subtle differences in individual states during rumor propagation and in their confrontational behavior toward supervisors. At the same time, supervisors patrol the network through random walks guided by node propagation importance, enabling targeted monitoring of rumor spreaders and individuals with a high risk of spreading rumors. Using a microscopic Markov chain approach, we further characterize heterogeneous node behavior and individual differences, and couple the propagation and supervision processes to model node-state transition patterns. We conduct simulations on networks with three different sizes, various topologies, and a real-world network. The results show that the supervision subject, the preference effects associated with the number of supervisors, and the confrontation mechanism are key factors in supervision, and largely determine the effectiveness of rumor propagation control in the simulations, reflecting the substantial influence of these three mechanisms in real-world spreading scenarios. Finally, through multiple evaluation indicators, we provide references for determining the optimal number of supervisors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper adds a vigilant state and confrontation to SIRS rumor models with importance-guided supervision, but real-world claims rest on unvalidated simulations.

read the letter

The main thing here is a new SIRQS framework that adds a vigilant state Q and an explicit confrontation dynamic between spreaders and supervisors. Supervisors move via random walks weighted by node propagation importance, and the whole thing runs as a coupled microscopic Markov chain on heterogeneous networks. They simulate this on graphs of different sizes and topologies plus one real network, then vary supervisor count, targeting preferences, and confrontation rules to see what controls rumor spread in the model outputs. That setup is the actual novelty over plain SIRS extensions. The technical execution looks solid enough for this subfield: the state transitions are defined, the equations are written out, and they track multiple indicators to suggest an optimal supervisor number. The simulations are straightforward and cover the usual network types without obvious coding errors in the description. The soft spot is the leap from those runs to real-world influence. The abstract states that the supervision subject, supervisor-number effects, and confrontation mechanism largely determine control effectiveness and thereby reflect substantial real-world impact. Nothing in the work fits parameters to observed rumor trajectories or checks whether the confrontation rules or importance metric match any empirical spreading data under intervention. All sensitivity results stay inside the model, so the real-world reflection is an inference from internal behavior rather than external test. The transition probabilities and the new Q state and confrontation pieces are free choices that could shift outcomes. This is for researchers who already work on network-based contagion models and want to layer in control mechanisms. A reader outside that niche or looking for actionable misinformation policy would hit the validation gap quickly. The paper is coherent on its own terms and engages the literature directly, so it deserves a serious referee. The model construction and simulation design can be reviewed on technical grounds even if the interpretation needs tightening. I would send it to peer review with a request that the authors address the empirical grounding and limit the real-world language to what the simulations actually support.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces an SIRQS extension of the SIRS model by adding a vigilant (Q) state and an explicit confrontation mechanism between rumor spreaders and supervisors. Supervisors patrol via importance-guided random walks on the network. The authors couple this to a microscopic Markov-chain description of heterogeneous node-state transitions and run simulations on synthetic networks of varying size/topology plus one real-world network. They conclude that the choice of supervision subject, preference effects tied to the number of supervisors, and the confrontation rules are the dominant factors controlling rumor spread in the simulations and therefore exert substantial influence in real-world scenarios; they also use multiple indicators to recommend an optimal supervisor count.

Significance. The work is a timely attempt to model the bidirectional, confrontational coupling between rumor propagation and active supervision, which is underrepresented in the existing literature. The importance-driven random-walk supervision and the explicit Q state add mechanistic detail beyond standard compartmental models. If the internal dynamics prove robust, the simulation results could supply qualitative guidance on intervention design. The credit for running the model across multiple network sizes, topologies, and a real network, together with the use of several evaluation metrics, is noted.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract and concluding section: the claim that the three mechanisms 'largely determine the effectiveness of rumor propagation control in the simulations, reflecting the substantial influence of these three mechanisms in real-world spreading scenarios' is load-bearing for the paper's broader contribution yet rests solely on internal sensitivity analysis. No parameter fitting, trajectory matching, or comparison against any empirical rumor-supervision dataset is presented, so the real-world extrapolation cannot be substantiated from the reported evidence.
[Model definition] Model-definition section (equations for state transitions): the microscopic Markov-chain transition probabilities that encode the confrontation mechanism and the effect of supervisor encounters on the I/S/R/Q states are introduced without explicit derivation or justification. It is therefore impossible to verify whether the rules are consistent with the stated heterogeneous-node assumption or whether they contain hidden parameter dependencies that undermine the 'key factor' attribution.

minor comments (2)

[Results] Simulation results (figures in the results section): error bars, standard deviations across independent runs, or confidence intervals are not reported, making it difficult to judge the statistical reliability of the observed differences in control effectiveness.
[Methods] Notation: the definition of the node-importance metric used to guide the random-walk supervisors is referenced but not given a compact, self-contained expression or table; this obscures reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, with honest assessment of the evidence presented in the paper and clear indications of revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and concluding section: the claim that the three mechanisms 'largely determine the effectiveness of rumor propagation control in the simulations, reflecting the substantial influence of these three mechanisms in real-world spreading scenarios' is load-bearing for the paper's broader contribution yet rests solely on internal sensitivity analysis. No parameter fitting, trajectory matching, or comparison against any empirical rumor-supervision dataset is presented, so the real-world extrapolation cannot be substantiated from the reported evidence.

Authors: We agree that the phrasing in the abstract and conclusion overstates the direct applicability to real-world scenarios. The reported results are derived exclusively from simulation-based sensitivity analysis across synthetic networks of varying size and topology plus one real-world network, without any parameter fitting, trajectory matching, or comparison to empirical rumor-supervision datasets. The model is intended to provide mechanistic insight into the bidirectional coupling between propagation and supervision. We will revise the abstract and concluding section to remove the load-bearing real-world claim, replacing it with language that the identified factors (supervision subject, supervisor-number preferences, and confrontation rules) are dominant within the simulated dynamics and may offer qualitative guidance for intervention design. A new limitations paragraph will be added to the discussion explicitly noting the absence of empirical validation and the need for future data-driven calibration. revision: yes
Referee: [Model definition] Model-definition section (equations for state transitions): the microscopic Markov-chain transition probabilities that encode the confrontation mechanism and the effect of supervisor encounters on the I/S/R/Q states are introduced without explicit derivation or justification. It is therefore impossible to verify whether the rules are consistent with the stated heterogeneous-node assumption or whether they contain hidden parameter dependencies that undermine the 'key factor' attribution.

Authors: The transition probabilities are constructed from the probabilistic encounter rates between nodes and supervisors (governed by importance-driven random walks) together with the state-change rules of the SIRQS confrontation framework. Each probability is intended to reflect node heterogeneity through individual state-dependent rates. We acknowledge that the main text presents the final expressions without a step-by-step derivation, which prevents independent verification of consistency and possible hidden dependencies. In the revised manuscript we will insert an explicit derivation subsection (or appendix) that starts from the encounter probabilities, incorporates the heterogeneous-node assumption, and arrives at each transition probability. We will also tabulate all parameters, state their sources or rationale, and perform a brief sensitivity check to confirm that the attribution of the three key factors remains robust under reasonable variations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward simulation of explicitly defined rules on synthetic and real networks

full rationale

The paper defines the SIRQS state transitions, confrontation rules, and importance-guided random-walk supervision explicitly as model assumptions, then runs forward microscopic Markov-chain simulations on networks of varying size and topology. The reported results (key factors being supervision subject, supervisor-number preference, and confrontation) are direct numerical outputs of those rules; they are not obtained by fitting parameters to a target dataset and then re-predicting the same quantities. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported solely via self-citation to force the outcome. The real-world extrapolation is an interpretive claim outside the derivation chain itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

The model relies on several free parameters for state transitions and supervisor behavior, standard assumptions from network science, and introduces new states and mechanisms without independent empirical validation in the abstract.

free parameters (3)

transition probabilities between states
Rates for ignorant to spreader, spreader to stifler, etc., likely fitted or chosen to match scenarios.
number of supervisors
Varied in simulations to study preference effects.
importance metric for nodes
Defined based on propagation importance, parameters in its calculation.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The network is static and the random walk is memoryless.
Assumed for the supervision patrol mechanism.
standard math Individual state transitions follow Markov property.
Used in the microscopic Markov chain approach.

invented entities (2)

Vigilant state (Q) no independent evidence
purpose: To represent individuals who actively counter rumors.
Introduced to capture subtle differences in confrontational behavior.
Confrontation mechanism no independent evidence
purpose: To model interactions between spreaders and supervisors.
New dynamic added to the propagation process.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5569 in / 1624 out tokens · 68320 ms · 2026-05-08T18:43:08.625373+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith.Cost (Jcost) Jcost_unit0 / cost_alpha_one_eq_jcost unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

c_i(t) = ξ/(1+e^{-d_{i→r}(t)}) ... ĉ_i(t) = min{c_i(t),1}
Foundation.LogicAsFunctionalEquation washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We extend the classical SIRS model into an Ignorant-Spreader-Stifler-Vigilant-Ignorant (SIRQS) framework ... Using a microscopic Markov chain approach
Foundation.DimensionForcing / AlphaCoordinateFixation alpha_pin_under_high_calibration unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

β_c = [μ+ρ*(1−μ)](γ₁+ρ*) / [Λ_max(L)((1−ρ*)γ₁+θρ*)]

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references

[1]

The science of fake news,

D. M. J. Lazer, M. A. Baum, Y. Benkler et al., “The science of fake news,” Science 359, 1094–1096 (2018)

2018
[2]

A study of a rumor: Its origin and spread,

L. Festinger, D. Cartwright, K. Barber et al., “A study of a rumor: Its origin and spread,” Hum. Relat. 1, 464–486 (1948)

1948
[3]

The spread of true and false news online,

S. Vosoughi, D. Roy, and S. Aral, “The spread of true and false news online,” Science 359, 1146–1151 (2018)

2018
[4]

Disinformation as warfare in the digital age: Dimensions, dilemmas, and solutions,

M. A. Horowitz, “Disinformation as warfare in the digital age: Dimensions, dilemmas, and solutions,” J. Vincentian Soc. Action 4, 5 (2019)

2019
[5]

DiFonzo and P

N. DiFonzo and P. Bordia, Rumor Psychology: Social and Organizational Approaches (American Psychological Association, 2007)

2007
[6]

Assessing the risks of ‘infodemics’ in response to COVID-19 epidemics,

R. Gallotti, F. Valle, N. Castaldo et al., “Assessing the risks of ‘infodemics’ in response to COVID-19 epidemics,” Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 1285–1293 (2020)

2020
[7]

Distributed rumor source detection via boosted federated learning,

R. Wang, Y. Zhang, W. Wan et al., “Distributed rumor source detection via boosted federated learning,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 36, 5986–6001 (2024)

2024
[8]

CED: Credible early detection of social media rumors,

C. Song, C. Yang, H. Chen et al., “CED: Credible early detection of social media rumors,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 33, 3035–3047 (2021)

2021
[9]

Social physics,

M. Jusup, P. Holme, K. Kanazawa, M. Takayasu, I. Romic, Z. Wang, S. Gecek, T. Lipic, B. Podobnik, L. Wang, W. Luo, T. Klanjšcek, J. Fan, S. Boccaletti, and M. Perc, “Social physics,” Phys. Rep. 948, 1–148 (2022)

2022
[10]

Complex networks: Structure and dynamics,

S. Boccaletti, V. Latora, Y. Moreno et al., “Complex networks: Structure and dynamics,” Phys. Rep. 424, 175–308 (2006)

2006
[11]

The fundamental advantages of temporal networks,

A. Li, S. P. Cornelius, Y. Y. Liu et al., “The fundamental advantages of temporal networks,” Science 358, 1042–1046 (2017)

2017
[12]

Bursty switching dynamics promotes the collapse of network topologies,

Z. Zeng, M. Feng, M. Perc et al., “Bursty switching dynamics promotes the collapse of network topologies,” Proc. R. Soc. A 481, 2310 (2025)

2025
[13]

Complex network modeling with power-law activating patterns and its evolutionary dynamics,

Z. Zeng, M. Feng, P. Liu et al., “Complex network modeling with power-law activating patterns and its evolutionary dynamics,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.: Syst. 55(4), 2546-2559 (2025)

2025
[14]

Information dynamics in evolving networks based on the birth-death process: Random drift and natural selection perspective,

M. Feng, Z. Zeng, Q. Li et al., “Information dynamics in evolving networks based on the birth-death process: Random drift and natural selection perspective,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.: Syst. 54, 5123–5136 (2024)

2024
[15]

Evolution of cooperation on temporal networks,

A. Li, L. Zhou, Q. Su et al., “Evolution of cooperation on temporal networks,” Nat. Commun. 11, 2259 (2020)

2020
[16]

Detecting the driver nodes of temporal networks,

T. Qin, G. Duan, and A. Li, “Detecting the driver nodes of temporal networks,” New J. Phys. 25, 083031 (2023)

2023
[17]

Dynamics of rumor spreading in complex networks,

Y. Moreno, M. Nekovee, and A. F. Pacheco, “Dynamics of rumor spreading in complex networks,” Phys. Rev. E 69, 066130 (2004)

2004
[18]

Epidemics and rumours,

D. J. Daley and D. G. Kendall, “Epidemics and rumours,” Nature 204, 1118 (1964)

1964
[19]

Dynamical behaviors of a delayed SIR information propagation model with forced silence function and control measures in complex networks,

B. Cao, G. Guan, S. Shen et al., “Dynamical behaviors of a delayed SIR information propagation model with forced silence function and control measures in complex networks,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138, 402 (2023)

2023
[20]

Layered SIRS model of information spread in complex networks,

Y. Zhang and D. Pan, “Layered SIRS model of information spread in complex networks,” Appl. Math. Comput. 411, 126524 (2021)

2021
[21]

SIRaRu rumor spreading model in complex networks,

J. Wang, L. Zhao, and R. Huang, “SIRaRu rumor spreading model in complex networks,” Physica A 398, 43–55 (2014)

2014
[22]

SIHR rumor spreading model in social networks,

L. Zhao, J. Wang, Y. Chen et al., “SIHR rumor spreading model in social networks,” Physica A 391, 2444–2453 (2012)

2012
[23]

Influence and extension of the spiral of silence in social networks: A data-driven approach,

Y. Zhu, Z. Huang, Z. Wang et al., “Influence and extension of the spiral of silence in social networks: A data-driven approach,” in Social Network Based Big Data Analysis and Applications (Springer, 2018), pp. 143–164

2018
[24]

Modeling and analysis of the dynamic mechanism of rumor propagation considering the process of rumor refuting,

X. Li, J. Pan, and Y. Hu, “Modeling and analysis of the dynamic mechanism of rumor propagation considering the process of rumor refuting,” Nonlinear Sci. 3, 100027 (2025)

2025
[25]

An information dissemination model based on the rumor and antirumor and cognitive game,

X. Mou, Y. Xiao, W. He et al., “An information dissemination model based on the rumor and antirumor and cognitive game,” IEEE Trans. Comput. Soc. Syst. 12(5), 2480–2493 (2025)

2025
[26]

Discrete-time Markov chain approach to contact-based disease spreading in complex networks,

S. Gómez, A. Arenas, J. Borge-Holthoefer et al., “Discrete-time Markov chain approach to contact-based disease spreading in complex networks,” Europhys. Lett. 89, 38009 (2010)

2010
[27]

Bifurcation analysis of the microscopic Markov chain approach to contact-based epidemic spreading in networks,

A. Arenas, A. Garijo, S. Gómez et al., “Bifurcation analysis of the microscopic Markov chain approach to contact-based epidemic spreading in networks,” Chaos, Solitons Fractals 166, 112921 (2023)

2023
[28]

Focus on the disruption of networks and system dynamics,

P. Ji, J. Nagler, M. Perc, M. Small, and J. Xiao, “Focus on the disruption of networks and system dynamics,” Chaos 34, 080401 (2024)

2024
[29]

Methods for removing links in a network to minimize the spread of infections,

A. K. Nandi and H. R. Medal, “Methods for removing links in a network to minimize the spread of infections,” Comput. Oper. Res. 69, 10–24 (2016)

2016
[30]

Rumor containment by blocking nodes in social networks,

L. Yang, Z. Ma, Z. Li et al., “Rumor containment by blocking nodes in social networks,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.: Syst. 53, 3990–4002 (2023)

2023
[31]

Temporal rumor blocking in online social networks: A sampling-based approach,

M. A. Manouchehri, M. S. Helfroush, and H. Danyali, “Temporal rumor blocking in online social networks: A sampling-based approach,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.: Syst. 52, 4578–4588 (2022)

2022
[32]

The impact of information dissemination on vaccination in multiplex networks,

X.-J. Li, C. Li, and X. Li, “The impact of information dissemination on vaccination in multiplex networks,” Sci. China Inf. Sci. 65(7), 172202 (2022)

2022
[33]

Cost effective approach to identify multiple influential spreaders based on the cycle structure in networks,

W. Shi, S. Xu, T. Fan et al.,“Cost effective approach to identify multiple influential spreaders based on the cycle structure in networks,” Sci. China Inf. Sci. 66(9), 192203 (2023)

2023
[34]

Efficient rumor suppression with dynamic blocking strategy in social networks,

Q. He, F. Gao, X. Wang et al., “Efficient rumor suppression with dynamic blocking strategy in social networks,” IEEE Trans. Comput. Soc. Syst. 12, 4757 (2025)

2025
[35]

Dynamic analysis of a SIDRW rumor propagation model considering the effect of media reports and rumor refuters,

W. Pan, W. Yan, Y. Hu et al., “Dynamic analysis of a SIDRW rumor propagation model considering the effect of media reports and rumor refuters,” Nonlinear Dyn. 111, 3925–3936 (2023)

2023
[36]

A rumor anti-rumor propagation model based on data enhancement and evolutionary game,

Y. Xiao, W. Li, S. Qiang et al., “A rumor anti-rumor propagation model based on data enhancement and evolutionary game,” IEEE Trans. Emerging Top. Comput. 10, 690–703 (2020)

2020
[37]

Event-based bipartite multi-agent consensus with partial information transmission and communication delays under antagonistic interactions,

L. Li, X. Liu, and W. Huang, “Event-based bipartite multi-agent consensus with partial information transmission and communication delays under antagonistic interactions,” Sci. China Inf. Sci. 63(5), 150204 (2020)

2020
[38]

A rumor dissemination control model based on evolutionary game and multiple user states,

Q. Li, F. Jiang, H. Sun et al., “A rumor dissemination control model based on evolutionary game and multiple user states,” IEEE Trans. Netw. Sci. Eng. 12, 3625 (2025)

2025
[39]

Random walks on complex networks,

J. D. Noh and H. Rieger,“Random walks on complex networks,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 118701 (2004)

2004
[40]

Epidemic modelling: An introduction, by D. J. Daley and J. Gani,

L. Sattenspiel, “Epidemic modelling: An introduction, by D. J. Daley and J. Gani,” Hum. Biol. 72, 903 (2000)

2000
[41]

An epidemic model of rumor diffusion in online social networks,

J.-J. Cheng, Y. Liu, B. Shen et al., “An epidemic model of rumor diffusion in online social networks,” Eur. Phys. J. B 86, 29 (2013)

2013
[42]

SIS rumor spreading model with population dynamics in online social networks,

S. Dong and Y. C. Huang,“SIS rumor spreading model with population dynamics in online social networks,” in 2018 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Signal Processing and Networking (WiSPNET) (IEEE, 2018), pp. 1–5

2018
[43]

Behavioral influences on rumor dynamics: A compartmental model with hesitation, forgetting, and self-remembering mechanisms in complex heterogeneous social networks,

S. A. Polin, Md. N. Hasan, S. Islam et al., “Behavioral influences on rumor dynamics: A compartmental model with hesitation, forgetting, and self-remembering mechanisms in complex heterogeneous social networks,” Chaos, Solitons Fractals 201, 117317 (2025)

2025
[44]

Dynamic analysis and optimal control of rumor propagation model with reporting effect,

W. Pan, W. Yan, and Y. Hu, “Dynamic analysis and optimal control of rumor propagation model with reporting effect,” Adv. Math. Phys. 2022(1), 5503137

2022
[45]

Endogenous dynamics of rumor spreading and debunking considering the influence of attitude: An agent-based modeling approach,

H. Ding, “Endogenous dynamics of rumor spreading and debunking considering the influence of attitude: An agent-based modeling approach,” Inf. Sci. 694, 121721 (2025)

2025
[46]

A flexible sigmoid function of determinate growth,

X. Yin, J. Goudriaan, E. A. Lantinga et al., “A flexible sigmoid function of determinate growth,” Ann. Bot. 91, 361–371 (2003)

2003
[47]

Deterministic and stochastic evolution of rumor propagation model with media coverage and class-age-dependent education,

X. Tong, H. Jiang, X. Chen et al., “Deterministic and stochastic evolution of rumor propagation model with media coverage and class-age-dependent education,” Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 46, 7125–7139 (2023)

2023
[48]

Epidemic thresholds in a heterogenous population with competing strains,

Q. C. Wu, X. C. Fu, and M. Yang, “Epidemic thresholds in a heterogenous population with competing strains,” Chin. Phys. B 20, 046401 (2011)

2011
[49]

Rumor propagation control with anti-rumor mechanism and intermittent control strategies,

X. Zhong, Y. Yang, F. Deng et al., “Rumor propagation control with anti-rumor mechanism and intermittent control strategies,” IEEE Trans. Comput. Soc. Syst. 11, 2397–2409 (2024)

2024
[50]

Mathematical model of the dynamics of rumor propagation,

S. Musa, M. Fori et al., “Mathematical model of the dynamics of rumor propagation,” J. Appl. Math. Phys. 7, 1289 (2019)

2019
[51]

The network data repository with interactive graph analytics and visualization,

R. A. Rossi and N. K. Ahmed, “The network data repository with interactive graph analytics and visualization,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 2015); see https://networkrepository.com

2015
[52]

Emergence of scaling in random networks,

A.-L. Barabási and R. Albert, “Emergence of scaling in random networks,” Science 286(5439), 509–512 (1999)

1999
[53]

Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks,

D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, “Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks,” Nature 393, 440–442 (1998)

1998
[54]

On random graphs I,

P. Erdős and A. Rényi,“On random graphs I,” Publ. Math. Debrecen 6, 290–297 (1959)

1959