Reconstructing Large Scale Production Networks

Ashwin Bhattathiripad; Vipin P Veetil

REVIEW 6 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Reconstructing Large Scale Production Networks

T0 review · 6 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper tries to establish that a country's firm-to-firm production network can be reconstructed from public sectoral-flow and firm-size data well enough to preserve aggregate flows and reproduce the heavy-tailed, low-reciprocity topolog

desk verdict A serious, large-scale reconstruction pipeline whose headline claim—preserving sectoral IO flows—is not enforced by its constraints, with several promised validations missing from the submitted text. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.02362 v3 pith:4HMXE6C3 submitted 2025-12-02 econ.GN cs.SIq-fin.EC

Ashwin Bhattathiripad , Vipin P Veetil This is my paper · ORCID

classification econ.GNcs.SIq-fin.EC

keywords productionnetworksnetworkreconstructioninput-outputtablesfirmsizedistributiongravitymodelMarkovchainminimum-energyweightingsystemicrisk

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that a country's firm-to-firm production network can be reconstructed from two public objects—sectoral input-output flows and the distribution of firm sizes by sector—well enough to reproduce the properties that matter for aggregate shock propagation. The proposed algorithm draws a binary buyer-seller backbone from a sector-aware gravity model, closes it to make the network primitive (irreducible and aperiodic), and then assigns weights by a minimum-energy program that keeps sectoral flows and stationary firm sizes close to the data. The payoff, if the claim is right, is that researchers can run granular impulse-response and systemic-risk simulations on synthetic country-scale networks (millions of firms) without access to confidential firm-level data. The paper demonstrates the pipeline on the United States and several other countries, and reports that the Japanese reconstruction reproduces the heavy-tailed degree regime observed in the true network.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sector-aware logistic-gravity link-probability matrix P: the probability that firm i buys from firm j is x/(1+x) with intensity x = z times lambda_kl times S_kl^kappa times (m_i m_j)^alpha, where S_kl scales the sector-to-sector flow and m_i is normalized firm size. That matrix drives the Bernoulli backbone; a Markov-closure step (adding strongly-connected-component bridges and self-loops) makes the graph irreducible and aperiodic; and a strictly convex quadratic program minimizes total squared edge weights subject to row-stochasticity, support, firm-level and sectoral consistency, and self-loop caps, yielding a unique weight matrix whose stationary distributio

What would settle it

Compare the reconstructed Japanese degree distribution to the observed Japanese network's degree distribution across the full support; if the reconstructed distribution falls outside the concentration bounds implied by the Bernoulli ensemble, the paper's claim that the algorithm reproduces widely reported granular properties would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the unobserved weighted network of buyer-seller relations among every firm in an economy can be reconstructed from aggregate public data while preserving sectoral flows upon aggregation and faithfully reproducing widely reported granular-network properties. On the paper's own terms, the reconstruction is not a guess at individual links but a statistically faithful ensemble: a logistic-gravity probability model converts firm sizes and sectoral flows into link probabilities; Bernoulli draws generate a binary backbone; a Markov-closure step adds a small number of cross-component edges and self-loops so the network has a unique stationary distribution; and a convex mini

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the true distribution of firm sizes inside each published size bin is well approximated by uniform sampling with a $1 billion cap on the largest bin; the paper itself notes the degree tail would change if that cap were larger or the bin were non-uniform.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Because the reconstructed network is irreducible and aperiodic, it has a unique stationary distribution, so impulse-response analyses after firm-level shocks are well-defined and do not depend on arbitrary initial conditions.
National-scale network reconstruction becomes feasible as a routine computation: with sector-wise size binning the pipeline scales essentially linearly in the number of firms, and the authors report building a 5.4-million-firm US network in hours on one workstation.
Failure experiments on the reconstructed US network indicate that neither firm size, degree, nor sectoral position predicts the aggregate loss from a firm's failure, so studying systemic risk requires the full weighted network rather than summary attributes.
Countries that publish only input-output tables and size counts can obtain synthetic firm-level networks for shock-propagation research; the Japanese case offers an out-of-sample check, since no Japanese link data were used in the reconstruction.
Sectoral flows are preserved upon aggregation, so the reconstructed networks can be embedded in existing macroeconomic input-output frameworks without breaking aggregate accounting identities.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper's claims, a reader should treat the reconstructed link set as an ensemble representation rather than as the true buyer-seller relations; firm-specific conclusions would require validation this method does not provide.
Beyond the paper's claims, the steep tail drop near 10^4 connections is, by the authors' own admission, a consequence of the $1 billion cap on the largest size bin, so the true heavy tail is likely longer than the reported reconstruction shows.
Beyond the paper's claims, applying the same pipeline to world input-output tables and country-level size distributions would yield a global firm-level network, enabling cross-border climate and disaster simulations.
The algorithm treats buyers and sellers symmetrically, yet the reconstructed networks show heavier customer tails than supplier tails; testing whether this asymmetry persists across countries would clarify whether it emerges from the sectoral flow structure itself.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know: this is a serious attempt at a hard problem, but the submitted version overclaims in ways that matter. The four-step pipeline—gravity-based link probabilities, Bernoulli backbone, Markov regularization, minimum-energy weighting—is genuinely new as a combination, and running it at 5+ million firms is a real step beyond prior work like Ialongo et al.'s 10^5-firm reconstructions. The writing is clear, the authors acknowledge the arbitrary $1B firm-size cap and its effect on the degree tail, and the bootstrap stability check on the gravity parameters is a nice touch. Credit where due: the method is coherent and the computational scaling story is plausible.

Now the soft spots. The stress-test concern is correct and lands on the paper's central promise. The weighting QP in Section 3.4 constrains firm-level one-step balances and sector size totals, but never constrains the bilateral sector-pair IO matrix. The gravity model shapes the binary support using IO flows, but the weights are free to move money across seller sectors as long as column totals and firm balances are within tolerance. So the introduction's claim that aggregating firm-to-firm flows 'preserves sectoral flows' does not follow from the optimization as written. The paper never validates that the aggregated F_kl matches the BEA table. That is a structural gap, not a tolerance issue.

The abstract promises two things the body does not deliver: the Japanese heavy-tailed degree reproduction and the firm-failure systemic-risk experiments. Neither appears anywhere in the full text. The reported scale is also internally inconsistent—the abstract says 6.5M firms and 340M links, the body says 5.4M and 1.3e8, and the stated density of 2.4e-5 does not match the reported link count for a network of that size. The code repository is announced but explicitly not yet integrated or usable. The stationarity bound in Remark 4 depends on the spectral gap gamma, which is never quantified, and Remark 7 assumes the existence of an exactly money-preserving matrix on the support—a strong assumption that is not tested.

None of this kills the underlying idea. The pipeline is sensible and the Markov regularity contribution is a useful innovation. But the paper as submitted is not ready. It needs a serious referee, not a desk reject, because the method is novel and potentially important. The right path is peer review with the expectation of major revision: add or remove the missing validations, constrain or soften the sectoral-flow claim, fix the numeric inconsistencies, and ship usable code. Who should read it: economists and network scientists working on granular shock propagation, especially those needing synthetic firm-level networks. I'd bring it to a reading group as a case study in claims versus constraints, but I would not cite it in its current form.

Referee Report

6 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a four-step algorithm to reconstruct large, weighted firm-to-firm production networks from publicly available sectoral input-output tables and firm-size-by-sector distributions. It estimates link probabilities with a logistic-gravity model, draws a Bernoulli backbone, enforces irreducibility/aperiodicity through a Markov closure, and assigns weights via a convex minimum-energy QP with firm-level and sectoral balance constraints. The authors reconstruct a US network of several million firms and tens/hundreds of millions of links, compare summary statistics with an observed US sample, and claim that the algorithm preserves sectoral flows upon aggregation and reproduces known granular production-network properties. The abstract also promises a Japanese heavy-tail validation and firm-failure experiments.

Significance. The open-source code release, explicit Markov-regularity step, and the sparsity/binning complexity analysis are real strengths; the concentration remarks in Appendix A provide formal support for working with a single Bernoulli draw. If the sectoral-flow preservation property were actually enforced and the promised validations supplied, this would be a valuable tool for calibrated shock-propagation studies at national scale. However, the manuscript as submitted does not support its central claim as written, and several headline validations announced in the abstract are absent from the body, so the significance cannot yet be assessed at face value.

major comments (6)

[§3.4; Introduction] The QP in §3.4 constrains only sector-level totals ĥ{s}_\ell(W), never the bilateral IO flows IO_{kl}. The gravity model in §3.1 shapes only the binary support through p_{ij}; the weights are otherwise free to distribute money across seller sectors subject to row sums and aggregate sector constraints. Therefore the aggregated matrix F_{kl} = \sum_{i\in k, j\in l} m_i w_{ij} need not reproduce the 24x24 BEA table, and the central assertion in the Introduction and Concluding Remarks that the algorithm 'preserves sectoral flows' is not implied by the optimization. This is a structural gap, not a tolerance issue.
[Abstract; §§5–7] The abstract promises that the Japanese reconstruction, built without link data, reproduces Japan's heavy-tailed degree regime, and that firm-failure experiments show that no simple firm attribute proxies aggregate losses. The body contains no Japan section and no firm-failure simulations; the only validation is the US reconstruction in §5, followed by the factory-level extension in §6. These claims must either be backed by the reported experiments or removed from the abstract.
[§5.2.1, §5.3, Figure 7] Firm sizes are generated by uniform draws within SBA bins with an arbitrary $1B cap on the largest bin. Section 5.3 attributes the steep tail descent in Figure 7 to this cap and explicitly states that the degree distribution would differ if a larger endpoint were used. Since the heavy-tailed degree regime is a headline validation, this untested distributional assumption is load-bearing. The paper should provide sensitivity analyses with alternative caps/within-bin distributions and replace the visual 'not a bad fit' with a formal tail test or power-law fit.
[Abstract; §5.2.2, §5.3] The numerical claims are inconsistent: the abstract reports about 6.5 million firms and 340 million links reconstructed in roughly four hours, while §5.2.2 reports 5.4 million firms and 1.25×10^8 connections, and §5.3 says 'almost 1.3×10^8' directed links. Section 5.2.2 also reports 48 hours of machine time for parameter estimation. These numbers must be reconciled.
[§4, Table 2] Table 2 reports O(N_F) serial complexity for Step 3, but §4 states that the Markov-closure problem is a mixed-integer quadratic program that is NP-hard in general and has no polynomial worst-case bound. The claim that the binned pipeline is 'essentially linear' is therefore not justified for the complete algorithm. The complexity claims need to be qualified with explicit assumptions under which the MILP stage solves in linear time, or the table/text must be revised.
[§3.4, Remark 4] The closeness of the stationary money vector to the empirical size vector is not an independent validation: the firm-level constraints ((W^T m - m)/m)^2 ≤ δ^2 impose one-step balance by construction, and Remark 4's L1 bound is a direct consequence. The paper should present this as a design guarantee built into the algorithm, not as an ex-post empirical check, and should not count it as separate evidence that reconstructed networks match observed stationary firm sizes.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract] The abstract ends mid-sentence with 'and a graphical'; either complete this or delete it.
[Figure 3 caption] Typo: 'paramerter' should be 'parameter'.
[References] The reference to 'Bacilieri and Austudillo-Estevez' contains a misspelling; it should be 'Astudillo-Estevez'.
[§3.1, §3.3] The symbol I_{kl} is used both for the row-stochastic IO matrix (Section 3.1) and for a 0/1 sectoral incidence matrix (Section 3.3). These are different objects; use distinct notation to avoid ambiguity.
[Table 3] The range reported for λ is very broad ('10^{-2} to 2'); with 173 estimated sector multipliers, a full table or a more detailed summary (e.g., quantiles) would help reproducibility.
[§5.3, Table 5] The comparison with the S&P Capital IQ sample would benefit from a fuller description of that sample's industry and size composition, since the reconstructed network is built to match sectoral aggregates and the comparison sample is only 78k nodes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reconstruction is a transparent constrained-fit pipeline, and the headline validations are checked against external data; the sectoral-flow gap is an overclaim, not a circular step.

full rationale

The four steps are a constrained estimation procedure, not a hidden re-statement of outputs as inputs. Section 3.1 estimates (z,α,κ,{λ_kl}) by explicitly matching the expected number of links to n_d and bounding expected sector sizes; Section 3.4 solves a convex QP whose constraints explicitly include the one-step firm balance ((W^T m)_j - m_j)^2/m_j^2 ≤ δ^2 and sector-size deviations |ŝ_l(W)-s_l|/s_l ≤ ε. The paper is transparent that these are constraints, so the resulting W satisfying them is feasibility, not an independent empirical prediction. Remark 4's bound ∥μ-ν∥_1 ≤ δ/γ is a corollary of those same constraints plus the spectral gap; the abstract's 'checked ex post' wording is loose, but the derivation is explicit and not circular. The headline validations are not optimization targets: degree tails, low reciprocity, low clustering, and weak assortativity are not constrained, and Section 5.3 benchmarks them against the external S&P Capital IQ sample (Mandel and Veetil 2025), while the Japan claim is benchmarked against observed network regularities. The self-citations (Mandel and Veetil 2021, 2025; Bhattathiripad and Veetil 2024) are for a design alternative, a data source, and a prior scale comparison, none load-bearing. Two caveats are real but are not circularity: (i) Section 5.3 admits the degree-tail drop between 10^3 and 10^4 is an artifact of the arbitrary $1B top-bin cap, weakening the heavy-tail validation; (ii) the Section 3.4 QP constrains sector size totals only, not the 24×24 pairwise IO flows, so the Introduction's 'preserves sectoral flows' overstates what the algorithm enforces. These are correctness and interpretation gaps, not reductions of a prediction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several fitted parameters (gravity coefficients, balance tolerances) and on unverified modeling assumptions about link-formation and sector-flow proxies. No new physical entities are introduced; the reconstructed networks are synthetic outputs rather than invented entities.

free parameters (9)

z (global density scale) = 0.30
Fit in the NLP to match expected number of links to target n_d.
alpha (firm-size elasticity) = 0.44
Fit in the gravity NLP; controls dependence of link probability on firm sizes.
kappa (sector-flow exponent) = 0.32
Fit in the gravity NLP; controls sensitivity to sectoral IO flows.
lambda_kl (sector-pair multipliers) = 173 values, range 1e-2 to 2
Fit per sector pair with nonzero flow; with z there is a scaling redundancy that is only partially resolved by the optimizer.
delta (firm-level balance tolerance) = 0.10
Hand-set tolerance in the weighting QP; directly controls the claimed stationarity closeness.
epsilon (sector-level size tolerance) = 0.10
Hand-set tolerance in the weighting QP; permits 10% sectoral deviations.
eta1, eta2 (self-weight moment caps) = 0.10, 0.10
Hand-set caps on mean and second moment of self-loop weights.
top firm-size bin endpoint = $1 billion
Arbitrary upper bound for the largest SBA size bin; the paper acknowledges the degree tail changes with this choice.
Markov-closure hyperparameters (theta, eta, gamma_bar, n0) = not reported
Constants in f_eta and g_eta control how many inter-SCC edges are added and how candidate sets are thinned; values are not given.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Sectoral IO flows and SBA firm-size bins accurately represent the economy, and the NAICS-to-SIC concordance does not bias the retained 5.4 million firms.
These are the sole data inputs; roughly 0.9 million firms are dropped because of unmatched sector codes, with no robustness check.
ad hoc to paper Link probabilities follow the logistic-gravity form p = x/(1+x) with x = z * lambda_kl * S_kl^kappa * (m_i m_j)^alpha.
The functional form is assumed without model selection; the entire binary backbone depends on it.
ad hoc to paper The quantity m_i p_ij I_kl is a valid proxy for expected expenditure from firm i to firm j in the gravity estimation.
Weights are assigned only in a later step, so the sectoral constraints mix link probabilities with eventual expenditure shares.
domain assumption An exactly money-preserving matrix exists on the observed support, and the constraint operator in Remark 7 has full row rank on the relevant subspace.
Needed for the Frobenius stability result; not established for the actual US reconstruction.
domain assumption The spectral gap gamma of the reconstructed Markov chain is large enough that the bound ||mu - nu||_1 <= delta/gamma is meaningful with delta = 0.10.
Remark 4's bound is valid for fixed gamma, but gamma is never computed or reported.
standard math The Lindeberg and non-degeneracy conditions used in the CLT remarks are satisfied by the calibrated probability matrix P.
Standard probabilistic assumptions invoked in Remarks 1-3; not empirically verified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconstructing Large Scale Production Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4HMXE6C3

@misc{pith2026251202362,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconstructing Large Scale Production Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4HMXE6C3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.02362}
}

read the original abstract

Firm-to-firm production networks matter for aggregate propagation, but they are rarely observed. This paper reconstructs national-scale, weighted firm-to-firm networks from two public objects: a sectoral input--output table and the distribution of firm sizes by sector. The algorithm first draws a binary buyer-seller backbone from a sector-aware gravity model and then assigns weights by a minimum-energy program. A Markov closure makes the reconstructed network primitive, so it has a unique stationary distribution. The weighting program keeps one-step firm balances and sectoral flows close to the data; the stationary money vector is then checked ex post and remains close in aggregate. For the United States we reconstruct a network with about 6.5 million firms and 340 million links in roughly four hours on a single workstation. We also reconstruct the networks of Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia, Finland, and Denmark. The Japanese reconstruction, built without any link data, reproduces the heavy-tailed degree regime documented in the country's observed production network. The reconstructed networks exhibit customer tails heavier than supplier tails, though the algorithm treats the two sides symmetrically. We also run computational experiments on the reconstructed networks to assess the systemic risk posed by the failure of individual firms. These experiments show that neither firm size nor degree nor sectoral position is a good proxy for the aggregate losses generated by a firm's failure. For such questions, there is no good substitute for the complete weighted buyer-seller network that we reconstruct. We release the reconstruction code, the generated networks, a Python library, and a graphical

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.02362 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Heat-map of the sectoral multiplier parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Distribution of size elasticity paramerter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Distribution of sector score exponent parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Distribution of global scaling parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Distribution of the standard deviation of sector multiplier parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Counter CDF of the degree distribution of reconstructed US production network. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Schematic overview of the reconstruction algorithm. Steps 1–4 produce a weighted, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Synthetic supply networks
econ.GN 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A new pipeline generates synthetic firm-level supply networks that match selected empirical network statistics and aggregate exactly to national input-output tables using only public data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

5 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

More Is Different: Broken Symmetry and the Nature of the Hierarchical Structure of Science

Anderson, P. W.1972. “More Is Different: Broken Symmetry and the Nature of the Hierarchical Structure of Science. ” Science, 177(4047): 393–396. Augusztinovics, M´aria.1965. “A Model of Money-Circulation. ”Economics of Planning, 5(3): 44–57. Institute of Economic Planning, Budapest. Bacilieri, Andrea, and Pablo Austudillo-Estevez.2023. “Reconstructing fir...

arXiv 1972
[3]

Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms

Tarjan, Robert E.1972. “Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. ”SIAM Journal on Computing, 1(2): 146–160. Vece, Marzio Di, Diego Garlaschelli, and Tiziano Squartini.2023. “Reconciling econometrics with continuous maximum entropy network models. ”Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 166: 112958. 49 Weaver, Warren.1948. “Science and Complexity. ”American Sc...

1972
[665]

Climate stress test of the global supply chain network: the case of river floods

European Commission.2023. “Climate stress test of the global supply chain network: the case of river floods. ” Publications Office of the European Union. Gabaix, Xavier.2011. “The Granular Origins of Aggregate Fluctuations. ”Econometrica, 79(3): 733–772. Goltsev, Alexander V., Sergey N. Dorogovtsev, J. G. Oliveira, and Jos´e F. F. Mendes.2012. “Localizati...

arXiv 2023
[803]

Optimization of Collective Reduction Operations

Rabenseifner, Rolf.2004. “Optimization of Collective Reduction Operations. ” Vol. 3036 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, 1–9. Springer. Squartini, Tiziano, Giulio Cimini, Andrea Gabrielli, and Diego Garlaschelli.2017. “Network reconstruction via density sampling. ”Applied Network Science, 2:

2004
[7719]

Augmentation problems

Eswaran, Kapali P., and Robert E. Tarjan.1976. “Augmentation problems. ”SIAM Journal on Computing, 5(4): 653–

1976

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

More Is Different: Broken Symmetry and the Nature of the Hierarchical Structure of Science

Anderson, P. W.1972. “More Is Different: Broken Symmetry and the Nature of the Hierarchical Structure of Science. ” Science, 177(4047): 393–396. Augusztinovics, M´aria.1965. “A Model of Money-Circulation. ”Economics of Planning, 5(3): 44–57. Institute of Economic Planning, Budapest. Bacilieri, Andrea, and Pablo Austudillo-Estevez.2023. “Reconstructing fir...

arXiv 1972

[2] [3]

Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms

Tarjan, Robert E.1972. “Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. ”SIAM Journal on Computing, 1(2): 146–160. Vece, Marzio Di, Diego Garlaschelli, and Tiziano Squartini.2023. “Reconciling econometrics with continuous maximum entropy network models. ”Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 166: 112958. 49 Weaver, Warren.1948. “Science and Complexity. ”American Sc...

1972

[3] [665]

Climate stress test of the global supply chain network: the case of river floods

European Commission.2023. “Climate stress test of the global supply chain network: the case of river floods. ” Publications Office of the European Union. Gabaix, Xavier.2011. “The Granular Origins of Aggregate Fluctuations. ”Econometrica, 79(3): 733–772. Goltsev, Alexander V., Sergey N. Dorogovtsev, J. G. Oliveira, and Jos´e F. F. Mendes.2012. “Localizati...

arXiv 2023

[4] [803]

Optimization of Collective Reduction Operations

Rabenseifner, Rolf.2004. “Optimization of Collective Reduction Operations. ” Vol. 3036 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, 1–9. Springer. Squartini, Tiziano, Giulio Cimini, Andrea Gabrielli, and Diego Garlaschelli.2017. “Network reconstruction via density sampling. ”Applied Network Science, 2:

2004

[5] [7719]

Augmentation problems

Eswaran, Kapali P., and Robert E. Tarjan.1976. “Augmentation problems. ”SIAM Journal on Computing, 5(4): 653–

1976