Robust Network Flow Interdiction Problems with Applications to Counter-Narcotics

Anil Vullikanti; Diksha Gupta; Madhav Marathe

arxiv: 2606.14611 · v2 · pith:6URIOB6Cnew · submitted 2026-06-12 · 💻 cs.CE · cs.SI

Robust Network Flow Interdiction Problems with Applications to Counter-Narcotics

Diksha Gupta , Madhav Marathe , Anil Vullikanti This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 22:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CE cs.SI

keywords network interdictionrobust optimizationcounter-narcoticsflow networksuncertainty modelinginteger programmingensemble simulation

0 comments

The pith

Robust interdiction strategies reduce drug flows consistently across uncertain network scenarios.

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

The paper addresses the challenge of interdicting drug trafficking when network data is limited and uncertain. It generates an ensemble of plausible networks from a small real-world dataset using simulations and optimization. An integer linear program is then solved to find interdiction actions that minimize the worst residual flow over this ensemble. This robust approach delivers near-optimal performance in individual scenarios and remains stable when the network structure varies. Such methods can guide resource allocation for counter-narcotics operations with incomplete information.

Core claim

The central claim is that solving the robust network flow interdiction problem over an ensemble of data-consistent network realizations produces interdiction strategies that achieve near-optimal flow reduction in each realization while exhibiting stability under changes to the network structure.

What carries the argument

The integer linear program formulation of the robust network flow interdiction problem that selects a fixed set of interdictions to optimize performance across the generated ensemble of trafficking networks.

If this is right

Modest interdiction budgets can achieve significant reductions in illicit drug flow.
Optimal interdiction plans for individual scenarios differ substantially, highlighting the need for robustness.
The robust strategy maintains good performance across all scenarios in the ensemble.
This framework enables policy analysis in environments with high structural uncertainty.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Similar ensemble generation techniques might help in other domains with partial network data, such as infrastructure protection.
Improving the ensemble generation could lead to even more reliable robust strategies if additional data sources become available.
Decision makers could test the sensitivity of the robust plan by varying the ensemble generation parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The ensemble of network realizations created from the limited dataset accurately reflects the variety of possible real trafficking networks.

What would settle it

Finding an actual drug trafficking network whose structure leads to substantially higher residual flow under the computed robust strategy than under scenario-specific optima would falsify the practical value of the approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.14611 by Anil Vullikanti, Diksha Gupta, Madhav Marathe.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Summary of our interdiction pipeline under network uncertainty. CCDB dataset for counter-narcotics, as discussed in Section 3). We refer to this as the NETWORKSYNTHESIS problem, and develop a novel approach using techniques from network science and linear programming; by incorporating controlled stochastic perturbations in edges and capacities, our approach produces a distribution of plausible traffickin… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Procedure for generation of ensemble of networks including estimating edge capacities using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: 2. Connectivity repair. To ensure feasibility of flow, we require that every node is reachable from the source and that the sink is reachable from every node. For nodes that violate this condition in Gˆ i = (V,Eˆ i), we iteratively add edges to their nearest neighbors within a radius r until reachability is restored. The radius r is chosen minimally to satisfy this constraint. Additionally, because aggress… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Linear programming (LP) for approximating edge flows from regional flows. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (Top) Distribution of Average Relative Error (ARE) between reconstructed network flows re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: ), but the nodes chosen for interdiction are common [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Distribution of interdicted nodes over the filtered ensemble of networks. (Left) The robust interdiction set is computed across all networks, resulting in binary selection (0 or 1) for each node. (Right) The optimal interdiction set is computed separately for each network, and we report the fraction of networks in which a node is selected at a given budget B. For the filtered ensemble of network synthesize… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Residual Capacity across interdiction decisions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Jaccard Similarity for the optimal set of interdicted nodes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Feature Distribution of interdicted nodes. Comparison of features of all nodes with the mean set of optimal across the ensemble of network as well as robust interdicted nodes. heatmap, indicating high selection frequency across network realizations. We define this core set as nodes that are selected with high frequency across various budgets. Their stability suggests that they correspond to structurally cr… view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Observed and reconstructed regional trafficking capacities. (a) Regional trafficking volumes from the CCDB dataset. (b) Regional inflows reconstructed from synthesized edge flows under the Baseline network configuration. Hatched regions indicate administrative units without CCDB observations, where volumes in (a) were estimated using neighboring-region interpolation. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig… view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Distribution of network properties in the filtered ensemble of networks at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Distribution of robust and optimal interdicted nodes over the filtered ensemble of networks. (Left) Geographic visualization of the mean interdiction occurrence of each node across all budgets and dataconsistent network realizations. (Right) Heat map of interdiction frequency across budgets and networks. The bottom strip shows the mean occurrence of each node across all budgets. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu… view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Feature Distribution of optimal interdicted nodes across the filtered ensemble of networks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Interdiction results for budgets B = 5 and B = 22. We present the optimal interdiction decision for two representative networks from the set of filtered ensemble of networks. Additionally, we also visualize the robust interdiction decision over the entire filtered ensemble of networks. We observe that the set of interdicted nodes varies across the board, making the interdiction dependent on the graph topo… view at source ↗

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Sensitivity analysis of Robust Interdiction to ensemble filtering threshold. We illustrate the fractional residual capacity in the filtered ensemble of networks at η = 0.50, which are referenced by the network index for each of the 230 networks. For each network, we plot the resulting capacity for the robust solution obtained over ensemble of networks filtered at η, given interdiction budget B. The result… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Interdiction problems arise in a number of application areas, including global security, supply chains, and critical infrastructure protection - the goal is inhibit the movement of goods, people or information. An area of particular interest is counter-narcotics, where nodes or edges in a network are placed under surveillance or blocked to minimize the flow of illicit drugs from source to the destination. A fundamental challenge in this narco-traffic interdiction is data scarcity: available datasets are limited by the very nature of the problem and provide only partial and uncertain views of trafficking networks. Thus, developing robust interdiction methods that take this inherent lack of information is critical. In this paper we initiate the study of network flow interdiction problems under network uncertainty. First, using a limited real-world dataset, we generate an ensemble of plausible network realizations representing alternative trafficking scenarios. The method combines simulations with mathematical programming techniques to generate network ensembles that are consistent with the observed data. Second, we formulate the robust network flow interdiction problem and develop an integer linear program to solve the problem. We evaluate the optimal interdiction strategy and obtain the residual flows over the scenarios. Our analysis reveals that even modest budgets can yield significant flow reductions. However, optimal solutions vary substantially across scenarios, motivating the need for robust solutions. We show that the robust strategy achieves near-optimal performance across all near-real world realizations while remaining stable under structural uncertainty. This simulation-driven approach provides a principled basis for policy analysis and supports maximizing the return on interdiction investments in uncertain, data-limited environments.

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

This paper applies existing robust interdiction ideas to counter-narcotics via data-driven ensembles but the abstract supplies almost no technical detail on the ILP or validation.

read the letter

The core contribution is starting the explicit study of network flow interdiction under structural uncertainty in the narco-traffic setting. They take a limited real-world dataset, build an ensemble of plausible networks through simulation plus mathematical programming, then solve a robust interdiction problem as an ILP and compare the robust solution against scenario-specific optima.

What works is the framing: data scarcity is real in this domain, and showing that a single robust plan stays close to optimal across the ensemble while staying stable is a useful operational point. The claim that modest budgets still cut flow substantially is plausible on its face.

The soft spots are more serious. The abstract states the ILP exists and that the robust strategy is near-optimal, yet gives zero formulation, zero objective values, zero gap numbers, and zero description of how the ensemble is actually generated or tested for coverage. Without those, the central claim that the ensemble represents true structural uncertainty cannot be checked. The stress-test concern lands: if the generation procedure already embeds the same assumptions used in the interdiction model, the reported stability is likely inside a closed loop rather than evidence of robustness to unmodeled variation.

This is the kind of applied paper that could matter for policy groups working on interdiction, but only if the methods section actually delivers the missing pieces. A serious referee should see it to check whether the ILP is correctly formulated and whether any external validation of the ensemble exists. I would not cite it yet on the basis of the abstract alone.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper initiates the study of robust network flow interdiction under structural uncertainty for counter-narcotics. Using a limited real-world dataset, it generates an ensemble of plausible network realizations via simulations combined with mathematical programming to ensure consistency with observed data. It then formulates the robust interdiction problem as an integer linear program, solves for the optimal robust strategy, and evaluates residual flows across the ensemble, claiming that modest interdiction budgets yield significant flow reductions, that optimal solutions vary across scenarios, and that the robust strategy achieves near-optimal performance while remaining stable under uncertainty.

Significance. If the central claims hold with proper validation, the work could offer a practical simulation-based framework for policy analysis in data-scarce interdiction settings, extending classical network interdiction models to account for network uncertainty and supporting investment decisions. The combination of real data, ensemble generation, and ILP formulation represents a reasonable technical contribution in the area of robust optimization for security applications.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that an ILP is developed and that the robust strategy achieves near-optimal performance with quantitative claims of flow reductions, yet provides no formulation details, validation metrics, error analysis, or numerical results. This prevents assessment of whether the central claims are supported.
[Abstract (ensemble generation and evaluation)] The central robustness claim requires that the simulation-plus-MP ensemble spans the relevant range of trafficking networks, but the generation procedure is described only as producing realizations 'consistent with the observed data' with no external hold-out validation, comparison to independent observations, or sensitivity results when generation constraints or simulation parameters are altered. This is load-bearing for the claim that performance is stable under structural uncertainty.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Notation for the network, flow, and interdiction variables is not introduced in the abstract, making it difficult to follow the high-level claims without the full formulation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments highlight important aspects of presentation and validation that we will address in revision. Below we respond point-by-point to the major comments.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] The abstract states that an ILP is developed and that the robust strategy achieves near-optimal performance with quantitative claims of flow reductions, yet provides no formulation details, validation metrics, error analysis, or numerical results. This prevents assessment of whether the central claims are supported.

Authors: The abstract is a high-level summary; the complete ILP formulation appears in Section 3, the ensemble generation procedure in Section 4, and all quantitative results (flow reductions, performance gaps, stability metrics) with tables and figures in Section 5. We will revise the abstract to include a small number of key quantitative highlights drawn directly from the experimental results while preserving length constraints. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract (ensemble generation and evaluation)] The central robustness claim requires that the simulation-plus-MP ensemble spans the relevant range of trafficking networks, but the generation procedure is described only as producing realizations 'consistent with the observed data' with no external hold-out validation, comparison to independent observations, or sensitivity results when generation constraints or simulation parameters are altered. This is load-bearing for the claim that performance is stable under structural uncertainty.

Authors: The ensemble is generated by coupling Monte-Carlo simulation with mathematical-programming feasibility constraints that enforce consistency with the observed partial data (Section 4). Because the underlying real-world dataset is limited and no independent observations exist, external hold-out validation or comparison to separate data sources is not possible. We will, however, add a new sensitivity study that systematically varies simulation parameters and MP constraint tightness, recomputes the robust interdiction solution, and reports the resulting variation in residual flows; these results will be included in the revised Section 5 to support the stability claim. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The derivation begins with an external limited real-world dataset, generates an ensemble via simulations and mathematical programming that are constrained to be consistent with the data, then formulates an ILP for the robust interdiction problem and evaluates residual flows and performance on that same ensemble. No step reduces a claimed prediction or result to a fitted parameter or definition taken from the result itself; the ensemble generation and interdiction optimization are distinct operations with no self-definitional loop, no fitted-input-called-prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The central robustness claim is an empirical evaluation on the generated scenarios rather than a tautological re-statement of the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no identifiable free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the ensemble generation and ILP are described at a level too high to extract specific modeling choices or assumptions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5811 in / 1068 out tokens · 37184 ms · 2026-07-02T22:15:28.506712+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references

[1]

Network interdiction models., 1991

Robert L Steinrauf. Network interdiction models., 1991

1991
[2]

Removing arcs from a network.Operations Research, 12(6):934–940, 1964

Richard Wollmer. Removing arcs from a network.Operations Research, 12(6):934–940, 1964

1964
[3]

The network inhibition problem

Cynthia A Phillips. The network inhibition problem. InProceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 776–785, 1993

1993
[4]

A decomposition-based pseudoapproximation algorithm for network flow inhibition

Carl Burch, Robert Carr, et al. A decomposition-based pseudoapproximation algorithm for network flow inhibition. InNetwork Interdiction and Stochastic Integer Programming, pages 51–68. Springer, 2003. 13

2003
[5]

Hardness and approximation for network flow interdiction

Stephen R Chestnut and Rico Zenklusen. Hardness and approximation for network flow interdiction. Networks, 69(4):378–387, 2017

2017
[6]

Network flow interdiction on planar graphs.Discrete Applied Mathematics, 158(13): 1441–1455, 2010

Rico Zenklusen. Network flow interdiction on planar graphs.Discrete Applied Mathematics, 158(13): 1441–1455, 2010

2010
[7]

Interdiction problems on planar graphs.Discrete Applied Mathematics, 198:215–231, 2016

Feng Pan and Aaron Schild. Interdiction problems on planar graphs.Discrete Applied Mathematics, 198:215–231, 2016

2016
[8]

Protection of flows under targeted attacks.Operations Research Letters, 45(1):53–59, 2017

Jannik Matuschke, S Thomas McCormick, et al. Protection of flows under targeted attacks.Operations Research Letters, 45(1):53–59, 2017

2017
[9]

In- terdiction in network maximum flow and related problems: A survey.Computer Science Review, 60: 100867, 2026

Giorgio Ausiello, Lorenzo Balzotti, Paolo Giulio Franciosa, Isabella Lari, and Andrea Ribichini. In- terdiction in network maximum flow and related problems: A survey.Computer Science Review, 60: 100867, 2026

2026
[10]

A survey of network interdiction models and algorithms.European Journal of Operational Research, 283(3):797–811, 2020

J Cole Smith and Yongjia Song. A survey of network interdiction models and algorithms.European Journal of Operational Research, 283(3):797–811, 2020

2020
[11]

Deterministic network interdiction.Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(2): 1–18, 1993

R Kevin Wood. Deterministic network interdiction.Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(2): 1–18, 1993

1993
[12]

Deployed armor protection: the application of a game theoretic model for security at the los angeles international airport

James Pita, Manish Jain, Janusz Marecki, Fernando Ordóñez, Christopher Portway, Milind Tambe, Craig Western, Praveen Paruchuri, and Sarit Kraus. Deployed armor protection: the application of a game theoretic model for security at the los angeles international airport. InProceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiag...

2008
[13]

Iris-a tool for strategic security allocation in transportation networks.AAMAS (Industry Track), pages 37–44, 2009

Jason Tsai, Shyamsunder Rathi, Christopher Kiekintveld, Fernando Ordonez, and Milind Tambe. Iris-a tool for strategic security allocation in transportation networks.AAMAS (Industry Track), pages 37–44, 2009

2009
[14]

Optimal interdiction policy for a flow network.Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 18(1):37–45, 1971

Prabhakar M Ghare, Douglas C Montgomery, and Wayne C Turner. Optimal interdiction policy for a flow network.Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 18(1):37–45, 1971

1971
[15]

Solving the bi-objective maximum-flow network-interdiction problem.INFORMS Journal on Computing, 19(2):175–184, 2007

Johannes O Royset and R Kevin Wood. Solving the bi-objective maximum-flow network-interdiction problem.INFORMS Journal on Computing, 19(2):175–184, 2007

2007
[16]

transit zone

Kendra McSweeney. Reliable drug war data: The consolidated counterdrug database and cocaine interdiction in the “transit zone”.International Journal of Drug Policy, 80:102719, 2020

2020
[17]

Modeling cocaine traffickers and counterdrug inter- diction forces as a complex adaptive system.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (16):7784–7792, 2019

Nicholas R Magliocca, Kendra McSweeney, et al. Modeling cocaine traffickers and counterdrug inter- diction forces as a complex adaptive system.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (16):7784–7792, 2019

2019
[18]

Comparative analysis of illicit supply network structure and operations: Cocaine, wildlife, and sand.Journal of Illicit Economies and Development, 3(1), 2021

NR Magliocca, Aurora Torres, JD Margulies, NH Carter, M Gore, I Arroyo-Quiroz, KM Curtin, TS Easter, A Hübschle, F Massé, et al. Comparative analysis of illicit supply network structure and operations: Cocaine, wildlife, and sand.Journal of Illicit Economies and Development, 3(1), 2021

2021
[19]

How do illicit drugs move across countries? a network analysis of the heroin supply to europe.Journal of Drug Issues, 47(2):217–240, 2017

Luca Giommoni, Alberto Aziani, and Giulia Berlusconi. How do illicit drugs move across countries? a network analysis of the heroin supply to europe.Journal of Drug Issues, 47(2):217–240, 2017. 14 Appendix A Approximating edge capacities using CCDB Dataset: Details & Results Estimating regional volumes from CCDB dataset.The dataset provides drug-traffickin...

2017

[1] [1]

Network interdiction models., 1991

Robert L Steinrauf. Network interdiction models., 1991

1991

[2] [2]

Removing arcs from a network.Operations Research, 12(6):934–940, 1964

Richard Wollmer. Removing arcs from a network.Operations Research, 12(6):934–940, 1964

1964

[3] [3]

The network inhibition problem

Cynthia A Phillips. The network inhibition problem. InProceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 776–785, 1993

1993

[4] [4]

A decomposition-based pseudoapproximation algorithm for network flow inhibition

Carl Burch, Robert Carr, et al. A decomposition-based pseudoapproximation algorithm for network flow inhibition. InNetwork Interdiction and Stochastic Integer Programming, pages 51–68. Springer, 2003. 13

2003

[5] [5]

Hardness and approximation for network flow interdiction

Stephen R Chestnut and Rico Zenklusen. Hardness and approximation for network flow interdiction. Networks, 69(4):378–387, 2017

2017

[6] [6]

Network flow interdiction on planar graphs.Discrete Applied Mathematics, 158(13): 1441–1455, 2010

Rico Zenklusen. Network flow interdiction on planar graphs.Discrete Applied Mathematics, 158(13): 1441–1455, 2010

2010

[7] [7]

Interdiction problems on planar graphs.Discrete Applied Mathematics, 198:215–231, 2016

Feng Pan and Aaron Schild. Interdiction problems on planar graphs.Discrete Applied Mathematics, 198:215–231, 2016

2016

[8] [8]

Protection of flows under targeted attacks.Operations Research Letters, 45(1):53–59, 2017

Jannik Matuschke, S Thomas McCormick, et al. Protection of flows under targeted attacks.Operations Research Letters, 45(1):53–59, 2017

2017

[9] [9]

In- terdiction in network maximum flow and related problems: A survey.Computer Science Review, 60: 100867, 2026

Giorgio Ausiello, Lorenzo Balzotti, Paolo Giulio Franciosa, Isabella Lari, and Andrea Ribichini. In- terdiction in network maximum flow and related problems: A survey.Computer Science Review, 60: 100867, 2026

2026

[10] [10]

A survey of network interdiction models and algorithms.European Journal of Operational Research, 283(3):797–811, 2020

J Cole Smith and Yongjia Song. A survey of network interdiction models and algorithms.European Journal of Operational Research, 283(3):797–811, 2020

2020

[11] [11]

Deterministic network interdiction.Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(2): 1–18, 1993

R Kevin Wood. Deterministic network interdiction.Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(2): 1–18, 1993

1993

[12] [12]

Deployed armor protection: the application of a game theoretic model for security at the los angeles international airport

James Pita, Manish Jain, Janusz Marecki, Fernando Ordóñez, Christopher Portway, Milind Tambe, Craig Western, Praveen Paruchuri, and Sarit Kraus. Deployed armor protection: the application of a game theoretic model for security at the los angeles international airport. InProceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiag...

2008

[13] [13]

Iris-a tool for strategic security allocation in transportation networks.AAMAS (Industry Track), pages 37–44, 2009

Jason Tsai, Shyamsunder Rathi, Christopher Kiekintveld, Fernando Ordonez, and Milind Tambe. Iris-a tool for strategic security allocation in transportation networks.AAMAS (Industry Track), pages 37–44, 2009

2009

[14] [14]

Optimal interdiction policy for a flow network.Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 18(1):37–45, 1971

Prabhakar M Ghare, Douglas C Montgomery, and Wayne C Turner. Optimal interdiction policy for a flow network.Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 18(1):37–45, 1971

1971

[15] [15]

Solving the bi-objective maximum-flow network-interdiction problem.INFORMS Journal on Computing, 19(2):175–184, 2007

Johannes O Royset and R Kevin Wood. Solving the bi-objective maximum-flow network-interdiction problem.INFORMS Journal on Computing, 19(2):175–184, 2007

2007

[16] [16]

transit zone

Kendra McSweeney. Reliable drug war data: The consolidated counterdrug database and cocaine interdiction in the “transit zone”.International Journal of Drug Policy, 80:102719, 2020

2020

[17] [17]

Modeling cocaine traffickers and counterdrug inter- diction forces as a complex adaptive system.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (16):7784–7792, 2019

Nicholas R Magliocca, Kendra McSweeney, et al. Modeling cocaine traffickers and counterdrug inter- diction forces as a complex adaptive system.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (16):7784–7792, 2019

2019

[18] [18]

Comparative analysis of illicit supply network structure and operations: Cocaine, wildlife, and sand.Journal of Illicit Economies and Development, 3(1), 2021

NR Magliocca, Aurora Torres, JD Margulies, NH Carter, M Gore, I Arroyo-Quiroz, KM Curtin, TS Easter, A Hübschle, F Massé, et al. Comparative analysis of illicit supply network structure and operations: Cocaine, wildlife, and sand.Journal of Illicit Economies and Development, 3(1), 2021

2021

[19] [19]

How do illicit drugs move across countries? a network analysis of the heroin supply to europe.Journal of Drug Issues, 47(2):217–240, 2017

Luca Giommoni, Alberto Aziani, and Giulia Berlusconi. How do illicit drugs move across countries? a network analysis of the heroin supply to europe.Journal of Drug Issues, 47(2):217–240, 2017. 14 Appendix A Approximating edge capacities using CCDB Dataset: Details & Results Estimating regional volumes from CCDB dataset.The dataset provides drug-traffickin...

2017