Spatial network, Theory and applications - Marc Barthelemy II

Lake Como 2016

Spatial network Theory and applications

Marc Barthelemy

CEA, Institut de Physique Théorique, Saclay, France EHESS, Centre d’Analyse et de Mathématiques sociales, Paris, France

marc.barthelemy@cea.fr http://www.quanturb.com

Lake Como 2016

Outline

n  I. Introduction: space and networks

n  II. Tools q  Irrelevant tools q  Interesting tools

n  Typology (street patterns) n  Simplicity n  Time evolution (Streets, subway)

n  III. Some models q  “Standard” models

n  Random geometric graph, tessellations n  Optimal networks

q  “Non-standard” n  Road networks

q  Scaling theory n  Subway and railways

Lake Como 2016

Models of spatial networks

n  Large classes of ‘standard’ models

q  0. Tessellations

q  1. Geometric graphs (i and j connected if distance < threshold)

q  2. Spatial generalization of ER networks (hidden variables, Waxman)

q  3. Spatial generalization of small-world (Watts-Strogatz) networks

q  4. Spatial growing networks (Barabasi-Albert)

q  6. Optimization (global and local)

Lake Como 2016

Some classical models Could be useful null models

Lake Como 2016

Importance of models n  Choose the null model wisely

n  Needs to satisfy constraints and should be ‘reasonable’

n  MST, Voronoi tessellation, etc. Planar Erdos-Renyi ? (Masucci et al, EPJ B 2009)

Lake Como 2016

Voronoi-Poisson tessellation

n  Take N points randomly distributed

n  Construct the Voronoi tessellation

V (i) = {x|d(x, xi) < d(x, xj), 8j 6= j}

Lake Como 2016

Voronoi-Poisson tessellation

n  Spatial dominance (Okabe): local centers

(1,20)

(2,18)

(3,15)

(4,3)

(5,7)

(6,11)

(7,1)

(8,16) (9,3) (10,15)

(11,5) (12,3)

(13,6)(14,12)

(15,2)

Lake Como 2016

Voronoi-Poisson tessellation

n  Spatial dominance (Okabe): local centers

(1,20)

(2,18)

(8,16)

Lake Como 2016

Voronoi-Poisson tessellation

n  Spatial dominance (Okabe)

1

2 8

Lake Como 2016

Incidentally: census of planar graphs

n  BDG bijection between a rooted map and a tree (Bouttier, Di Francesco, Guitter, Electron J Combin, 2009) n  Approximate tree representation of a weighted planar map (Mileyko et al, PLoS One, 2012 Katifori et al, PLoS One 2012)

Lake Como 2016

Random geometric graphs

n  i and j connected if d(i,j)<R

n  Large mathematical literature

n  Continuum percolation: existence of a threshold

n  Renewed interest: wireless ad hoc networks

q  Existence of a giant component ?

Lake Como 2016

Random geometric graphs

Dall Christensen 2002

Lake Como 2016

Spatial generalization of Erdos-Renyi

n  Erdos-Renyi random graph (1959)

n  Spatial generalization

n  Example the fitness model (Caldarelli et al, 2002)

F (x, y) = ✓(x+ y � z)

P (x) = e�x

) P (k) ⇠ 1

k2

Lake Como 2016

Spatial small-worlds

n  Watts-Strogatz model (1998)

n  Spatial generalization

Lake Como 2016

Spatial small-worlds

n  Kleinberg’s result on navigability (Nature 2000)

Lake Como 2016

Growth models

Lake Como 2016

Models for growing scale-free graphs

§  Barabási and Albert, 1999: growth + preferential attachment

§  Generalizations and variations: Non-linear preferential attachment : Π(k) ~ kα

Initial attractiveness : Π(k) ~ A+kα

Fitness model: Π(k) ~ ηiki Inclusion of space

Redner et al. 2000, Mendes et al. 2000, Albert et al. 2000, Dorogovtsev et al. 2001, Bianconi et al. 2001, MB 2003, etc...

Lake Como 2016

A model with spatial effects

•  Growing network: addition of nodes + distance

with:

Many other models possible, but essentially one parameter η=d0/L : Effect of space

Interplay traffic-distance

Lake Como 2016

Optimal networks

Lake Como 2016

Optimal network design: hub-and-spoke

n  Point-to-point vs. Hub-and-Spoke

…See paper by Morton O’Kelly

Lake Como 2016

Optimal network design: general theory

n  Optimal network design: minimize the total cost (usually for a fixed number of links)

Cost per user on edge e

Traffic on e on a given network

Global optimization: simple cases

Shortest path tree (SPT)

Global optimization: simple cases

Euclidean minimum spanning tree (MST)

Important null model: provides connection to all nodes at a minimal cost Average longest link (Penrose,97)

M ⇠

slog ⇢

⇢

“Xmas” tree

Global optimization: simple cases

Optimal traffic tree (OTT)

Network which minimizes the weighted shortest Path

Global optimization: simple cases

Global optimization

n  Resilience to attacks to fluctuating load Minimize the total dissipation (total cost fixed):

where Pe is the total power dissipation when Edge e is cut

Corson, PRL 2010 Katifori, Szollosi, Magnasco, PRL 2010

R =X

e

P e

P e =X

e0 6=e

C(e0)(V (i)� V (j))2(Istem = N

Ii 6=stem = �1X

e

C(e)� = 1

Lake Como 2016

Optimization and growth

Local optimization

n  Global optimization not very satisfying: limited time horizon of urban planners; growing, out-of-equilibrium, self-organizing cities

n  However, locally, it is reasonable to assume that cost minimization prevails

Lake Como 2016

§  Growing Networks+optimization: Fabrikant model §  A new node i is added to the network such that

is minimum. - large: EMST - small: star network

Optimization and growth

Fabrikant et al, 2002

Lake Como 2016

§  Growing Networks+optimization

Optimization and growth

Gastner and Newman, 2006

Lake Como 2016

n  Centers (homes, businesses, …) need to be connected to the road network

n  When a new center appears: how does the road grow to connect to it ?

A simple model for the road/streets network

n  We assume that the existing network creates a ‘potential’ V(x)

n  Two main parameters: “freedom” and “wealth” (number of connections)

P (x) ⇠ e��V (x)

Lake Como 2016

A (very) simple model

n  Algorithm

q  (0) Generate initial seed of a few centers connected by roads

q  (1) Generate a center in the plane with proba P(x)

q  (2) Grow the n (n depends on the wealth) roads from the center to the existing network

q  (3) back to (1)until N centers

MB and Flammini 2008, 2009; Courtat et al, 2010

Lake Como 2016

A (very) simple model

MB and Flammini 2008, 2009

Lake Como 2016

Illustration: presence of an obstacle

MB and Flammini 2008, 2009

Lake Como 2016

A simple model: Problem of the area distribution

q  Empirically: the density decreases with the distance to the center (Clark 1951) => Generate centers with exponential distribution

Surprisingly good agreement ! MB and Flammini 2008, 2009

Lake Como 2016

n  The new centers are not uniformly distributed: economical factors

Co-evolution of the network and centers

q  Choice of location (for a new home, business,…):

depends on many factors. q  We can focus on two factors: rent and transportation

costs n  Rent price increases with density n  Centrality

q  Very simplified model, but gives some hints about possible more complex and realistic models

P (x) ⇠ e��V (x)V (x) = Y � CR(x)� CT (x)

/ ⇢(x)� �g(x)

Lake Como 2016

Co-evolution of the network and centers n  Competition renting price- centrality

Most important:rent Most important:centrality

Lake Como 2016

A simple model for the road/streets network

A large variety of patterns (Courtat et al, 2010)

Lake Como 2016

A simple model

n  Local optimization seems to reproduce important features of the road network

n  Points to the possible existence of a common principle for transportation networks

n  Simple economical ingredients lead to interesting

patterns

Lake Como 2016

Cost-benefit analysis of growth

Lake Como 2016

Railway growth model

n  Add a new link of length which maximizes

where

n  Crossover from a ‘star-network’ ( small) to a minimun spanning tree ( large)

n  Emergence of hierarchical networks

Tij = KPiPj

daij

Lake Como 2016

Railway growth model n  Crossover from a ‘star-network’ ( small) to a minimun

spanning tree ( large)

n  Emergence of hierarchical networks n  Most empirical networks display: where is

obtained for Benefit≈Cost

�⇤

Lake Como 2016

Spatial network growth model

n  Most networks in developed countries are in the regime where the average detour index is minimum (due to the

largest variety of link length)

� ⇠ �⇤

Lake Como 2016

Scaling for transportation systems

How are network quantities related to socio-economical factors ?

Lake Como 2016

Scaling

n  Network properties - Total length L - Number Ns of stations - Ridership R (per year)

n  Socio-economical quantities

- GDP G (or GMP for urban areas) - Population P - Area A

n  Difference subway-railway

- subway: urban area scale - Railway: country scale

Lake Como 2016

Scaling – general framework

n  Iterative growth: add a link e such that

is maximum n  In the `steady-state’ regime: operating costs are

balanced by benefits

Z(e) = B(e)� C(e)

Z =X

e

Z(e) ⇡ 0

Lake Como 2016

Scaling – Subways

n  Benefit: R (total ridership per unit time); f ticket price n  Costs: per unit length (and time) for lines; and per unit

time and per station.

n  Estimate of R ? For a given station i, we have where the “coverage” is

Zsub = Rf � ✏LL� ✏sNs

Ri = ⇠iCi⇢

Ci ⇡ ⇡d20

Lake Como 2016

Scaling – Subways

n  We then obtain

n  Linear fit gives d0≈500meters

R ⇡ ⇠⇡d20⇢Ns

Lake Como 2016

Scaling – Subways

n  Estimate of d0:

where the average inter-station distance is n  Interstation distance constant ! (138 cities)

2d0 ⇡ `1`1 =

L

Ns

`1 ⇡ 1.2km

Lake Como 2016

Scaling – Subways

Ns /G

✏s

n  Relation with the economics of the city

where G is the GMP (Gross Metropolitan Product) n  Large fluctuations…

Lake Como 2016

n  The railway connects cities distributed in the country n  The intercity distance is

where A is the area of the country. n  The total length is

Scaling – The railway case

` =

rA

Ns

L = Ns` ⇠pANs

Lake Como 2016

Scaling – The railway case

L = Ns` ⇠pANs

n  A power law fit gives an exponent ≈0.5

Lake Como 2016

n  For railways we write

n  T is the total distance travelled is the relevant quantity (not R)

n  fL ticket price per unit distance

n  In the steady-state regime and assuming

Scaling – The railway case

Ztrain ' TfL � ✏LL

T ⇠ R`

R ⇠ ✏LNs

fL

Lake Como 2016

Scaling – The railway case

R ⇠ ✏LNs

fL

n  Large fluctuations…

Lake Como 2016

n  Relation with the economics of the city

where G is the GMP (for railways Cost(lines)>>Cost(stations)) n  There is some dispersion. Importance of local specifics.

Scaling – Railways

L / G

✏L

Lake Como 2016

n  A simple framework allows to relate the properties of the networks (R, L, Ns) to socio-economical quantities such as G, P, A.

n  These indicators allow to understand the main properties. Fluctuations are present and might be understood, elaborating on this simple framework

n  Fundamental difference subway-railway - The interstation distance is imposed by human constraints in the subway case - Railways: the network has to adapt to the spatial distribution of cities

Scaling – Railways

Lake Como 2016

Discussion

n  Few models of (realistic) planar graphs

n  Even for the evolution of spatial networks

n  Interesting direction: socio-economical indicators and network properties…

Lake Como 2016

Thank you for your attention. (Former and current) Students and Postdocs:

Giulia Carra (PhD student) Riccardo Gallotti (Postdoc) Thomas Louail (Postdoc) Remi Louf (PhD student) R. Morris (Postdoc)

Collaborators:

A. Arenas M. Batty A. Bazzani H. Berestycki G. Bianconi P. Bordin M. Breuillé S. Dobson M. Fosgerau M. Gribaudi J. Le Gallo J. Gleeson P. Jensen M. Kivela M. Lenormand Y. Moreno I. Mulalic JP. Nadal V. Nicosia V. Latora J. Perret S. Porta MA. Porter JJ. Ramasco S. Rambaldi C. Roth M. San Miguel S. Shay E. Strano MP. Viana

Mathematicians, computer scientists (27%)!Geographers, urbanists, GIS experts, historian (27%)!Economists (13%)!Physicists (33%)!!

http://www.quanturb.com marc.barthelemy@cea.fr