Funny & Jokes


of 41
Related Documents
  International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, Vol. 17, No. 7 (2007) 2215–2255c   World Scientiﬁc Publishing Company OPTIMAL PATH AND MINIMAL SPANNINGTREES IN RANDOM WEIGHTED NETWORKS LIDIA A. BRAUNSTEIN ∗ , † , ZHENHUA WU † , YIPING CHEN † ,SERGEY V. BULDYREV † , ‡ , TOMER KALISKY § ,SAMEET SREENIVASAN † , REUVEN COHEN § , ¶ ,EDUARDO L´OPEZ † , ∗∗ , SHLOMO HAVLIN † , § andH. EUGENE STANLEY †∗ Departamento de F´ısica,Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales,Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata,Funes 3350, 7600 Mar del Plata, Argentina  † Center for Polymer Studies, Boston University,Boston, MA 02215, USA ‡ Department of Physics Yeshiva University,500 West 185th Street Room 1112, NY 10033, USA § Minerva Center and Department of Physics,Bar-Ilan University, 52900 Ramat-Gan, Israel  ¶ Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA ∗∗ Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory,Mail Stop B258, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA ∗  Received May 20, 2006; Revised September 22, 2006 We review results on the scaling of the optimal path length  ℓ opt  in random networks withweighted links or nodes. We refer to such networks as “weighted” or “disordered” networks.The optimal path is the path with minimum sum of the weights. In strong disorder, where themaximal weight along the path dominates the sum, we ﬁnd that  ℓ opt  increases dramaticallycompared to the known small-world result for the minimum distance  ℓ min  ∼  log N  , where  N  is the number of nodes. For Erd˝os–R´enyi (ER) networks  ℓ opt  ∼ N  1 / 3 , while for scale free (SF)networks, with degree distribution  P  ( k )  ∼  k − λ , we ﬁnd that  ℓ opt  scales as  N  ( λ − 3) / ( λ − 1) for3  < λ <  4 and as  N  1 / 3 for  λ ≥ 4. Thus, for these networks, the small-world nature is destroyed.For 2  < λ <  3 in contrary, our numerical results suggest that  ℓ opt  scales as ln λ − 1 N  , representingstill a small world. We also ﬁnd numerically that for weak disorder  ℓ opt  ∼  ln N   for ER modelsas well as for SF networks. We also review the transition between the strong and weak disorderregimes in the scaling properties of   ℓ opt  for ER and SF networks and for a general distributionof weights  τ  ,  P  ( τ  ). For a weight distribution of the form  P  ( τ  ) = 1 / ( aτ  ) with ( τ  min  < τ < τ  max )and  a  = ln τ  max /τ  min , we ﬁnd that there is a crossover network size  N  ∗  =  N  ∗ ( a ) at which thetransition occurs. For  N   ≪  N  ∗  the scaling behavior of   ℓ opt  is in the strong disorder regime,while for  N   ≫  N  ∗  the scaling behavior is in the weak disorder regime. The value of   N  ∗  canbe determined from the expression  ℓ ∞ ( N  ∗ ) =  ap c , where  ℓ ∞  is the optimal path length in thelimit of strong disorder,  A  ≡  ap c  → ∞  and  p c  is the percolation threshold of the network. Wesuggest that for any  P  ( τ  ) the distribution of optimal path lengths has a universal form which iscontrolled by the scaling parameter  Z   =  ℓ ∞ /A  where  A ≡  p c τ  c /   τ  c 0  τP  ( τ  ) dτ   plays the role of the 2215  2216  L. A. Braunstein et al. disorder strength and  τ  c  is deﬁned by   τ  c 0  P  ( τ  ) dτ   =  p c . In case  P  ( τ  ) ∼ 1 / ( aτ  ), the equation for A  is reduced to  A  =  ap c . The relation for  A  is derived analytically and supported by numericalsimulations for Erd˝os–R´enyi and scale-free graphs. We also determine which form of   P  ( τ  ) canlead to strong disorder  A →∞ . We then study the minimum spanning tree (MST), which is thesubset of links of the network connecting all nodes of the network such that it minimizes thesum of their weights. We show that the minimum spanning tree (MST) in the strong disorderlimit is composed of percolation clusters, which we regard as “super-nodes”, interconnectedby a scale-free tree. The MST is also considered to be the skeleton of the network where themain transport occurs. We furthermore show that the MST can be partitioned into two distinctcomponents, having signiﬁcantly diﬀerent transport properties, characterized by centrality —number of times a node (or link) is used by transport paths. One component the  superhighways  ,for which the nodes (or links) with high centrality dominate, corresponds to the largest clusterat the percolation threshold (incipient inﬁnite percolation cluster) which is a subset of the MST.The other component,  roads  , includes the remaining nodes, low centrality nodes dominate. Weﬁnd also that the distribution of the centrality for the incipient inﬁnite percolation clustersatisﬁes a power law, with an exponent smaller than that for the entire MST. We demonstratethe signiﬁcance identifying the superhighways by showing that one can improve signiﬁcantly theglobal transport by improving a very small fraction of the network, the superhighways. Keywords  : Minimum spanning tree; percolation; scale-free; optimization. 1. Introduction Recently much attention has been focused onthe topic of complex networks which characterizemany biological, social, and communication sys-tems [Albert & Barab´asi, 2002; Mendes  et al. , 2003;Pastor-Satorras & Vespignani, 2004]. The networksare represented by nodes associated to individu-als, organizations, or computers and by links rep-resenting their interactions. The classical model forrandom networks is the Erd˝os–R´enyi (ER) model[Erd˝os & R´enyi, 1959, 1960; Bollobas, 1985]. Animportant quantity characterizing networks is theaverage distance (minimal hopping)  ℓ min  betweentwo nodes in the network of total  N   nodes. Forthe Erd˝os–R´enyi network  ℓ min  scales as ln N   [Bol-lobas, 1985], which leads to the concept of “smallworlds” or “six degrees of separation”. For scale-free(SF) [Albert & Barab´asi, 2002] networks  ℓ min  scalesas lnln N  , this leads to the concept of ultra smallworlds [Cohen  et al. , 2002; Mendes  et al. , 2003].In most studies, all links in the network areregarded as identical and thus a crucial parame-ter for information ﬂow including eﬃcient routing,searching and transport is  ℓ min . In practice, how-ever, the weights (e.g. the quality or cost) of linksare usually not equal [Barrat  et al. , 2004; Boccaletti et al. , 2006].Thus the length of the optimal path  ℓ opt , min-imizing the sum of weights, is usually longer than ℓ min . For example, the cost could be the timerequired to transit the link. There are often manytraﬃc routes from site A to site B with a set of transit time  τ  i , associated with each link along thepath. The fastest (optimal) path is the one for which  i τ  i  is a minimum, and often the optimal pathhas more links than the shortest path. In manycases, the selection of the path is controlled by mostof the weights (e.g. total cost) contributing to thesum. This case corresponds to weak disorder (WD).However, in other cases, for example when the dis-tribution of disorder is very broad a  single   weightdominates the sum. This situation — in which onelink controls the selection of the path — is calledthe strong disorder limit (SD).For a recent quantitative criterion for SD andWD, see [Chen  et al. , 2006] and Sec. 4.2 in thisarticle.The strong disorder is relevant e.g. for com-puter and traﬃc networks, since the slowest link incommunication networks determines the connectionspeed. An example for SD is when a transmissionat a constant high rate is needed (e.g. in broadcast-ing video records over the Internet). In this casethe narrowest band link in the path between thetransmitter and receiver controls the rate of trans-mission. This limit is also called the “ultrametric”limit and we refer to the optimal path in this limitas the min-max path.  Optimal Path and Minimal Spanning Trees in Random Weighted Networks   2217 The SD limit is also related to the minimalspanning tree which includes all optimal pathsbetween all pairs of sites in the network. The disor-der on a network is usually implemented from a dis-tribution  P  ( τ  )  ∼  1 / ( aτ  ), where 1  < τ < e a [Porto et al. , 1999; Braunstein  et al. , 2001; Cieplak  et al. ,1996; Braunstein  et al. , 2003]. We assign to eachlink of the network a random number  r , uniformlydistributed between 0 and 1. The cost associatedwith link  i  is then  τ  i  ≡  exp( ar i ) where  a  is theparameter which controls the broadness of the dis-tribution of link costs. The parameter  a  representsthe strength of disorder. The limit  a  → ∞  is thestrong disorder limit, since for this case clearly onlyone link dominates the cost of the path. The strongdisorder limit (SD) can be implemented in a disor-dered media by assigning to each link a potentialbarrier  ǫ i  so that  τ  i  is the time to cross this barrierin a thermal activation process. Thus  τ  i  =  e ǫ i /KT  ,where  K   is the Boltzmann constant and  T   is abso-lute temperature. The optimal path corresponds tothe minimum (  i τ  i ) over all possible paths. We candeﬁne disorder strength  a  = 1 /KT  . When  a →∞ ,only the largest  τ  i  dominates the sum. Thus,  T   → 0(very low temperature) corresponds to the strongdisorder limit.There are distinct scaling relationships betweenthe length of the average optimal path  ℓ opt  andthe network size (number of nodes)  N   depend-ing on whether the network is strongly or weaklydisordered [Porto  et al. , 1999; Braunstein  et al. ,2003]. It was shown using percolation arguments(see Sec. 4) that for strong disorder [Braunstein et al. , 2003],  ℓ opt  ∼  N  ν  opt , where  ν  opt  = 1 / 3for Erd˝os–R´enyi (ER) random networks [Erd˝os &R´enyi, 1959] and for scale-free (SF) [Albert &Barab´asi, 2002] networks with  λ >  4, where  λ  isthe exponent characterizing the power law decayof the degree distribution. For SF networks with3  < λ <  4,  ν  opt  = ( λ  −  3) / ( λ  −  1). For 2  <λ <  3, percolation arguments do not work, butthe numerical results suggest  ℓ opt  ∼ ln λ − 1 N  , whichis again much larger than the ultra small resultfor the shortest path  ℓ min  ∼  lnln N   found for2  < λ <  3 in [Cohen & Havlin, 2003]. Whenthe weights are taken from a uniform distribu-tion we are in the weak disorder limit. In thiscase  ℓ opt  ∼  ln N   for both ER and SF for allvalues of   λ  [Braunstein  et al. , 2003]. For 2  <λ <  3, this result is signiﬁcantly diﬀerent fromthe ultra small-world result found for unweighednetworks.Porto [Porto  et al. , 1999] considered the opti-mal path transition from weak to strong disorderfor 2-D and 3-D lattices, and found a crossoverin the scaling properties of the optimal path thatdepends on the disorder strength  a , as well as thelattice size  L  (see also [Buldyrev  et al. , 2006]). Sim-ilar to regular lattices, there exists for any ﬁnite a , a crossover network size  N  ∗ ( a ) such that for N   ≪  N  ∗ ( a ), the scaling properties of the optimalpath are in the strong disorder regime while for N   ≫  N  ∗ ( a ), the network is in the weak disorderregime. The function  N  ∗ ( a ) was evaluated. More-over, a general criterion to determine which formof   P  ( τ  ) can lead to strong disorder, and a generalcondition when strong or weak disorder occurs wasfound analytically [Chen  et al. , 2006]. The deriva-tion was supported by extensive simulations.The study of the distribution of the lengthof the optimal paths in a network was reportedin [Kalisky  et al. , 2005]. It was found that thedistribution has the scaling form  P  ( ℓ opt ,N,a )  ∼ (1 /ℓ ∞ ) G ( ℓ opt /ℓ ∞ , (1 /p c )( ℓ ∞ /a )), where  ℓ ∞  is  ℓ opt for  a  → ∞  and  p c  is the percolation threshold.It was also shown that a single parameter  Z   ≡ (1 /p c )( ℓ ∞ /a ) determines the functional form of thedistribution. Importantly, it was found [Chen  et al. ,2006] that for all  P  ( τ  ) that possess a strong-weakdisorder crossover, the distributions  P  ( ℓ opt ) of theoptimal path lengths display the same universalbehavior.Another interesting question is about a pos-sible origin of scale-free degree distribution with λ  = 2 . 5 in some real world networks. Kalisky[Kalisky  et al. , 2006] introduced a simple processthat generates random scale-free networks with  λ  =2 . 5 from weighted Erd¨os–R´enyi graphs [Erd˝os &R´enyi, 1960]. They found that the minimum span-ning tree (MST) on an Erd¨os–R´enyi graph is com-posed of percolation clusters, which we regard as“super nodes”, interconnected by a scale-free treewith  λ  = 2 . 5.Known as the tree with the minimum weightamong all possible spanning tree, the MST is alsothe union of all “strong disorder” optimal pathsbetween any two nodes [Barab´asi, 1996; Dobrin &Duxbury, 2001; Cieplak  et al. , 1996; Porto  et al. ,1999; Braunstein  et al. , 2003; Wu  et al. , 2005]. Asthe global optimal tree, the MST plays a majorrole for transport process, which is widely usedin diﬀerent ﬁelds, such as the design and oper-ation of communication networks, the travelingsalesman problem, the protein interaction problem,  2218  L. A. Braunstein et al. optimal traﬃc ﬂow, and economic networks [Khan et al. , 2003; Skiena, 1990; Fredman & Tarjan, 1987;Kruskal, 1956; Macdonald  et al. , 2005; Bonanno et al. , 2003; Onnela  et al. , 2003]. One importantquestion in network transport is how to identify thenodes or links that are more important than others.A relevant quantity that characterizes transport innetworks is the betweenness centrality,  C  , which isthe number of times a node (or link) used by alloptimal paths between all pairs of nodes [Newman,2001a, 2001b; Goh  et al. , 2001; Kim  et al. , 2004].For simplicity we call the “betweenness centrality”here “centrality” and we use the notation “nodes”but similar results have been obtained for links. Thecentrality,  C  , quantiﬁes the “importance” of a nodefor transport in the network. Moreover, identify-ing the nodes with high  C   enables us to improvetheir transport capacity and thus improve the globaltransport in the network. The probability densityfunction (pdf) of   C   was studied on the MST forboth SF [Barab´asi & Albert, 1999] and ER [Erd˝os& R´enyi, 1959, 1960] networks and found to sat-isfy a power law,  P  MST ( C  )  ∼  C  − δ MST , with  δ  MST close to 2 [Goh  et al. , 2005; Kim  et al. , 2004]. How-ever, [Wu  et al. , 2006] found that a sub-network of the MST, 1 the inﬁnite incipient percolation cluster(IIC) has a signiﬁcantly higher average  C   than theentire MST — i.e. the set of nodes inside the IICare typically used by transport paths more oftenthan other nodes in the MST (see Sec. 9). In thissense the IIC can be viewed as a set of   superhigh-ways   (SHW) in the MST. The nodes on the MSTwhich are not in the IIC are called  roads  , due totheir analogy with roads which are not superhigh-ways (usually used by local residents). Wu  et al. [2006] demonstrated the impact of this ﬁnding byshowing that improving the capacity of the super-highways (IIC) is signiﬁcantly a better strategy toenhance global transport compared to improvingthe same number of links of the highest  C   in theMST, although they have higher  C  . 2 This counter-intuitive result shows the advantage of identifyingthe IIC subsystem, which is very small and of orderzero compared to the full network. 3 2. Algorithms2.1.  Construction of the networks To construct an ER network of size  N   with averagenode degree   k  , we start with   k  N/ 2 edges andrandomly pick a pair of nodes from the total possi-ble  N  ( N  − 1) / 2 pairs to connect with an edge. Theonly condition we impose is that there cannot bemultiple edges between two nodes. When   k   >  1almost all nodes of the network will be connectedwith high probability.To generate scale-free (SF) graphs of size  N  , weemploy the Molloy–Reed algorithm [Molloy & Reed,1998]. Initially the degree of each node is chosenaccording to a scale-free distribution, where eachnode is given a number of open links or “stubs”according to its degree. Then, stubs from all nodesof the network are interconnected randomly to eachother with two constraints that there are no multi-ple edges between two nodes and that there are nolooped edges with identical ends. The exact form of the degree distribution is usually taken to be P  ( k ) =  ck − λ k  =  m,...,K   (1)where  m  and  K   are the minimal and maximaldegrees, and  c  ≈  ( λ  −  1) m λ − 1 is a normaliza-tion constant. For real networks with ﬁnite size,the highest degree  K   depends on network size  N  : K   ≈  mN  1 / ( λ − 1) , thus creating a “natural” cut-oﬀ for the highest possible degree. When  m >  1there is a high probability that the network is fullyconnected. 2.2.  Dijkstra’s algorithm  The Dijkstra’s algorithm [Cormen  et al. , 1990] isused in general to ﬁnd the optimal path, when theweights are drawn from an arbitrary distribution.The search for the optimal path follows a procedureakin to “burning” where the “ﬁre” starts from ourchosen srcin. At the beginning, all nodes are givena distance ∞ except the srcin which is given a dis-tance 0. At each step we choose the next unburned 1 The IIC contains loops in lattices in dimension  d  below 6. However, for networks ( d  = ∞ ), in the IIC loops can be neglegtedand in this case for large  N   the IIC must be a subset of the MST. In our simulations, we found that more than 99% links of IIC belong to MST. For lattices, we only choose the part of the IIC that belongs to the MST. 2 The overlap between the two groups is about 30% for ER networks of size  N   = 8192. 3 The ratio   N  IIC /N  MST   approaches zero for large  N  MST  ≡  N   due to the fractal nature of the IIC. Indeed,  N  IIC  ∼  N  2 / 3 both for ER [Erd˝os & R´enyi, 1959] and for SF with  λ >  4 [Cohen]. For SF with  λ  = 3 . 5,  N  IIC  ∼  N  0 . 6 [Cohen] and for the L × L  square lattice  N  IIC  ∼ L 91 / 48 ∼ N  91 / 96 [Bunde & Havlin, 1996].  Optimal Path and Minimal Spanning Trees in Random Weighted Networks   2219 node which is nearest to the srcin, and “burn” it,while updating the optimal distance to all its neigh-bors. The optimal distance of a neighbor is updatedonly if reaching it from the current burning nodegives a total path length that is shorter than itscurrent distance. 2.3.  Ultrametric optimization  Next, we describe a numerical method for comput-ing  ℓ opt  between any two nodes in strong disorder[Dobrin & Duxbury, 2001; Braunstein  et al. , 2001].In this case the sum of the weights must be com-pletely dominated by the largest weight. Sometimesthis condition is referred to as ultrametric. We cansatisfy this condition assigning weights to all thelinks  τ  i  = exp( ar i ) choosing  a  to be so large, thatany two links will have diﬀerent binary orders of magnitude. For example, if we can select 0 ≤ r i  <  1from a uniform distribution, using a 48-bit randomnumber generator, there will be no two identical val-ues of   r i  in a system of any size that we study. In thiscase ∆ r i  ≥  2 − 48 and we can select  a  ≥  2 48 ln2 toguarantee the strong disorder limit. To ﬁnd the opti-mal paths under the ultrametric condition, we startfrom one node (the srcin — see Fig. 1) and visitall the other nodes connected to the srcin using aburningalgorithm. If a node at distance ℓ 0  (from thesrcin) is being visited for the ﬁrst time, this nodewill be assigned a list  S  0  of weights  τ  0 i ,  i  = 1 ··· ℓ 0 of the links by which we reach that node sorted indescending order. Since  τ  0 i  = exp( ar 0 i ), we can usea list of random numbers  r 0 i  instead. S  0  = { r 01 ,r 02 ,r 03 ,...,r 0 l 0 } ,  (2)with  r 0  j  > r 0  j +1  for all  j . If we reach a node for asecond time by another path of length  ℓ 1 , we deﬁnefor this path a new list  S  1 , S  1  = { r 11 ,r 12 ,r 13 ,...,r 1 l 1 } ,  (3)and compare it with  S  0  previously deﬁned for thisnode.Diﬀerent sequences can have weights in com-mon because some paths have links in commonbecause of the loops, so it is not enough to identify 76 438 10ACBDE743108 6 (8) 106 7438 (10,8)(8) 76 438 10 (8,7) (8)(10,8) (a) (b) (c) (d) (8,7) 76 438 (8)(8,7,6) 76 438 (8,7)(8)(8,7,6)(8,7,4) 7438 (8,7)(8,7,4,3)(8)(8,7,4) (e) (f) (g)Fig. 1. In (a) we show schematically a network consisting of ﬁve nodes (A, B, C, D and E). The links between them areshown in dashed lines. The srcin (A) is marked in gray. All links were assigned random weights, shown beside the links. In(b) one node (C) has been visited for the ﬁrst time (marked in black) and assigned the sequence (8) of length  ℓ  = 1. The pathis marked by a solid arrow. Notice that there is no other path going from the srcin (A) to this node (C) so  ℓ opt  = 1 for thatpath. In (c) another node (B) is visited for the ﬁrst time (marked in black) and assigned the sequence (10 , 8) of length 2. Thesequence has the information of all the weights of that path arranged in decreasing order. In (d) another node (D) is visitedfor the ﬁrst time and assigned the sequence (8 , 7) of length 2. In (e), node (B) visited in (c) with sequence (10 , 8) is visitedagain with sequence (8 , 7 , 6). The last sequence is smaller than the previous sequence (10 , 8) so that node (B) is reassignedthe sequence (8 , 7 , 6) of length 3 [see Eq. (4)]. The new path is shown as a solid line. In (f) a new node (E) is assigned withsequence (8 , 7 , 4). In (g) node (B) is reached for the third time and reassigned the sequence (8 , 7 , 4 , 3) of length 4. The optimalpath for this conﬁguration from A to B is denoted by the solid arrows in (g) (after [Havlin  et al. , 2005]).
Similar documents
Related Search
We Need Your Support

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks