1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,prl, superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities
4: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
5: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
6: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
7: %\documentclass[prl]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
8:
9: \usepackage{graphicx}
10:
11: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
12: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
13:
14: %\nofiles
15:
16: \begin{document}
17:
18: \preprint{xxx}
19:
20: \title{Structure, Scaling and Phase Transition in the Optimal Transport Network}
21: \author{Steffen Bohn}
22: \affiliation{Center for Studies in Physics and Biology,
23: Rockefeller University, Box 212, 1230 York Avenue, New York, NY, USA }
24: \affiliation{Mati\`ere et Systemes Complexes, UMR 7057
25: CNRS Universit\'e Paris 7 - Denis Diderot , ENS, 24 rue Lhomond,
26: 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France}
27: \author{Marcelo O. Magnasco}
28: \affiliation{Center for Studies in Physics and Biology,
29: Rockefeller University, Box 212, 1230 York Avenue, New York, NY, USA }
30:
31: \date{\today}
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34: % The structure and properties of optimal networks depend on the
35: %functional being minimized and on constraints.
36: We minimize the dissipation rate of an electrical network under a
37: global constraint on the sum of powers of the conductances. We
38: construct the explicit scaling relation between currents and
39: conductances, and show equivalence to a a previous model
40: [J. R. Banavar {\it et al} Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 004745 (2000)] optimizing a power-law cost function in an abstract network. We
41: show the currents derive from a potential, and the scaling of the
42: conductances depends only locally on the currents. A numerical study
43: reveals that the transition in the topology of the optimal network
44: corresponds to a discontinuity in the slope of the power
45: dissipation.
46: \end{abstract}
47: \pacs{89.75.Da,89.75.Fb,89.75.Hc,89.75.Kd}
48: %89.75.Da Systems obeying scaling laws
49: %89.75.Fb Structures and organization in complex systems
50: %89.75.Hc Networks and genealogical trees
51: %89.75.Kd Patterns
52:
53: \maketitle
54:
55: The optimal distribution of valuables such as electricity or
56: telephone signals has been a subject of much study since
57: Westinghouse and Edison's {\sl War of the Currents} in the late
58: 19$\rm ^th$ century \footnote{Edison, T. A., U.S.
59: Patent 602, 11th Feb 1880, page 4, lines 20-24 (1880), which states
60: "from main conductors on principal streets subsiduary main
61: conductors are laid through side streets; from the street
62: conductors, wherever desired, derived circuits are led into the
63: houses..."}; more recently, natural systems such as river networks
64: and vascular systems have been fruitfully interpreted in this light
65: \cite{RinaldoBook, Rinaldo1992a,Banavar2000}. Hence formal models of
66: optimal transport networks have attracted attention over many years
67: \cite{Banavar1999,Banavar2004}. However, different studies use
68: different definitions of network and optimize different functionals.
69: For example, Durand \cite{Durand2004, Durand2006} considers
70: hydraulic networks whose currents derive from a potential,
71: explicitly analogous to electrical networks; the networks are
72: embedded in an ambient space, and he studies the optimal geometry
73: and the relation between the local geometry and local topology. On
74: the other side, Banavar {\textit{et al.}} \cite{Banavar2000} propose
75: a more abstract model where the graph is not assumed to be embedded
76: in a target space, nor are the currents through the nodes explicitly
77: constrained to derive from a potential. This allows them to furnish
78: a strict proof that the topology of the optimized flow pattern
79: \cite{Banavar2000} depends on the convexity of their cost function,
80: but makes a direct physical interpretation of the model more
81: elusive. In the following, we shall introduce a third model of an
82: optimal transport network from whom both of these previous models
83: can be derived, so all formulations are, in fact, equivalent. \\
84: Consider an electrical transport network on a graph composed of
85: nodes $k$ interconnected by links $(k,l)$. There is a given current
86: source $i_k$ at each node and the total current input must add to
87: zero: $\sum_k i_k = 0$. There are variable currents $I_{kl}$ flowing
88: through the links; the sum of all currents impinging on a given node
89: $k$ must equal the given current sources: $i_k = \sum_l I_{kl}$
90: (Kirchhoff's current law). We associate a resistor $R_{kl } \ge 0$
91: to each link $(k,l)$ and decompose its value as $R_{kl} = (d_{kl}
92: \kappa_{kl})^{-1}$, where $d_{kl}> 0$ is a given weight and the
93: conductances $\kappa_{kl}$ are variable; considering $\kappa_{kl}$
94: as a conductivity per unit length, $d_{kl}$ can be thought of as the
95: length of the link. The dissipation rate $J$ is then a function of
96: the currents $I_{kl}$ through the links and the conductances
97: $\kappa_{kl}$:
98: \begin{equation}
99: \label{diss} J = \sum_{\textrm{links} \, (k,l)}
100: \frac{I_{kl}^2}{(d_{kl} \kappa_{kl})}
101: \end{equation}
102: We shall minimize this dissipation rate $J$ over the currents
103: $I_{kl}$ and the conductances $\kappa_{kl}$ with the local
104: constraint given by Kirchhoff's current law, and a supplementary
105: global constraint that the sum over the conductances raised to a
106: given power $\gamma>0$ is kept constant:
107: $$K^{\gamma} = \sum \kappa_{kl}^{\gamma}$$
108: One may interpret this constant as an amount of resources we have at
109: our disposal to build the network. \footnote{It
110: is of course possible to introduce a weight $h_{kl}$ into the
111: expression of the constant $K^\gamma = \sum h_{kl}
112: \kappa_{kl}^{\gamma}$. However, this weight can be eliminated by
113: straight forward rescaling of $\kappa_{kl}$ and will not change
114: anything in the following.} \\
115: %
116: \begin{figure}[b]
117: \begin{center}
118: \includegraphics[width=6cm]{loopAlpha2.eps}
119: \caption{Sketch of a loop $\alpha$ indicating the direction of the
120: currents. Every perturbation of the $I_{kl}$ satisfying the
121: constraints can be written as a weighted sum of such loops.}
122: \label{fig:loopAlpha}
123: \end{center}
124: \end{figure}
125: %
126: %
127: \begin{figure*}[t]
128: \begin{center}
129: \includegraphics[width=17cm]{results.eps}
130: \caption{Examples of the conductivity distributions. Results of the
131: relaxation algorithm with different initial conditions: (a) $\gamma
132: = 2.0$ and (b) $\gamma = 0.5$. (c) Result with optimized topology
133: with $\gamma = 0.5$. the arrow indicated the localized inlet, the
134: remaining nodes are outlets with constant $i_k$. }
135: \label{fig:examples}
136: \end{center}
137: \end{figure*}
138: Since we allow $\kappa_{kl}$ and $I_{kl}$ to vary independently, the
139: currents are not explicitly constrained to derive from a potential
140: at the nodes $U_{k}$ and Kirchhoff's voltage law (the sum of the
141: potential differences on a loop vanishes) need not apply. \\
142: Using a Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$, we define the function
143: $\Xi(\{\kappa_{kl}\},\{I_{kl}\})$ as
144: \begin{equation}
145: \Xi(\{\kappa_{kl}\},\{I_{kl}\}) = \sum_{(k,l)}
146: \frac{I_{kl}^2}{(d_{kl} \kappa_{kl})} - \lambda \sum_{(k,l)}
147: {\kappa_{kl}}^{\gamma}
148: \end{equation}
149: The necessary conditions for a minima of $J$ with constant $K$ are
150: then:
151: \begin{eqnarray}
152: \frac{\partial \Xi}{\partial I_{kl}} = 0, \qquad \frac{\partial
153: \Xi}{\partial \kappa_{kl}} = 0 \label{eqn:conditions}
154: \end{eqnarray}
155: %
156: Let us first consider the derivatives with respect to $I_{kl}$. Let
157: $\{ \tilde{I}_{kl}\}$, $\{ \tilde{\kappa}_{kl}\}$ minimize $J$.
158: Adding a circular current $X_{\alpha}$ on a loop~$\alpha$ to the
159: currents (fig. \ref{fig:loopAlpha}) does not violate the
160: constraints. We (re)define the directions of the currents $
161: \tilde{I}_{kl}$ on the loop to be parallel to the loop current
162: $X_{\alpha}$. Then
163: \begin{equation}
164: 0 = \frac{\partial \Xi}{\partial X_{\alpha}} \Big
165: \vert_{X_{\alpha}=0} = \sum_{\textrm{loop}\, \alpha}\tilde R_{kl}
166: \tilde I_{kl}
167: \end{equation}
168: Thus Kirchhoff's voltage law holds at the minimum of $J$, so the
169: currents though the links derive from potential differences between
170: the nodes: $\tilde I_{kl} = \tilde R_{kl}( U_l - U_k)$. Note that
171: this is not the case for every arbitrary current distribution. For
172: instance, if all currents on the loop in fig. \ref{fig:loopAlpha}
173: are positive $\tilde I_{kl} > 0$, then there exists no set of
174: $\tilde R_{kl} \ge 0$ to fulfill this relation. \\
175: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
176: Let us now consider the derivatives of $\Xi$ with respect to
177: $\kappa_{kl}$ (eq. \ref{eqn:conditions}). With the constraint of a
178: constant $K$, we obtain an explicit scaling relation between the
179: currents and the conductivity in the minimal configuration:
180: \begin{equation}
181: \label{k_scaling} \kappa_{kl} = \frac {(I_{kl}^2/
182: d_{kl})^{\frac{1}{1+\gamma}} } {\Big(\sum_{mn} {(I_{mn}^2/
183: d_{mn})^{\frac{\gamma}{1+\gamma}} } \Big)^{1/\gamma}} K
184: \end{equation}
185: We can now write the total dissipation (eq. \ref{diss}) in terms of
186: the currents alone as
187: \begin{equation}
188: \label{diss_I} {J} (\{ I_{kl}\}) = \frac{1}{K} \Big( \sum_{kl}
189: (I_{kl}^2/d_{kl})^{\frac{\gamma}{1+\gamma}}
190: \Big)^{1+\frac{1}{\gamma}}
191: \end{equation}
192: Since for $\gamma>0$, the function $x^{1+\frac{1}{\gamma}}$ is
193: monotonically increasing, the original minimization problem is
194: reduced to the minimization of
195: \begin{equation}
196: \label{diss_I} C (\{ I_{kl}\}) = \sum_{kl}
197: (I_{kl}^2/d_{kl})^{\frac{\gamma}{1+\gamma}}
198: \end{equation}
199: By setting
200: \begin{equation}
201: \Gamma = \frac{2 \gamma}{\gamma + 1}
202: \end{equation}
203: and rescaling the weights as $w_{kl} =
204: d_{kl}^{-\frac{\gamma}{1+\gamma}}$, the quantity to be minimized is
205: now
206: \begin{equation}
207: \label{diss_I} C (\{ I_{kl}\}) = \sum_{kl} w_{kl}\lvert I_{kl}
208: \lvert^{\Gamma}
209: \end{equation}
210: which is exactly the model used by Banavar {\textit{et
211: al.}}\cite{Banavar2000}. They give a strict proof that for $\Gamma <
212: 1$, the resulting structure may not have any loop, and each spanning
213: tree is a local minimum. For $\Gamma > 1$, there are in general
214: loops and a unique minimum. Due to the correspondence between
215: $\gamma$ and $\Gamma$, this result must apply also to our original
216: model where $\gamma < 1$ ($\gamma > 1$) corresponds to a $\Gamma <
217: 1$ ($\Gamma > 1$).
218: \\
219: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
220: On the other hand, the correspondence between the different models
221: allows an important conclusion about the model of Banavar {\it{et
222: al.}}. Since in both formulations, the minimum is obtained by the
223: same set of currents, and since in our model these currents must
224: derive from potential differences between the nodes, this must be
225: true for the minimum of the Banavar {\it{et al.}} model, too. We can
226: furthermore write down directly the values of the corresponding
227: resistors as
228: \begin{equation}
229: \label{eqn:resistors} R_{kl} = (d_{kl} \kappa_{kl})^{-1} = A \,
230: w_{kl} \lvert I_{kl} \rvert ^{\Gamma-2}
231: \end{equation}
232: with an arbitrary positive constant $A$. $R_{kl}$ thus scales
233: explicitly with the local currents for $\Gamma \ne 2$.
234: \\
235: Since positive $\gamma$ corresponds to $0 < \Gamma < 2$, the
236: equivalence of the two models is restricted to this parameter range.
237: $\Gamma > 2$ corresponds to values $\gamma < -1$, for which our
238: model collapses into infinitely many degenerate minima. The
239: relations \ref{eqn:conditions} correspond instead to a saddle node
240: of $J$: a minimum with respect to the $I_{kl}$ and a maximum with
241: respect to the $\kappa_{kl}$. Nevertheless direct inspection shows
242: that the current flow in the Banavar {\textit{et al.}} model is
243: potential with the set of resistors given by eq. \ref{eqn:resistors}
244: even for $\Gamma > 2$. \footnote{Given a field $\bf v$ with a curl,
245: a scalar field $\phi$ such that $\nabla \wedge \phi {\bf v} = {\bf
246: 0} $ is called an integrating factor; integrating factors always
247: exist in two dimensions, or, in their discrete versions, for planar
248: graphs as in here. But while there could be in principle a set of
249: resistors that would make arbitrary currents in a planar model
250: derive from a potential, such resistors would neither be guaranteed
251: to be positive nor to depend only locally on the currents, as our
252: result shows.}
253: \\
254: In order to get a deeper insight into the transition at $\gamma =
255: 1$, we search numerically for the minimal dissipation configuration
256: of an example network, a triangular network of conductivities with a
257: hexagonal border, with equal weights $d_{kl} \equiv 1$. The total
258: number of nodes $N_{nodes}$ scales roughly as the square of the
259: linear dimension of the network, given by the diameter of the graph
260: $N_{dia}$. Except for those on the border, each node is linked
261: by conductivities to six neighboring nodes.
262: \\
263: We place a current source at a corner of the hexagon ($i_0$), the
264: remaining $(N_{nodes}-1)$ nodes present homogeneous distributed
265: sinks; each node absorbs $i_k = - i_0/(N_{nodes}-1)$.
266: \\
267: As an order parameter, we will consider the normalized dissipation
268: rate $J_{min}/J_{homo}$, where $J_{homo}$ is the total dissipation
269: with a constant conductivity distribution $\kappa_{kl} \equiv
270: \textrm{const.}$, and $J_{min}$ is the dissipation for the
271: optimized distribution of the conductivities. Note that $J_{homo}$
272: corresponds also to $\gamma \rightarrow \infty$. \\
273: %
274: \begin{figure}
275: \begin{center}
276: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{dissipation.eps}
277: \caption{ (a) The normalized minimum dissipation rate
278: $J_{min}/J_{homo}$ as a function of $\gamma$ for a network with
279: $N_{dia} = 15$ (462 links) and a network with $N_{dia} =
280: 31$ (2070 links, in red). Note the discontinuity of the slopes at
281: $\gamma = 1$. (b) A detailed view of the crossover at $\gamma = 1$
282: for $N_{dia}=15$. Cross symbols show data points obtained by
283: optimizing a tree topology, circles show the output of the
284: relaxation algorithm. The continuous lines indicate the actual
285: minimum.} \label{fig:diss2D}
286: \end{center}
287: \end{figure}
288: %
289: The previous discussion allows us to simplify the minimization
290: problem enormously: using the scaling relation between $\kappa_{kl}$
291: and $I_{kl}$, one can restrict the search of the minimum to the
292: space of the currents or the space of conductivities. Furthermore,
293: we can use the fact that the optimized current distribution derives
294: from a potential $U_k$ to construct a simple relaxation algorithm.
295: Starting with a random distribution of $\kappa_{kl}$, we calculate
296: first the values of the potential at the nodes by solving the system
297: of linear equations $i_k = \sum_{l} R_{kl} (U_k - U_l)$, then the
298: currents through the links $I_{kl}$ are determined. We use these
299: currents to determine a first approximation of the optimal
300: conductivities on the basis of the scaling relation. Then, the
301: currents are recalculated with this set of conductivities, and the
302: scaling relation is reused for the next approximation. These steps
303: are repeated until the the values have converged. We check by
304: perturbing the solution that it actually is a minimum of the
305: dissipation, which was always the case. \\
306: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
307: For all $\gamma>1$, independently of the initial conditions, the
308: same conductivity distribution is obtained, which conforms to the
309: analytical result of \cite{Banavar2000}: there exists a unique
310: minimum which is therefore global. \\
311: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
312: Furthermore, the distribution of $\kappa_{kl}$ is ``smooth'',
313: varying only on a ``macroscopic scale'', as show in
314: Fig.~\ref{fig:examples}(a)). No formation of any particular
315: structure occurs. However, the conductivity distribution is not
316: isotropic. We can interpret the conductivity distribution as a
317: discrete approximation of a continuous, macroscopic conductivity
318: tensor (see also \cite{Durand2004}). The smooth aspect of the
319: distribution is conserved while approaching $\gamma \rightarrow 1$
320: while the local anisotropy increases, while the values of all
321: $\kappa_{kl}$ remain finite, even if they get very small. For
322: $\gamma = 1.5$ and $N_{dia} = 15$, the conductivity
323: distribution spreads already over eight decades and becomes still
324: broader as $\gamma\rightarrow 1^+$, in which limit the number of
325: iteration steps diverges as the minima becomes less and less steep. \\
326: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
327: $\gamma = 1$ presents a marginal case. The results of the simulation
328: suggest that the minimum is highly degenerate, i.e., there are a
329: large number of conductivity distributions yielding the same minimal
330: dissipation. \\
331: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
332: For $\gamma<1$, the output of the relaxation algorithm is qualitatively
333: different (fig.~\ref{fig:examples}(b)). The currents are canalized
334: in a hierarchical manner: a large number of conductivities rapidly
335: converge to zero and thus vanish transforming the topology from a
336: highly redundant network to a spanning tree. This, too, is predicted
337: by the analytical results \cite{Banavar2000}. In contrast to $\gamma
338: > 1$, the conductivity distribution can not be interpreted as a
339: discrete approximation of a conductivity tensor: for $N_{dia}
340: \rightarrow \infty$, the structure becomes fractal. \\
341: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
342: For different initial conditions, the relaxation algorithm yields
343: trees with different topologies: each local minima in the
344: high-dimensional and continuous space of conductivities $\{\kappa_{kl}\}$
345: correspond to a different tree topology. Given a tree topology, the
346: currents through the links are given directly by the topology and do
347: not depend on the values of the $\kappa_{kl}$, and so using the
348: scaling relation, one may directly write down the dissipation rate
349: for a given tree. For $\gamma < 1$, we do thus not need to apply the
350: relaxation algorithm, but we should search for the global minima in
351: the (exponentially large) space of tree topologies using a
352: Monte-Carlo algorithm. This regime has been widely explored in the
353: context of river networks \cite{Rinaldo1992a, Sun1994, RinaldoBook},
354: mainly for a set of parameters that corresponds, in our case, to
355: $\gamma = 0.5$. An example of a resulting minimal dissipation tree
356: structure is given in fig.~\ref{fig:examples}(c). Note also, that
357: the scaling relations can be seen as some kind of erosion model: the
358: more currents flows trough a link, the better the link conducts
359: \cite{RinaldoBook}. \\
360: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
361: The qualitative transition is reflected also quantitatively in the
362: value of the minimal dissipation (fig~\ref{fig:diss2D}(a)). The
363: points for $\gamma >1$ were obtained with the relaxation algorithm,
364: the points $\gamma <1$ by optimizing the tree topologies with a
365: Monte-Carlo algorithm. For $\gamma \rightarrow \infty$,
366: $J_{min}/J_{homo} \rightarrow 1$ by definition; for $\gamma
367: \rightarrow 0$, $J_{min}/J_{homo} \rightarrow 0$, because the
368: vanishing $\kappa_{kl}$ allow the the remaining $\kappa_{kl}
369: \rightarrow \infty$. \\
370: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
371: Figure~\ref{fig:diss2D}(b) shows the behavior of minimal
372: dissipation rate close to $\gamma = 1$. For $\gamma$ smaller than
373: one, the relaxation method spends a long time only to furnish a
374: local minimum, while the Monte-Carlo algorithm searching for the
375: optimal tree topologies gives lower dissipation values. The
376: different values corresponding to different realization indicate
377: that the employed Monte-Carlo method does not find the exact global
378: minima. For $\gamma>1$, the relaxation algorithm gives the lower
379: $J_{min}$ because the global minima does not have a tree topology. \\
380: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
381: While the curve is continuous, the crossover at $\gamma = 1$ shows a
382: clear change in the slope of $J_{min}(\gamma)$. One could interpret
383: this behavior as a second order phase transition. (The change in
384: slope is of course preserved in the function $C({I_{kl}})$ used by
385: \cite{Banavar2000}.) \\
386: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
387: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
388: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
389: As an intriguing practical application of these models, one may for
390: instance cite the venation of plant leaves. Experimental evidence
391: \cite{Zwieniecki2002} shows that the water transport through the
392: veins derives from a pressure gradient. The venation pattern however
393: shows a enormous redundancy of loops \cite{esaubook,
394: RothNebelsick2001,Couder2002}. On the basis of some examples, it has
395: been proposed \cite{Roth1995,RothNebelsick2001} that the loops are
396: actually meaningful to optimize the water transport in the leaf. The
397: results presented in this paper however shows that this is not the
398: case: optimization either leads to a tree topology, or to no
399: structure at all. If the venation pattern is really based a
400: optimization principe, it cannot simply be optimization of a steady
401: state water transport, even if Murray's law seems to hold at the
402: nodes of the venation \cite{McCulloh2003}.
403:
404: \bibliography{flow}
405:
406: \end{document}
407: