Symmetry breaking in optimal transport networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite its importance for practical applications, not much is known about the optimal shape of a network that connects in an efficient way a set of points. This problem can be formulated in terms of a multiplex network with a fast layer embedded in a slow one. To connect a pair of points, one can then use either the fast or slow layer, or both, with a switching cost when going from one layer to the other. We consider here distributions of points in spaces of arbitrary dimension d and search for the fast-layer network of given size that minimizes the average time to reach a central node. We discuss the d = 1 case analytically and the d > 1 case numerically, and show the existence of transitions when we vary the network size, the switching cost and/or the relative speed of the two layers. Surprisingly, there is a transition characterized by a symmetry breaking indicating that it is sometimes better to avoid serving a whole area in order to save on switching costs, at the expense of using more the slow layer. Our findings underscore the importance of considering switching costs while studying optimal network structures, as small variations of the cost can lead to strikingly dissimilar results. Finally, we discuss real-world subways and their efficiency for the cities of Atlanta, Boston, and Toronto. We find that real subways are farther away from the optimal shapes as traffic congestion increases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".