Flow-Based Network Analysis of the Caenorhabditis elegans Connectome

We exploit flow propagation on the directed neuronal network of the nematode C. elegans to reveal dynamically relevant features of its connectome. We find flow-based groupings of neurons at different levels of granularity, which we relate to functional and anatomical constituents of its nervous system. A systematic in silico evaluation of the full set of single and double neuron ablations is used to identify deletions that induce the most severe disruptions of the multi-resolution flow structure. Such ablations are linked to functionally relevant neurons, and suggest potential candidates for further in vivo investigation. In addition, we use the directional patterns of incoming and outgoing network flows at all scales to identify flow profiles for the neurons in the connectome, without pre-imposing a priori categories. The four flow roles identified are linked to signal propagation motivated by biological input-response scenarios

Towards a Theory of Scale-Free Graphs: Definition, Properties, and Implications (Extended Version)

Although the ``scale-free'' literature is large and growing, it gives neither a precise definition of scale-free graphs nor rigorous proofs of many of their claimed properties. In fact, it is easily shown that the existing theory has many inherent contradictions and verifiably false claims. In this paper, we propose a new, mathematically precise, and structural definition of the extent to which a graph is scale-free, and prove a series of results that recover many of the claimed properties while suggesting the potential for a rich and interesting theory. With this definition, scale-free (or its opposite, scale-rich) is closely related to other structural graph properties such as various notions of self-similarity (or respectively, self-dissimilarity). Scale-free graphs are also shown to be the likely outcome of random construction processes, consistent with the heuristic definitions implicit in existing random graph approaches. Our approach clarifies much of the confusion surrounding the sensational qualitative claims in the scale-free literature, and offers rigorous and quantitative alternatives.Comment: 44 pages, 16 figures. The primary version is to appear in Internet Mathematics (2005

Language-based Abstractions for Dynamical Systems

Ordinary differential equations (ODEs) are the primary means to modelling dynamical systems in many natural and engineering sciences. The number of equations required to describe a system with high heterogeneity limits our capability of effectively performing analyses. This has motivated a large body of research, across many disciplines, into abstraction techniques that provide smaller ODE systems while preserving the original dynamics in some appropriate sense. In this paper we give an overview of a recently proposed computer-science perspective to this problem, where ODE reduction is recast to finding an appropriate equivalence relation over ODE variables, akin to classical models of computation based on labelled transition systems.Comment: In Proceedings QAPL 2017, arXiv:1707.0366

Mechanisms in Dynamically Complex Systems

In recent debates mechanisms are often discussed in the context of ‘complex systems’ which are understood as having a complicated compositional structure. I want to draw the attention to another, radically different kind of complex system, in fact one that many scientists regard as the only genuine kind of complex system. Instead of being compositionally complex these systems rather exhibit highly non-trivial dynamical patterns on the basis of structurally simple arrangements of large numbers of non-linearly interacting constituents. The characteristic dynamical patterns in what I call “dynamically complex systems” arise from the interaction of the system’s parts largely irrespective of many properties of these parts. Dynamically complex systems can exhibit surprising statistical characteristics, the robustness of which calls for an explanation in terms of underlying generating mechanisms. However, I want to argue, dynamically complex systems are not sufficiently covered by the available conceptions of mechanisms. I will explore how the notion of a mechanism has to be modified to accommodate this case. Moreover, I will show under which conditions the widespread, if not inflationary talk about mechanisms in (dynamically) complex systems stretches the notion of mechanisms beyond its reasonable limits and is no longer legitimate

Binding Social and Cultural Networks: A Model

Until now, most studies carried onto social or semantic networks have considered each of these networks independently. Our goal here is to bring a formal frame for studying both networks empirically as well as to point out stylized facts that would explain their reciprocal influence and the emergence of clusters of agents, which may also be regarded as ''cultural cliques''. We show how to apply the Galois lattice theory to the modeling of the coevolution of social and conceptual networks, and the characterization of cultural communities. Basing our approach on Barabasi-Albert's models, we however extend the usual preferential attachment probability in order to take into account the reciprocal influence of both networks, therefore introducing the notion of dual distance. In addition to providing a theoretic frame we draw here a program of empirical tests which should give root to a more analytical model and the consequent simulation and validation. In a broader view, adopting and actually implementing the paradigm of cultural epidemiology, we could proceed further with the study of knowledge diffusion and explain how the social network structure affects concept propagation and in return how concept propagation affects the social network.Comment: 8 pages, 3 figures (v2: typos, minor corrections in section 3.2) (v3: examples, figures added

Agent-Based Models and Simulations in Economics and Social Sciences: from conceptual exploration to distinct ways of experimenting

Now that complex Agent-Based Models and computer simulations spread over economics and social sciences - as in most sciences of complex systems -, epistemological puzzles (re)emerge. We introduce new epistemological tools so as to show to what precise extent each author is right when he focuses on some empirical, instrumental or conceptual significance of his model or simulation. By distinguishing between models and simulations, between types of models, between types of computer simulations and between types of empiricity, section 2 gives conceptual tools to explain the rationale of the diverse epistemological positions presented in section 1. Finally, we claim that a careful attention to the real multiplicity of denotational powers of symbols at stake and then to the implicit routes of references operated by models and computer simulations is necessary to determine, in each case, the proper epistemic status and credibility of a given model and/or simulation