DOI: 10.1126/science.1171990
, 425 (2009);
325Science et al.Alessandro Vespignani,Predicting the Behavior of Techno-Social Systems
www.sciencemag.org (this information is current as of September 10, 2009 ):The following resources related to this article are available online at
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/325/5939/425version of this article at:
including high-resolution figures, can be found in the online Updated information and services,found at:
can be related to this article A list of selected additional articles on the Science Web sites http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/325/5939/425#related-content http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/325/5939/425#otherarticles , 11 of which can be accessed for free: cites 26 articles This article
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/sociology Sociology
: subject collections This article appears in the following
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/permissions.dtl in whole or in part can be found at: this article permission to reproduce of this article or about obtaining reprints Information about obtaining registered trademark of AAAS.
is a Science 2009 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; all rights reserved. The title Copyright American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published weekly, except the last week in December, by the Science o n S e p t e m b e r 10, 2009
w w w .s c i e n c e m a g .o r g D o w n l o a d e d f r o m
other nodes to fail as well,which may eventually lead to failure cascades and the breakdown of the system,denoted as systemic risk.This applies in particular to financial networks where links represent standing debts and claims between connected financial institutions.However,it is not well understood how the structure of a financial network affects the probability of a systemic failure.Although a topical subject,most theoretical and empirical methods are not suited to predicting cascading network effects.The mainstream view assumes that a denser network allows for a better diversification of the individ-ual failure risk (26).However,systemic risk has been shown to increase,depending on the cou-pling strength between nodes (27).Furthermore,most stable dynamic network models account for only the addition or removal of a single agent to or from the network at each instance of time.However,the addition or removal of whole groups of agents to or from the network (e.g.,as part of a systemic failure)may result in a larger,less predictable,and less stable system.
In summary,we anticipate a challenging re-search agenda in economic networks,built upon a methodology that strives to capture the rich pro-cess resulting from the interplay between agents ’behavior and the dynamic interactions among them.To be effective,however,empirical studies providing insights into economic networks from massive data analysis,theory encompassing the
appropriate description of economic agents and their interactions,and a systemic perspective be-stowing a new understanding of global effects as coming from varying network interactions are needed.W e predict that such studies will create a more unified field of economic networks that ad-vances our understanding and leads to further insight.We are still far from a satisfactory identification and integration of the many components,but the recent advances outlined suggest a promising start.
References and Notes
1.F.Vega-Redondo,Complex Social Networks (Econometric Society Monographs,Cambridge Univ.Press,Cambridge,2007).
2.A.Barrat,M.Barthelemy,A.Vespignani,Dynamical Processes on Complex Networks (Cambridge Univ.Press,Cambridge,2008).
3.M.O.Jackson,A.Wolinsky,J.Econ.Theory 71,44(1996).
4.R.Albert,A.-L.Barabasi,Rev.Mod.Phys.74,47(2002).
5.J.Hagedoorn,Res.Policy 31,477(2002).
6.M.Granovetter,Getting a Job:A Study of Contacts and Careers (Univ.of Chicago Press,Chicago,1995)
7.V.Bala,S.Goyal,Econometrica 68,1181(2000).
8.M.D.König,S.Battiston,M.Napoletano,F.Schweitzer,Netw.Heterog.Media 3,201(2008).
9.M.Marsili,F.Vega-Redondo,F.Slanina,Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A.101,1439(2004).
10.S.P.Borgatti,A.Mehra,D.J.Brass,G.Labianca,Science
323,2(2009).
11.R.M.May,S.A.Levin,G.Sugihara,Nature 451,3(2008).12.G.Iori,G.De Masi,O.Precup,G.Gabbi,G.Caldarelli,
J.Econ.Dyn.Control 32,259(2008).
13.M.Boss,H.Elsinger,M.Summer,S.Thurner,Quant.
Finance 4,677(2004).
14.G.Fagiolo,S.Schiavo,J.Reyes,Phys.Rev.E Stat.Nonlin.
Soft Matter Phys.79,036115(2009).
15.D.Garlaschelli,M.I.Loffredo,Phys.Rev.Lett.93,
188701(2004).
16.S.Battiston,J.F.Rodrigues,H.Zeytinoglu,Adv.Complex
Syst.10,29(2007).
17.J.Reyes,S.Schiavo,G.Fagiolo,Adv.Complex Syst.11,
685(2008).
18.M.Kosfeld,Rev.Netw.Econ.3,20(2004).
19.S.Callander,C.Plott,J.Public Econ.,1469(2005).20.W.Powell,D.White,K.Koput,J.Owen-Smith,
Am.J.Sociol.110,1132(2005).
21.B.Kogut,G.Walker,Am.Sociol.Rev.66,317(2001).22.D.Sornette,F.Deschatres,T.Gilbert,Y.Ageon,Phys.Rev.
Lett.93,228701(2004).
23.T.A.Snijders,G.G.van de Bunt,C.E.Steglich,Soc.
Networks ,in press;published online 26March 2009(10.1016/j.socnet.2009.02.004).
24.J.Reichardt,D.White,Eur.Phys.J.B 60,217(2007).25.A.Kirman,J.Evol.Econ.7,339(1997).
26.F.Allen,D.Gale,J.Polit.Econ.108,1(2000).
27.S.Battiston,D.Delli Gatti,M.Gallegati,B.Greenwald,
J.Stiglitz,J.Econ.Dyn.Control 31,2061(2007).28.We would like to thank M.König,C.J.Tessone,S.Battiston,
and S.Vitali (ETH Zurich)for aid with figures and S.White for commentary on the text.Data for Fig.2were provided by Orbis Database (end of 2007),Bureau Van Dijk.F.S.and D.S.acknowledge financial support from the ETH Competence Center,“Coping with Crises in Complex Socio-Economic Systems ”(CCSS),through ETH Research Grant CH1-01-08-2.F.V-R.gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Education under grant SEJ2007-62656.A.V.acknowledges funding from NIH,DTRA,the EC-FET program and the Lilly Foundation.D.W.’s work is supported by external faculty funding at the Santa Fe Institute and anonymous nonprofit contributions to the University of California at Irvine faculty group in Social Dynamics and Complexity.10.1126/science.11734
PERSPECTIVE
Predicting the Behavior of Techno-Social Systems
Alessandro Vespignani
We live in an increasingly interconnected world of techno-social systems,in which infrastructures
composed of different technological layers are interoperating within the social component that drives their use and development.Examples are provided by the Internet,the World Wide Web,WiFi communication technologies,and transportation and mobility infrastructures.The multiscale nature and complexity of these networks are crucial features in understanding and managing the networks.The accessibility of new data and the advances in the theory and modeling of complex networks are providing an integrated framework that brings us closer to achieving true predictive power of the behavior of techno-social systems.M
odern techno-social systems consist of large-scale physical infrastructures (such as transportation systems and power
distribution grids)embedded in a dense web of communication and computing infrastructures whose dynamics and evolution are defined and
driven by human behavior.To predict the be-havior of such systems,it is necessary to start with the mathematical description of patterns found in real-world data.These descriptions form the basis of models that can be used to anticipate trends,evaluate risks,and eventually manage fu-ture events.If fed with the right data,computational modeling approaches can provide the requested level of predictability in very complex settings.The most successful example is weather forecast-ing,in which sophisticated supercomputer infra-structures are used to integrate current data and
huge libraries of historical meteorological patterns into large-scale computational simulations.Al-though we often complain about the accuracy of daily weather forecasts,we must remember that numerical weather models and predictions allow us to project the path and intensity of hurricanes,storms,and other severe meteorological occurrences and,in many cases,to save thousand of lives by anticipating and preparing for these events.
Given the success that has been achieved in weather forecasting for decades,why haven ’t we achieved the same success in the quantitative pre-diction of the next pandemic spatio-temporal pat-tern or the effects over the next decade of connecting billions of people from China and India on Internet growth and stability?The basic difference is that forecasting phenomena in techno-social systems starts with our limited knowledge of society and human behavior rather than with the physical laws governing fluid and gas masses.In other words,though it is possible to produce satellite images of atmospheric turbulence,we do not yet have large-scale worldwide,quantitative knowledge of human mobility,the progression of risk perception in a population,or the tendency to adopt certain social behaviors.In recent years,however,tremendous progress has been made in data gathering,the dev-elopment of new informatics tools,and increases in computational power.A huge flow of quantitative data that combine the demographic and behavioral
Center for Complex Networks and Systems Research,School of Informatics and Computing,and Pervasive Technology Institute,Indiana University,Bloomington,IN 47408,USA;and Institute for Scientific Interchange,Turin,Italy.E-mail:alexv@indiana.edu
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE
VOL 325
24JULY 2009425
SPECIAL SECTION
o n S e p t e m b e r 10, 2009
w w w .s c i e n c e m a g .o r g D o w n l o a d e d f r o m
is becoming available(1–6).Analogously to what
happened in physics,we are finally in the position
to move from the analysis of the“social atom”or “social molecules”(i.e.,small social groups)to the quantitative analysis of social aggregate states,as
envisioned by social scientists at the beginning of
the past century(7).Here,I refer to“social ag-
gregate states”as large-scale social systems
consisting of millions of individuals that can be
characterized in space(geographic and social)
and time.The shift from the study of a small
number of elements to the study of the behavior
of large-scale aggregates is equivalent to the shift
from atomic and molecular physics to the physics
of matter.The understanding of how the same
elements assembled in large number can give rise,
according to the various forces and elements at
play,to different macroscopic and dynamical
behaviors opens the path to quantitative computa-
tional approaches and forecasting power.Y et at the
same time,the study of social aggregate states
present us with all the challenges already faced in the physics of matter,from turbulence to multi-
scale behavior.
Reality Mining and Proxy Networks
The level of information flow regarding techno-
social systems is not just due to advances in
number crunching power of modern computer
processors.Insights into the nature of the inter-
links between people and technology and the dis-
solution of boundaries between the cyberworld
and our real-world social activities are changing
our accessibility to data,leading to“reality-mining,”
which has been defined as the collection of
machine-sensed environmental data that are re-
lated to human social behavior(2).A prime ex-
ample of the people/technology interlinkage can
be found in the analysis of human mobility.In the
past,approaches to human interactions and mo-
bility have mostly relied on census and survey
data,which were often incomplete and/or limited
to a specific context.Despite advances in the study
of human transport(8,9),this lack of data has
hindered the construction of a general framework
of human mobility based on dynamical principles
at the individual level with the ability to bridge spa-
tial scales,from small communities to large urban
areas and countries,in a bottom-up perspective.
However,in pioneering work,Brockmann et al.
(4)showed that popular Web sites for currency
tracking(such as http://en.eurobilltracker.com
and www.wheresgeorge.com)collect a massive
number of records on money dispersal that can be
used as a proxy for human mobility.This work
opened the path to the general exploitation of
proxy data for human interaction and mobility
(10).Analogously,modern mobile phones and
personal digital assistants combine sophisticated
technologies such as Bluetooth,Global Positioning
System,and WiFi,constantly producing detailed
traces on our daily activities(2,11).For instance,
in a recent study,Gonzalez et al.(6)used mobile
phone data to track the movements of100,000
people over a6-month time span.Furthermore,it
is now possible to use sensors and tags that
produce data at the microscale of one-to-one
interactions(1,2).
D
E
s
10–3
10–5
10–7
10–9
10–4
10–6
10–8
10–10
100
10–2
10–4
10–6
102103104105106107
s
s
102
100101102103
103104105106107
P
(
s
)
P
(
s
)
P
(
s
)
Continental US airline network
Number of seats per month
Continental US county
commuting network
Number of seats per month
Local mobility
Number of mobile phones
per 12 hours
A
B
C
Fig.1.Multiscale properties of mobility networks.On the left,we report the
probability distribution P(s)for the traffic,measured as the number of traveling
individuals,on any given connection,of three different networks:(A)the con-
tinental U.S.airline network,(B)the continental U.S.county commuting network,and
(C)the mobility among telephone tower cells in a major urban area.In all cases,the
distributions are highly skewed and span from three to seven orders of magnitude.
On the right,we show the illustration of the continental U.S.airline network(D)and
the commuting network(E)among major census areas.The color scale from yellow
to dark red identifies the traffic flow magnitude in logarithmic scale.The airline
network is made mostly by long-range connections as compared with a gridlike
ordering of the commuting network.The daily average flow of the commuting
network is one order of magnitude larger than that of the airline network.
24JULY2009VOL325SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org
426
Pushing Networks to the Limit
o
n
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
,
2
9
w
w
w
.
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
Through confronting us with serious ethical and privacy questions,these kinds of data and the reduced cost of producing,accessing,and com-municating information on techno-social systems are changing our understanding of a wide range of phenomena (12–17).The spatial dynamics of human infectious diseases are determined by the mobility of individuals who carry a disease into previously uninfected populations.Analogously,human migration and mobility mediate a large number of bioinvasions,defined as the introduc-tion of previously unknown organisms in eco-systems.The evolution of languages and dialects is also driven by the mixing of populations and the merging and/or isolation of communities.Finally,the daily mobility of humans in Internet space de-fines our exploitation and foraging of information.Network Thinking
The Internet and virtual worlds are networks that we navigate and explore every day (17–19).Human-interaction models are based on social networks in which nodes represent individual inter-acting agents and the links are potential interactions (20).Mobility,ecological,and epidemiological models rely on metapopulation networks that consist of entire populations interlinked by virtue of the exchanges between groups of individu-als (21).A large body of work has shown that most real-world networks exhibit dynamic self-organization (that is,they become more compli-cated over time without the intervention of outside forces)and are statistically very heterogeneous;these characteristics are typical hallmarks of com-plex systems (22–24).The various statistical dis-tributions characterizing these networks (including
the probabilities of node connection and the inten-sities of the connecting links)are generally heavy tailed and skewed,and they vary over several orders of magnitude (25).The foremost challenge offered by complex networks therefore resides in their interconnectedness (networks of networks)and multiscale nature.Figure 1depicts three net-works that exemplify human mobility at different scales,ranging from cross-continental airline travel to within-city mobility among mobile phone cell towers.Ideally,to make predictions about the processes driven by human mobility,we need to integrate this data,with its wide-ranging granular-ities (from a few hundred meters and a few hours to thousands of kilometers and several days),into a huge multiscale network.
Thus,the complexity of techno-social systems calls for a “network ”mindset.A simple example is provided by the large-scale description of epidemic spreading.The spread of the plague epidemic in the 14th century (the Black Death)(26)was mainly a spatial diffusion phenomenon.Historical studies have established that the disease propagation fol-lowed a simple pattern that can be adequately de-scribed mathematically within the framework of continuous differential equations with terms that describe diffusion.As anticipated in 1933(27),the large-scale and geographical impact of infectious diseases [such as the SARS epidemic (28)or the current swine flu epidemic]on populations in the modern world is mainly due to commercial air travel.An epidemic that starts in Southeast Asia will rapidly reach North America and Europe (Fig.2).This picture,therefore,cannot be simply de-scribed in terms of diffusive phenomena;rather,it must incorporate the spatial structure of modern
transportation networks.For instance,it is the heavy-tailed nature of the airline traffic network that explains why travel restrictions alone are in-effective in containing a global epidemic unless the global mobility rate is reduced at least by one order of magnitude (29–31).
Another crucial aspect of modern network thinking is the dynamical self-organization that gives rise to large-scale infrastructure patterns in-dependent of human planning and engineering of the system.The prime example of a dynamical self-organizing system may be the Internet,but most communication infrastructures,road and trans-portation systems,supply networks,and power distribution grids are also dynamically growing networks.Road construction,for instance,is ob-viously planned,and it is not surprising that con-siderations of optimization of cost,efficiency,and utility inform the planning effort.As a consequence,one could generally expect road networks to exhibit a high degree of regularity.Y et everyday experience suggests that this is not the case,especially in towns that have grown over a long period of time.For this reason,researchers have formulated simple road-formation models (32)that try to capture the tension between the notion of optimality that inspires planners and the limited time and spatial horizons that inform their decisions.
However,the biggest challenge in providing a holistic description of multiscale networks is the necessity of simultaneously dealing with multiple time and length scales.The final system ’s dy-namical behavior at any scale is the product of the events taking place on all scales.The single agent spreading a disease or single node of the Internet that fails are apparently not affected
by
Fig.2.Epidemic invasion tree obtained from the simulations of a pandemic originating in Hanoi,Vietnam.The nodes identify 3200populations worldwide,and the directed links indicate the path along which the epidemic has moved
from one population to the other.The color map from dark red to dark blue is according to the time ordering of the epidemic invasion.Simulations obtained with the worldwide epidemic and mobility model from (38).
www.sciencemag.org
SCIENCE VOL 325
24JULY 2009
427
SPECIAL SECTION
o n S e p t e m b e r 10, 2009
w w w .s c i e n c e m a g .o r g D o w n l o a d e d f r o m
the multiscale nature of the network,just as sin-gle molecules do not care about the multiscale nature of turbulent fluids.However,the collective dynamical behavior and our ability to conduct mathematical and/or computational analyses of techno-social systems are constrained by the mul-tiscale characteristic of the system.In the context of networks and techno-social systems,the multi-scale challenge is making its appearance now be-cause of the availability of large-scale data sets.Thus,we have to develop appropriate formalisms and techniques,as researchers studying multi-scale physical systems (fluids,solids,distribution of masses in the universe,etc.)have done in the past (33).To achieve analytical understanding of techno-social systems and approach them com-putationally,we must find different strategies to deal with dynamical behavior and/or equations that work at very different characteristic scales but still influence each other.Such methods will finally allow the definition of layered computational approaches in which different modeling assump-tions and granularities can be used consistently in the context of a general multiscale framework.Taking Advantage of Multiscale Networks Knowledge of network characteristics opens the path to the discovery and understanding of new statistical and dynamical laws governing large infrastructural systems coupled to social systems.Furthermore,the massive interconnectivity of spa-tially distributed populations and the complexity and strong heterogeneity of multiscale networks are the keys to the construction of ab-initio com-putational models,in which the behavior of the system can be understood in a bottom-up per-spective,as opposed to the traditional mean-field or top-down strategies.This happens in a wide array of contexts ranging from urban planning (34)to epidemic modeling (35–38).Notable ex-amples are the TRANSIM and EPISIMS projects (35),in which agent-based models,including mil-lions of individuals,are used to simulate the dy-namics and traffic of entire cities and the spread of biological agents,respectively.
In some cases,the understanding of complex networks provides counterintuitive and surprising approaches to the engineering and management of complex techno-social systems.For example,in power grids and other flow-carrying networks,the failure of a single node or line can trigger a domino effect (“cascading failure ”),in which the overload induced by the flow redistribution may generate a global failure of the network.By taking advantage of the heterogeneity of the flow carried on the links of multiscale networks,A.E.Motter (39)has pro-posed an adaptive defense mechanism that is ac-tually based on the removal of a certain number of nodes to induce intentional failures.Although this mechanism might appear counterintuitive,the inten-tional failure of appropriately chosen nodes does not amplify the cascade process and,on the contrary,is able to mitigate the final damage.In other words,we
now can provide a rationale for understanding the emerging tipping points and nonlinear properties that often underpin the most interesting character-istics of a techno-social system ’s behavior.The Toughest Challenge
Although many basic conceptual questions re-main unresolved,the major roadblock in defining the fundamental predictability limits for techno-social systems is their sensitivity and dependence on social adaptive behavior.In the absence of a stress on the system,a stationary state is reached in which the feedback between the social behav-ior and the physical infrastructure determines the details of how the network behavior and the dy-namical process of interest play out.We can imag-ine using steady-state data to forecast system behavior under such “normal ”conditions.How-ever,in the case of catastrophic events (for instance,the disruption of social order during emergencies such as pandemics or major natural disasters),the behavior of techno-social networks is driven out of equilibrium into unknown territory.
An interesting and ethically challenging as-pect of predicting and managing the unfolding of catastrophic events in techno-social networks is the system ’s adaptation to predictions when they are made publicly available.Social behaviors react and adapt to knowledge of predictions.Contrary to what happens in physical systems,the predic-tions themselves are part of the system dynamic.In addition,predictions may point to unethical control and anticipation strategies favoring spe-cific demographic sectors of the society.Finally,the risk of erroneous predictions may lead to costly or unethical social control mechanisms with no actual benefits.Whereas some of the above issues may find a partial solution through improvements in the accuracy and reliability of models,it is clear that social adaptation to predictions presents us with new methodological and ethical problems.Addressing these problems involves tackling three major scientific challenges.The first is the gathering of large-scale data on information spread and social reactions that occur during periods of crisis.This is not presently out of reach,via large-scale mobile communication databases (such as mobile telephones,Twitter logs,and social Web tools)operating at the moment of specific disaster or crisis events.The second challenge is the for-mulation of formal models that make it possible to quantify the effect of risk perception and aware-ness phenomena of individuals on the techno-social network structure and dynamics.The third challenge concerns the deployment of monitor-ing infrastructures capable of informing compu-tational models in real time.Complex systems and networks theory,mathematical biology,sta-tistics,nonequilibrium statistical physics,and com-puter science all play a key role in the effort to meet these challenges.Although such an inte-grated approach might still be in its infancy,it now seems possible to imagine the creation of
computational forecasting infrastructures that will help us design better energy-distribution systems,plan for traffic-free cities,anticipate the demands of Internet connectivity,or manage the deploy-ment of resources during health emergencies.
References and Notes
1.D.Lazer et al .,Science 323,721(2009).
2.A.Pentland,in The Global Information Technology Report 2008-2009(World Economic Forum,Geneva,2009),p.75.
3.J.P.Onnela et al .,Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A.104,7332(2007).
4.D.Brockmann,L.Hufnagel,T.Geisel,Nature 439,462(2006).
5.D.J.Watts,Nature 445,4(2007).
6.M.C.Gonzalez,C.A.Hidalgo,A.-L.Barabasi,Nature 453,779(2008).
7.G.A.Lundberg,M.Lawsing,Am.Sociol.Rev.2,318(1937).8.S.Erlander,N.F.Stewart,The Gravity Model in
Transportation Analysis (VSP,Utrecht,Netherlands,1990).9.J.de Dios Ortuzar,L.G.Willumsen,Modelling Transport (Wiley,New York,2001).
10.D.Brockmann,F.Theis,Pervasive Comput.7,28(2008).11.F.Giannotti,D.Pedretti,Mobility Data,Mining and
Privacy (Springer,Berlin,2008).12.S.Riley,Science 316,1298(2007).
13.C.Viboud et al .,Science 312,447(2006);published
online 29March 2006(10.1126/science.1125237).14.L.Hufnagel,D.Brockmann,T.Geisel,Proc.Natl.Acad.
Sci.U.S.A.101,15124(2004).
15.V.Colizza et al .,Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A.103,2015(2006).16.G.M.Ruiz et al .,Nature 408,49(2000).
17.B.A.Huberman,L.Adamic,Lecture Notes in Physics
(Springer,Heidelberg,Germany,2003).
18.R.Pastor-Satorras,A.Vespignani,Evolution and Structure
of the Internet (Cambridge Univ.Press,Cambridge,2004).19.M.E.Crovella,B.Krishnamurthy,Internet Measurements:
Infrastructure,Traffic and Applications (Wiley,Chichester,UK,2006).
20.S.Wasserman,K.Faust,Social Network Analysis
(Cambridge Univ.Press,Cambridge,1994).
21.I.A.Hanski,O.E.Gaggiotti,Ecology,Genetics and Evolution
of Metapopulations (Academic Press,San Diego,CA,2004).22.A.-L.Barábasi,R.Albert,Science 286,509(1999).23.M.E.J.Newman,SIAM Rev.45,167(2003).
24.A.Barrat,M.Barthelemy,A.Vespignani,Dynamical
Processes on Complex Networks (Cambridge Univ.Press,Cambridge,2008).
25.A.Barrat et al .,Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A.101,3747(2004).26.J.D.Murray,Mathematical Biology (Springer,New York,
1993).
27.A.Massey,Epidemiology in Relation to Air Travel
(H.K.Lewis,London,1933).
28.J.S.M.Peiris,K.Y.Yuen,K.Stohr,N.Engl.J.Med.349,
2431(2003).
29.T.D.Hollingsworth,N.M.Ferguson,R.M.Anderson,
Nat.Med.12,497(2006).
30.J.M.Epstein et al .,PLoS One 2,e401(2007).
31.V.Colizza,A.Vespignani,J.Theor.Biol.251,450(2008).32.M.Barthelemy,A.Flammini,Phys.Rev.Lett.100,
138702(2008).
33.G.I.Pavliotis,A.M.Stuart,Multiscale Methods:Averaging and
Homogenization (Springer,Heidelberg,Germany,2008).34.M.Batty,Science 319,769(2008).
35.S.Eubank et al .,Nature 429,180(2004).
36.N.M.Ferguson et al .,Nature 442,448(2006).
37.T.C.Germann et al .,Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A.103,
5935(2006).
38.V.Colizza et al .,PLoS Med.4,e95(2007).
39.A.E.Motter,Phys.Rev.Lett.93,098701(2004).
40.I thank V.Colizza,D.Balcan,B.Goncalves,M.Gonzalez,
and H.Hu for help with the figures and M.Gonzalez for the data used in Fig.1C.I am partially supported by NIH,NSF,the Defense Threat Reduction Agency,the Lilly Endowment Foundation,and the Future Emerging Technologies projects Epiwork and Dynanets.10.1126/science.1171990
24JULY 2009VOL 325
SCIENCE
www.sciencemag.org
428Pushing Networks to the Limit
o n S e p t e m b e r 10, 2009
w w w .s c i e n c e m a g .o r g D o w n l o a d e d f r o m下载本文
