Controlling Congestion on Complex Networks

From the Internet to road networks and the power grid, modern life depends on controlling flows on critical infrastructure networks that often operate in a congested state. Yet, we have a limited understanding of the relative performance of the control mechanisms available to manage congestion and of the interplay between network topology, path layout and congestion control algorithms. Here, we consider two flow algorithms (max-flow and uniform-flow), and two more realistic congestion control schemes (max-min fairness and proportional fairness). We analyse how the algorithms and network topology affect throughput, fairness and the location of bottleneck edges. Our results show that on large random networks a network operator can implement the trade-off (proportional fairness) instead of the fair allocation (max-min fairness) with little sacrifice in throughput. We illustrate how the previously studied uniform-flow approach leaves networks severely underutilised in comparison with congestion control algorithms, and how uniform-flow can (erroneously) lead to the conclusion that ER networks are more efficient than SF at the onset of congestion. For proportional fairness and max-min fairness, we found that SF networks are more unequal than ER. Finally, we found that links with high edge betweenness centrality are good candidates for bottleneck edges.

[1]  Frank Kelly,et al.  Rate control for communication networks: shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability , 1998, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[2]  Antonio Fernández,et al.  Self-adapting network topologies in congested scenarios. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[3]  A. Arenas,et al.  Dynamical properties of model communication networks. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[4]  Marc Barthelemy,et al.  Spatial Networks , 2010, Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining.

[5]  K. Goh,et al.  Universal behavior of load distribution in scale-free networks. , 2001, Physical review letters.

[6]  Lubos Buzna,et al.  Fair sharing of resources in a supply network with constraints. , 2012, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[7]  Tamás Vicsek,et al.  Controlling edge dynamics in complex networks , 2011, Nature Physics.

[8]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Transport in networks with multiple sources and sinks , 2008, ArXiv.

[9]  Dritan Nace,et al.  Fair Optimization and Networks: A Survey , 2014, J. Appl. Math..

[10]  Zi-Gang Huang,et al.  Extreme events in multilayer, interdependent complex networks and control , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[11]  Alex Arenas,et al.  Impact of community structure on information transfer. , 2007, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[12]  Lubos Buzna,et al.  Critical behaviour in charging of electric vehicles , 2015 .

[13]  Attila Szolnoki,et al.  Accuracy in strategy imitations promotes the evolution of fairness in the spatial ultimatum game , 2012, 1211.1964.

[14]  Dimitris Bertsimas,et al.  The Price of Fairness , 2011, Oper. Res..

[15]  S. Havlin,et al.  Transport between multiple users in complex networks , 2007 .

[16]  Dritan Nace,et al.  Max-min fairness and its applications to routing and load-balancing in communication networks: a tutorial , 2008, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[17]  V. Jacobson,et al.  Congestion avoidance and control , 1988, CCRV.

[18]  V. Latora,et al.  Complex networks: Structure and dynamics , 2006 .

[19]  Guido Caldarelli,et al.  Scale-Free Networks , 2007 .

[20]  Zoltán Toroczkai,et al.  Structural bottlenecks for communication in networks. , 2007, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[21]  Javier Martín Hernández,et al.  Betweenness centrality in a weighted network. , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[22]  Emilio Frazzoli,et al.  Revisiting Street Intersections Using Slot-Based Systems , 2016, PloS one.