pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19488 · v1 · pith:QI7LKMSWnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph · cs.SI· nlin.AO

Networks of agglomeration: how population density rewires social networks and reshapes contagion dynamics

Christopher K. Tokita This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 18:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph cs.SInlin.AO
keywords population densitysocial networkscontagion dynamicsagent-based modelnetwork structuresimple contagionscomplex contagionsagglomeration
0
0 comments X

The pith

Population density alone reorganizes social networks from local clusters to global cores with popular hubs, altering how simple and complex contagions spread.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

A minimal agent-based model holds population size and individual behavior fixed while varying only how closely people are placed in space. Under rules where people gradually form ties by preferring those nearby and those already well-connected, sparse placements produce locally clustered communities while denser placements produce short social distances and a tightly linked core of popular individuals. This reorganization happens sharply across a narrow density range, driven by whether proximity or popularity dominates tie formation. When contagions are simulated on the resulting networks, simple contagions reach a majority faster in denser settings, whereas complex contagions achieve broader and more reliable adoption without spreading faster.

Core claim

In the model, individuals form social ties gradually by favoring those nearby and those already well-connected. Varying population density alone is sufficient to reorganize network structure: sparse populations develop locally clustered communities, while denser ones form globally integrated networks with shorter social distances and a tightly interconnected core of popular individuals. This structural transition occurs sharply over a narrow range of densities and is governed by whether physical proximity or social popularity dominates tie formation. Simple contagions reach a majority of individuals more quickly in denser populations, while complex contagions achieve broader and more reliabl

What carries the argument

The agent-based tie-formation rule that gradually favors physical proximity and existing social popularity, which isolates density as the sole variable driving the shift between local clustering and global integration.

If this is right

  • Simple contagions such as information or disease reach a majority of individuals more quickly in denser populations.
  • Complex contagions such as social norms or collective behaviors achieve broader and more reliable adoption as density increases, without necessarily spreading faster.
  • The transition between clustered and integrated network structures occurs sharply over a narrow range of densities.
  • Whether physical proximity or social popularity dominates tie formation determines the structural outcome at a given density.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Density could serve as an independent structural driver of urban productivity and innovation even when economic or behavioral factors are held constant.
  • Urban planning that alters effective density might shift contagion thresholds without changing individual contact rates.
  • The model suggests that interventions targeting tie-formation biases could counteract or amplify density effects on collective behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The rules that individuals form ties gradually by favoring those nearby and those already well-connected are sufficient to capture the dominant mechanisms of real tie formation and that holding all other factors fixed isolates a pure density effect.

What would settle it

Mapping real-world social networks across matched populations at different densities and checking whether the fraction of local clusters versus global cores and popular hubs changes sharply as predicted when other variables are controlled.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19488 by Christopher K. Tokita.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Population density shifts networks from relatively egalitarian and clustered to more unequal and globally connected. (A) Example social network generated at low and high population density. Networks are visualized using a ForceAtlas2 lay￾out algorithm, in which node positions reflect network topology rather than physical space. Nodes are sized by degree and colored by community membership identi￾fied by a … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Population density induces a transition in social network structure. Panels show how network metrics vary with population density: (A) network density, (B) network diameter, (C) average shortest path length, (D) clustering coefficient, (E) modularity, and (F) assortativity. Points represent the average (± s.d.) of 50 social networks at each population density simulated. Social capacity is fixed at µc = 50.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Population density drives the structural transition in social networks, while social capacity only rescales the magnitude of connectivity. Each panel shows a network metric as a function of population density, with lines colored by mean social capacity µc. Lines represent the average across 50 social network simulations at each combination of population density and social capacity. The dashed vertical line… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simple contagion dynamics on social networks formed at different population densities. (A) Simulation time series of infection at an exemplary low and high population density. Thick lines show the mean infection trajectory at each density, and thin lines show the 50 individual networks, each averaged over 50 contagion simulations. (B) The average time (± s.e.m.) to infect a majority of individuals in a net… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Complex contagion dynamics on social networks formed at different popula￾tion densities. (A) Simulation time series of adoption at an exemplary low and high population density. Thick lines show the mean adoption trajectory at each density, and thin lines show the 50 individual networks, each averaged over 50 contagion simulations. (B) The average percent (± s.e.m.) of the network infected at the end of a s… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

From ancient Mesopotamia to modern cities, dense human settlements coincide with bursts of economic productivity, cultural innovation, and social change. But how does packing people more tightly together alter social organization in ways that reshape collective outcomes? Here, I use a minimal agent-based model to isolate the effect of population density, holding population size and individual behavior fixed while varying only how closely individuals are placed in space. In the model, individuals form social ties gradually, favoring those nearby and those already well-connected. Under these simple rules, varying population density alone is sufficient to reorganize social network structure: sparse populations develop locally clustered communities, while denser ones form globally integrated networks with shorter social distances and a tightly interconnected core of popular individuals. This structural transition occurs sharply over a narrow range of densities and is governed by whether physical proximity or social popularity dominates tie formation. Simulating contagions on these networks reveals that the consequences of this shift depend on what is spreading. Simple contagions (e.g., information or disease) reach a majority of individuals more quickly in denser populations. Complex contagions (e.g., social norms or collective behaviors) do not spread faster, but instead achieve broader and more reliable adoption as density increases. Together, these results show that population density can act as a structural force independent of the economic and behavioral mechanisms typically invoked to explain why cities are engines of change.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a minimal agent-based model in which agents form social ties by favoring nearby individuals and those already well-connected (high degree). Holding population size N and the tie-formation rule fixed while varying only spatial density (by changing the area), the model produces a sharp structural transition: sparse populations yield locally clustered communities, while denser populations produce globally integrated networks with shorter paths and a densely interconnected core of popular agents. This transition is governed by the relative dominance of proximity versus popularity. Simulations of contagions on the emergent networks show that simple contagions reach a majority faster in dense settings, whereas complex contagions achieve broader and more reliable adoption as density increases.

Significance. If the central isolation of a pure density effect holds, the work would be significant for providing a mechanistic account of how spatial packing alone can reorganize social structure and differentially affect collective dynamics. The minimal model with explicit, fixed behavioral rules is a clear strength, as is the distinction between simple and complex contagion outcomes. The approach avoids fitting to target statistics and instead derives structure from forward simulation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model section (tie-formation rule)] Model section (tie-formation rule): the proximity term is defined via an absolute Euclidean distance kernel without rescaling by local mean spacing. With N fixed and area decreased to raise density, typical inter-agent distances shrink, automatically raising the effective weight of proximity even when the functional form and any explicit weights remain unchanged. This makes the balance between proximity and popularity density-dependent by construction, undermining the claim that individual behavior is held fixed while isolating a pure density effect.
  2. [Results on structural transition] Results on structural transition: the reported sharp transition and its governance by proximity vs. popularity dominance are presented as emergent, yet no explicit check (e.g., rescaled relative-distance kernel or fixed absolute-distance control) is shown to confirm that the transition survives when the effective balance is prevented from shifting with density. This is load-bearing for the central claim that density alone reorganizes networks.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Model] The abstract and model description would benefit from an explicit equation for the tie-formation probability, including how the two preferences are combined and whether any normalization depends on density.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the network visualizations and contagion curves should state the exact parameter values used (proximity weight, popularity weight, area values) and the number of independent realizations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on the model implementation. The points raised about the proximity kernel and the need for additional controls are well taken. We address each below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate explicit checks that clarify the role of absolute versus effective distances.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Model section (tie-formation rule): the proximity term is defined via an absolute Euclidean distance kernel without rescaling by local mean spacing. With N fixed and area decreased to raise density, typical inter-agent distances shrink, automatically raising the effective weight of proximity even when the functional form and any explicit weights remain unchanged. This makes the balance between proximity and popularity density-dependent by construction, undermining the claim that individual behavior is held fixed while isolating a pure density effect.

    Authors: We agree that absolute distances cause the effective weight of proximity to increase with density, since a fixed proximity kernel encompasses more agents at higher densities. This is inherent to the model design: the behavioral rule (functional form and fixed parameters) remains unchanged while the spatial configuration varies. We view this as capturing how density alters tie-formation opportunities under constant individual preferences, rather than a violation of fixed behavior. To strengthen the analysis, the revised manuscript will add a control using a relative-distance kernel normalized by mean inter-agent spacing at each density, allowing direct comparison of whether the structural transition persists when the effective proximity-popularity balance is held constant. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Results on structural transition: the reported sharp transition and its governance by proximity vs. popularity dominance are presented as emergent, yet no explicit check (e.g., rescaled relative-distance kernel or fixed absolute-distance control) is shown to confirm that the transition survives when the effective balance is prevented from shifting with density. This is load-bearing for the central claim that density alone reorganizes networks.

    Authors: The absence of an explicit rescaled-kernel control is a valid limitation for fully isolating the density effect. In the revision we will include simulations with a relative-distance kernel (distances divided by local mean spacing) and report how the transition threshold and network properties change. This will allow us to quantify the contribution of the shifting effective balance versus other density-driven mechanisms, and we will update the results and discussion sections to present these controls alongside the original findings. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward simulation from fixed tie-formation rules with density as sole exogenous input

full rationale

The abstract and description present an agent-based model in which individuals form ties according to explicit, fixed rules (favoring nearby and well-connected agents) while only spatial density is varied with N and behavior held constant. Outcomes (clustering, path lengths, core-periphery structure, contagion thresholds) are generated by simulation rather than fitted to target statistics or defined in terms of those statistics. No equations, self-citations, or uniqueness theorems are supplied that would reduce any claimed prediction to a tautology or to a parameter tuned on the same data. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two unquantified preference strengths in the tie-formation rule and the domain assumption that these rules plus spatial placement are adequate to isolate density effects.

free parameters (2)
  • proximity preference weight
    Strength with which agents favor spatially nearby individuals when forming ties; value not stated in abstract.
  • popularity preference weight
    Strength with which agents favor already well-connected individuals when forming ties; value not stated in abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Individuals form social ties gradually, favoring those nearby and those already well-connected.
    This rule set is invoked as the sole mechanism generating network structure when density is varied.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5778 in / 1204 out tokens · 25707 ms · 2026-06-26T18:34:56.992903+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    R. M. Adams.The Uruk countryside: The natural setting of urban societies. Chicago: Chicago University Press„ 1972

    1972

  2. [2]

    L. M. Aiello, A. Vybornova, S. Juhà ˛ asz, M. Szell, and E. Bokà ˛ anyi. Urban highways are barriers to social ties.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(10):e2408937122, Mar. 2025. doi:10.1073/pnas.2408937122. URLhttps://www.pnas.org/ doi/10.1073/pnas.2408937122

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2408937122 2025

  3. [3]

    Albert and A.-L

    R. Albert and A.-L. Barabà ˛ asi. Statistical mechanics of complex networks.Reviews of Modern Physics, 74(1):47–97, Jan. 2002. ISSN 0034-6861. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.74.47. URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.74.47

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.74.47 2002

  4. [4]

    Alexander, S

    C. Alexander, S. Ishikawa, M. Silverstein, M. Jacobson, I. Fiksdahl- King, and S. Angel.A pattern language: towns, buildings, construc- tion. Oxford University Press, New Y ork, NY , USA, 1977

    1977

  5. [5]

    G. Algaze. The End of Prehistory and The Uruk Period. InThe Sumerian World. Routledge, 2013. Num Pages: 27

    2013

  6. [6]

    Algaze, B

    G. Algaze, B. Brenties, A. B. Knapp, P . L. Kohl, W. R. Kotter, C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, G. M. Schwartz, H. Weiss, R. J. Wenke, R. P . Wright, and A. Zagarell. The Uruk Expansion: Cross-cultural Ex- change in Early Mesopotamian Civilization [with Comments and Re- ply].Current Anthropology, 30(5):571–608, 1989. ISSN 0011-3204. URLhttps://www.jstor.org/stab...

    arXiv 1989

  7. [7]

    Amador-Vargas, W

    S. Amador-Vargas, W. Gronenberg, W. T. Wcislo, and U. Mueller. Specialization and group size: brain and behavioural correlates of colony size in ants lacking morphological castes.Proceedings. Bi- ological sciences, 282(1801):20142502, Feb. 2015. ISSN 1471-

    2015

  8. [8]

    URLhttp://www.ncbi

    doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.2502. URLhttp://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25567649

    work page doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.2502 2014

  9. [9]

    Arvidsson, N

    M. Arvidsson, N. LovsjÃ˝ u, and M. Keuschnigg. Urban scal- ing laws arise from within-city inequalities.Nature Human Be- haviour, 7(3):365–374, Mar. 2023. ISSN 2397-3374. doi:10. 1038/s41562-022-01509-1. URLhttps://www.nature.com/ articles/s41562-022-01509-1

    2023

  10. [10]

    Barabà ˛ asi and R

    A.-L. Barabà ˛ asi and R. Albert. Emergence of scaling in random networks.Science, 286(5439):509–512, 1999. ISBN: 0036-8075

    1999

  11. [11]

    Spatial Networks

    M. BarthÃl’lemy. Spatial networks.Physics Reports, 499(1-3):1– 101, Feb. 2011. ISSN 03701573. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2010. 11.002. URLhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S037015731000308X. arXiv: 1010.0302 ISBN: 0370-1573

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2010 2011

  12. [12]

    T. W. Beale. Bevelled Rim Bowls and Their Implications for Change and Economic Organization in the Later Fourth Millennium B. C. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 37(4):289–313, 1978. ISSN 0022-

    1978

  13. [13]

    URLhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/544044

  14. [14]

    K. B. Beck, D. R. Farine, J. A. Firth, and B. C. Sheldon. Variation in local population size predicts social network structure in wild songbirds.Journal of Animal Ecology, 92 (12):2348–2362, 2023. ISSN 1365-2656. doi:10.1111/ 1365-2656.14015. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2656.14015. _eprint: https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wi...

    work page doi:10.1111/1365-2656.14015 2023

  15. [15]

    L. M. A. Bettencourt. The Origins of Scaling in Cities.Sci- ence, 340(6139):1438–1441, June 2013. doi:10.1126/science. 1235823. URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/ science.1235823

    work page doi:10.1126/science 2013

  16. [16]

    L. M. A. Bettencourt, J. Lobo, D. Helbing, C. KÃijhnert, and G. B. West. Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(17):7301– 7306, Apr. 2007. doi:10.1073/pnas.0610172104. URLhttps:// www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0610172104

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0610172104 2007

  17. [17]

    Colony size, social complexity and reproductive conflict in social insects.Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 12(2):245–257, Mar

    Bourke. Colony size, social complexity and reproductive conflict in social insects.Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 12(2):245–257, Mar. 1999. ISSN 1010-061X. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.1999.00028. x. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1046/j.1420-9101.1999. 00028.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.1999.00028 1999

  18. [18]

    D. Centola. The spread of behavior in an online social net- work experiment.Science, 329(5996):1194–1197, Sept. 2010. ISSN 10959203. doi:10.1126/science.1185231. URLhttps: //science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5996/1194

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1185231 2010

  19. [19]

    Centola.How behavior spreads: The science of complex conta- gions, volume 3

    D. Centola.How behavior spreads: The science of complex conta- gions, volume 3. Princeton University Press Princeton, NJ, 2018

    2018

  20. [20]

    Centola and M

    D. Centola and M. Macy. Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties.American Journal of Sociology, 113(3):702–734, Nov

  21. [21]

    doi:10.1086/521848

    ISSN 00029602. doi:10.1086/521848

    work page doi:10.1086/521848

  22. [22]

    Centola, V

    D. Centola, V. M. Eguà luz, and M. W. Macy. Cas- cade dynamics of complex propagation.Physica A: Sta- tistical Mechanics and its Applications, 374(1):449–456, Jan

  23. [23]

    doi:10.1016/j.physa.2006.06

    ISSN 03784371. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2006.06

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2006.06 2006

  24. [24]

    URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0378437106007679

  25. [25]

    Conover, J

    M. Conover, J. Ratkiewicz, M. R. Francisco, B. Gonà ˘galves, F . Menczer, and A. Flammini. Political polarization on twitter. ICWSM, 133:89–96, 2011

    2011

  26. [26]

    I. D. Couzin, J. Krause, N. R. Franks, and S. A. Levin. Effec- tive leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move. Nature, 433(7025):513–516, Feb. 2005. ISSN 00280836. doi: 10.1038/nature03236. URLwww.nature.com/nature

    work page doi:10.1038/nature03236 2005

  27. [27]

    CrÃijsemann, M

    N. CrÃijsemann, M. van Ess, M. Hilgert, B. Salje, and T. Potts.Uruk: first city of the ancient world. Getty Publications, 2019

    2019

  28. [28]

    Cutler and G

    D. Cutler and G. Miller. The role of public health improvements in health advances: the twentieth-century United States.Demogra- phy, 42(1):1–22, 2005

    2005

  29. [29]

    De Vries.European Urbanization, 1500-1800

    J. De Vries.European Urbanization, 1500-1800. Routledge, 2013

    2013

  30. [30]

    M. C. Donaldson-Matasci, G. DeGrandi-Hoffman, and A. Dorn- haus. Bigger is better: honeybee colonies as distributed information-gathering systems.Animal Behaviour, 85(3):585–592, Mar. 2013. ISSN 0003-3472. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.12

    work page doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.12 2013

  31. [31]

    URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0003347212005702

  32. [32]

    R. I. Dunbar. Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in pri- mates.Journal of human evolution, 22(6):469–493, 1992

    1992

  33. [33]

    Duranton and D

    G. Duranton and D. Puga. Micro-foundations of urban agglomer- ation economies. InHandbook of regional and urban economics, volume 4, pages 2063–2117. Elsevier, 2004

    2063

  34. [34]

    Duranton and D

    G. Duranton and D. Puga. The Economics of Urban Density.Jour- nal of Economic Perspectives, 34(3):3–26, Aug. 2020. ISSN 0895-

    2020

  35. [35]

    URLhttps://www.aeaweb

    doi:10.1257/jep.34.3.3. URLhttps://www.aeaweb. org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.34.3.3

    work page doi:10.1257/jep.34.3.3

  36. [36]

    M. A. Elgar. Predator Vigilance and Group Size in Mam- mals and Birds: A Critical Review of the Empirical Ev- idence.Biological Reviews, 64(1):13–33, 1989. ISSN 1469-185X. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1989.tb00636.x. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1989.tb00636.x. _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1469- ...

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.1989.tb00636.x 1989

  37. [37]

    R. K. Englund. Proto-cuneiform account-books and journals.Cre- ating economic order: Record-keeping, standardization and the de- velopment of accounting in the ancient Near East, pages 23–46, 2004

    2004

  38. [38]

    R. K. Englund. Accounting in Proto-Cuneiform. In K. Rad- ner and E. Robson, editors,The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, page 0. Oxford University Press, Sept. 2011. ISBN 978-0-19-955730-1. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199557301. 013.0002. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/ 9780199557301.013.0002

    work page doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199557301 2011

  39. [39]

    J. H. Fewell and J. F . Harrison. Scaling of work and energy use in social insect colonies.Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 70(7):1047–1061, July 2016. ISSN 03405443. doi:10.1007/ s00265-016-2097-z. URLhttp://link.springer.com/10. 1007/s00265-016-2097-z

    2016

  40. [40]

    N. R. Franks, A. Dornhaus, C. S. Best, and E. L. Jones. De- cision making by small and large house-hunting ant colonies: one size fits all.Animal Behaviour, 72(3):611–616, Sept

  41. [41]

    doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.11

    ISSN 00033472. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.11

    work page doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.11 2005

  42. [42]

    ISBN: 0003-3472

    URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0003347206002168. ISBN: 0003-3472

  43. [43]

    B. M. Gagliardi, N. St-Amant, and R. Dakin. Social network struc- ture scales with group size in a multi-species analysis.bioRxiv, pages 2023–08, 2023

    2023

  44. [44]

    Glaeser.Agglomeration economics

    E. Glaeser.Agglomeration economics. University of Chicago Press, 2010

    2010

  45. [45]

    Information Propagation in Clustered Multilayer Networks

    M. Granovetter. Threshold Models of Collective Behavior.Amer- ican Journal of Sociology, 83(6):1420–1443, May 1978. ISSN 0002-9602. doi:10.1086/226707. URLhttp://www.journals. uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/226707. arXiv: 1509.03909 ISBN: 0002-9602

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/226707 1978

  46. [46]

    Hazarie, D

    S. Hazarie, D. Soriano-Paà ´sos, A. Arenas, J. Gø smez-Gardeôses, and G. Ghoshal. Interplay between population density and mobil- ity in determining the spread of epidemics in cities.Communica- tions Physics, 4(1):191, Aug. 2021. ISSN 2399-3650. doi:10. 1038/s42005-021-00679-0. URLhttps://www.nature.com/ articles/s42005-021-00679-0

    2021

  47. [47]

    Herrera-Y agÃije, C

    C. Herrera-Y agÃije, C. M. Schneider, T. CouronnÃl’, Z. Smoreda, R. M. Benito, P . J. Zufiria, and M. C. Gonzà ˛ alez. The anatomy of urban social networks and its implications in the searchability problem.Scientific Reports, 5(1):10265, June 2015. ISSN 2045-

    2015

  48. [48]

    URLhttps://www.nature

    doi:10.1038/srep10265. URLhttps://www.nature. com/articles/srep10265

    work page doi:10.1038/srep10265

  49. [49]

    C. T. Holbrook, P . M. Barden, and J. H. Fewell. Division of labor increases with colony size in the harvester ant Pogonomyrmex cali- fornicus.Behavioral Ecology, page arr075, 2011. ISBN: 1045-2249

    2011

  50. [50]

    Hsieh and E

    C.-T. Hsieh and E. Moretti. Housing Constraints and Spatial Mis- allocation.American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 11(2): 1–39, Apr. 2019. ISSN 1945-7707. doi:10.1257/mac.20170388. URLhttps://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/ mac.20170388

    work page doi:10.1257/mac.20170388 2019

  51. [51]

    Jacobs.The death and life of great American cities

    J. Jacobs.The death and life of great American cities. Random House, New Y ork, 1961

    1961

  52. [52]

    Jeanson, J

    R. Jeanson, J. H. Fewell, R. Gorelick, and S. M. Bertram. Emer- gence of increased division of labor as a function of group size. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 62(2):289–298, 2007. ISBN: 0340-5443

    2007

  53. [53]

    S. D. Leonhardt, F . Menzel, V. Nehring, and T. Schmitt. Ecology and Evolution of Communication in Social Insects.Cell, 164(6):1277– 1287, Mar. 2016. ISSN 0092-8674. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2016.01

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cell.2016.01 2016

  54. [54]

    URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0092867416300496

  55. [55]

    Liben-Nowell, J

    D. Liben-Nowell, J. Novak, R. Kumar, P . Raghavan, and A. Tomkins. Geographic routing in social networks.Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences, 102(33):11623–11628, Aug. 2005. doi:10.1073/pnas.0503018102. URLhttps://www.pnas.org/ doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0503018102

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0503018102 2005

  56. [56]

    Liker and V

    A. Liker and V. Bokony. Larger groups are more successful in in- novative problem solving in house sparrows.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(19):7893–7898, May 2009. ISSN 0027-8424. doi:10.1073/pnas.0900042106. URLhttp:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19416834. ISBN: 1091- 6490 (Electronic)\r0027-8424 (Linking)

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0900042106 2009

  57. [57]

    F . T. Lima, N. C. Brown, and J. P . Duarte. Understanding the Impact of Walkability, Population Density, and Population Size on COVID-19 Spread: A Pilot Study of the Early Contagion in the United States.Entropy, 23(11):1512, Nov. 2021. ISSN 1099-

    2021

  58. [58]

    URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/ 1099-4300/23/11/1512

    doi:10.3390/e23111512. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/ 1099-4300/23/11/1512

    work page doi:10.3390/e23111512

  59. [59]

    McCorriston

    J. McCorriston. The Fiber Revolution: Textile Extensification, Alien- ation, and Social Stratification in Ancient Mesopotamia.Current Anthropology, 38(4):517–535, Aug. 1997. ISSN 0011-3204. doi: 10.1086/204643. URLhttps://www.journals.uchicago. edu/doi/10.1086/204643

    work page doi:10.1086/204643 1997

  60. [60]

    D. P . Mersch, A. Crespi, and L. Keller. Tracking individuals shows spatial fidelity is a key regulator of ant social organization.Science, 340(6136):1090–1093, 2013. ISBN: 0036-8075

    2013

  61. [61]

    Morand-Ferron and J

    J. Morand-Ferron and J. L. Quinn. Larger groups of passer- ines are more efficient problem solvers in the wild.Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(38):15898– 15903, Sept. 2011. ISSN 0027-8424. doi:10.1073/ pnas.1111560108. URLhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/21930936. ISBN: 9780387734118

    arXiv 2011

  62. [62]

    Moretti.The New Geography of Jobs

    E. Moretti.The New Geography of Jobs. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012. ISBN 978-0-547-75011-8. Google-Books-ID: br0S54w0u_sC

    2012

  63. [63]

    Moussaid, S

    M. Moussaid, S. Garnier, G. Theraulaz, and D. Helbing. Collective information processing and pattern formation in swarms, flocks, and crowds.Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(3):469–497, 2009. ISBN: 1756-8765

    2009

  64. [64]

    D. Naug. Structure and resilience of the social network in an in- sect colony as a function of colony size.Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 63(7):1023–1028, 2009. ISBN: 0340-5443

    2009

  65. [65]

    H. J. Nissen. Urbanization and the techniques of commu- nication: the Mesopotamian city of Uruk during the fourth millenniumBCE. In N. Y offee, editor,The Cambridge World History: Volume 3: Early Cities in Comparative Perspec- tive, 4000 BCEâ ˘A ¸ S1200 CE, volume 3 ofThe Cambridge World History, pages 113–130. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015....

    2015

  66. [66]

    H.-J. Nissen. Uruk: Early Administration Practices and the Develop- ment of Proto-Cuneiform Writing.ArchÃl’o-Nil, 26(1):33–48, 2016. doi:10.3406/arnil.2016.1102. URLhttps://www.persee.fr/ doc/arnil_1161-0492_2016_num_26_1_1102

    work page doi:10.3406/arnil.2016.1102 2016

  67. [67]

    S. G. Ortman, A. H. F . Cabaniss, J. O. Sturm, and L. M. A. Bet- tencourt. Settlement scaling and increasing returns in an ancient society.Science Advances, 1(1):e1400066, Feb. 2015. doi:10. 1126/sciadv.1400066. URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/ 10.1126/sciadv.1400066

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400066 2015

  68. [68]

    W. Pan, G. Ghoshal, C. Krumme, M. Cebrian, and A. Pentland. Ur- ban characteristics attributable to density-driven tie formation.Na- ture Communications, 4(1):1961, June 2013. ISSN 2041-1723. doi:10.1038/ncomms2961. URLhttps://www.nature.com/ articles/ncomms2961

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms2961 1961

  69. [69]

    Pinter-Wollman

    N. Pinter-Wollman. Nest architecture shapes the collective be- haviour of harvester ants.Biology Letters, 11(10):20150695, 2015. ISBN: 1744-9561

    2015

  70. [70]

    H. R. Pulliam. On the advantages of flocking.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 38(2):419–422, Feb. 1973. ISSN 0022-5193. doi:10.1016/ 0022-5193(73)90184-7. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/0022519373901847

    arXiv 1973

  71. [71]

    S. G. Roberts, R. I. Dunbar, T. V. Pollet, and T. Kuppens. Exploring variation in active network size: Constraints and ego characteristics. Social Networks, 31(2):138–146, 2009

    2009

  72. [72]

    S. S. Rosenthal and W. C. Strange. Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies. InHandbook of regional and Tokita | Population Density Networks urban economics, volume 4, pages 2119–2171. Elsevier, 2004

    2004

  73. [73]

    SchlÃd’pfer, L

    M. SchlÃd’pfer, L. M. A. Bettencourt, S. Grauwin, M. Raschke, R. Claxton, Z. Smoreda, G. B. West, and C. Ratti. The scal- ing of human interactions with city size.Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 11(98):20130789, Sept. 2014. ISSN 1742-

    2014

  74. [74]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10

    doi:10.1098/rsif.2013.0789. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1098/rsif.2013.0789

    work page doi:10.1098/rsif.2013.0789 2013

  75. [75]

    M. M. Sosna, C. R. Twomey, J. Bak-Coleman, W. Poel, B. C. Daniels, P . Romanczuk, and I. D. Couzin. Individual and col- lective encoding of risk in animal groups.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of Amer- ica, 116(41):20556–20561, Oct. 2019. ISSN 10916490. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1905585116. URLhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pub...

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1905585116 2019

  76. [76]

    Storper and A

    M. Storper and A. J. Venables. Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy.Journal of economic geography, 4(4):351–370, 2004

    2004

  77. [77]

    Strandburg-Peshkin, D

    A. Strandburg-Peshkin, D. R. Farine, I. D. Couzin, and M. C. Crofoot. Shared decision-making drives collective movement in wild baboons.Science, 348(6241):1358–1361, June 2015. ISSN 10959203. doi:10.1126/science.aaa5099

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaa5099 2015

  78. [78]

    A. C. Swanson, L. Schwendenmann, M. F . Allen, E. L. Aron- son, A. Artavia-Leø sn, D. Dierick, A. S. Fernandez-Bou, T. C. Harmon, C. Murillo-Cruz, S. F . Oberbauer, A. A. Pinto- Tomà ˛ as, P . W. Rundel, and T. J. Zelikova. Welcome to the Atta world: A framework for understanding the effects of leaf-cutter ants on ecosystem functions.Functional Ecol- ogy...

    work page doi:10.1111/1365-2435.13319 2019

  79. [79]

    C. K. Tokita and C. E. Tarnita. Social influence and interaction bias can drive emergent behavioural specialization and modular social networks across systems.Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 17(162):20190564, Jan. 2020. ISSN 17425662. doi:10.1098/rsif. 2019.0564. URLhttps://royalsocietypublishing.org/ doi/10.1098/rsif.2019.0564

    work page doi:10.1098/rsif 2020

  80. [80]

    Tø sth, J

    G. Tø sth, J. Wachs, R. Di Clemente, Ã. Jakobi, B. Sà ˛ agvà ˛ ari, J. KertÃl’sz, and B. Lengyel. Inequality is rising where social net- work segregation interacts with urban topology.Nature Commu- nications, 12(1):1143, Feb. 2021. ISSN 2041-1723. doi:10. 1038/s41467-021-21465-0. URLhttps://www.nature.com/ articles/s41467-021-21465-0

    2021

Showing first 80 references.