abstract: Reexamination of general relativistic experimental results shows the universe is governed by Einstein's static-spacetime general relativity instead of Friedmann-Lemaitre expanding-spacetime general relativity. The absence of expansion redshifts in a static-spacetime universe suggests a reevaluation of the present cosmology is needed.
author: Robert V. Gentry and David W. Gentry
The Orion Foundation
P.O. Box 12067
Knoxville, TN 37912
date: gr-qc/9806061
title: The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta

For many decades the Friedmann-Lemaitre spacetime expansion redshift hypothesis$^{1,2}$ has been accepted as the Rosetta of modern cosmology. It is believed to unlock the mysteries of the cosmos just as the archaeological Rosetta unlocked the mysteries of ancient Egypt. But are expansion redshifts *The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta*? Until now this has been the consensus because of their apparent, most impressive ability to uniquely explain how the twentieth century's two great astronomical and astrophysical discoveries—meaning of course the Hubble redshift relation and the 2.7K Cosmic Blackbody Radiation (CBR)—can be accounted for within the framework of a hot big bang universe. But this consensus is not universal. For example, Burbidge$^3$ and Arp$^4$ continue to note that while most astronomers and astrophysicists accept the hot big bang and attribute extragalactic redshifts to expansion effects, they continue to ignore the minority view that certain observations, such as anomalous quasar redshifts, imply the need for a different redshift interpretation, and perhaps a different universe model as well.

What is now almost certain to attract more attention to the Burbidge/Arp claim is the surprising, very recent discovery of a new redshift interpretation$^5$ of the Hubble relation and the 2.7K CBR based on a universe governed by Einstein's static-spacetime general relativity. This discovery shows for the first time that the expansion redshift hypothesis is not the only possible explanation of extragalactic redshifts. And in so doing it inevitably focuses attention on the question of how the universe is formatted, relativistically speaking: Is it governed by Friedmann-Lemaitre expanding spacetime general relativity, as has been generally assumed for many decades? Or does the new redshift discovery point instead to it being governed by Einstein static-spacetime general relativity? There are three solid reasons why this question should now be further investigated.

First, G. F. R. Ellis, one of the big bang's ablest advocates has: (i) gone so far as to suggest the big bang might not be correct, (ii) cautioned against the bandwagon effect in supporting it, (iii) emphasized the constant need to question and test its *foundations*, and (iv) even entertained the possibility of a paradigm shift away from it.$^6$ Is Ellis aware of something that has eluded everyone else? Not really. Rather, his forthright appraisal relates to the fact that the expanding spacetime paradigm stands alone among all the theories of modern physics in that, even after many decades, no way has yet been found to experimentally confirm the existence of the cosmic expansion factor, $\Re$, which is the essential parameter in Friedmann-Lemaitre expansion redshift equation, $z_{\exp }=\Re /\Re _e-1$. Thus, despite the fact that expansion redshifts have been widely inferred to exist because of their apparently successful use in uniquely accounting for the Hubble redshift relation and the 2.7K CBR, we must recognize that inference is not the same as certainty obtained by direct experimentation. We should also recognize that the recent discovery of the new redshift interpretation,$^5$ which shows the uniqueness part of the inference argument has always been ill-founded, makes it more imperative than ever to further probe the expanding spacetime paradigm.

In doing this we almost immediately come face-to-face with a most interesting feature—namely, in defiance of long-established protocol for testing any and all modern scientific theories for consistency with known physical laws, we find wavelength expansion effects, which are the presumed cause of expansion redshifts, have been authoritatively defined to be exempt from obeying conservation of energy. For example, in 1981, 1989, 1990, and 1993, respectively, cosmologists Harrison,$^7$ Silk,$^8$ Alpher and Herman,$^9$ and Peebles$^{10}$, independently concurred that the in-flight photon energy loss which accompanies photon wavelength expansion represents nonconservation of energy. In 1993 Peebles stated the situation rather plainly:

*"However, since the volume of the universe varies as $a(t)^3$, the net radiation energy in a closed universe decreases as $1/a(t)$ as the universe expands. Where does the lost energy go? ... The resolution of this apparent paradox is that while energy conservation is a good local concept, ....there is not a general global energy conservation law in general relativity theory".*$^{10}$

This conclusion is based on Peebles' use of the expanding-spacetime paradigm. Even though such conclusions have long remained unchallenged, we are unable to find where the full implications of this and similar assertions $^{7-10}$ have ever been critically analyzed and reported in a text or journal. Indeed, we cannot even find where the answer to the most basic question about how much radiation energy is predicted to have been lost due to expansion effects has ever appeared in a journal publication. So we undertake to do this now, and the answer is quite large. Consider in particular the magnitude of the nonconservation-of-energy loss of CBR photons as in theory they were expansion-redshifted from 3000K at decoupling to the present 2.7K.

Assuming a nominal universe volume, $V_{univ}$, of 15 billion ly radius, the 2.7K CBR having about $\overline{n}=410$ photons-cm$^{-3}$ with average energy of about $\overline{\varepsilon }_{2.7}=10^{-15}$ erg, and the 3000K radiation with $\overline{\varepsilon }_{3000}=1.13\times 10^{-12}$ erg, and an equal number of photons,$^8$ we compute the total CBR expansion energy loss as $%
E_{\exp }=\overline{n}\times (\overline{\varepsilon }_{3000}-\overline{%
\varepsilon }_{2.7})\times V_{univ}=5.5\times 10^{75}$ erg. This is about three times the galactic mass of a universe composed of 10$^{21}$ solar masses. For an initial fireball temperature of 3 million K, the total radiation energy loss would be three thousand times the mass of such a universe. Even more incredibly, since in theory photon conservation$^8$ extends back to a fireball temperature of 30 billion K, in this case the theorized nonconservation-of-energy loss projects to be thirty million times the mass of such a universe.

These gargantuan energy losses command our attention for there appear to be only two ways to interpret them, and both have significant cosmological implications. If expanding spacetime general relativity and expansion redshifts correctly describe the universe we inhabit, it would seem that our long-held concepts of energy conservation are drastically in error. On the other hand, if we hold to universal energy conservation, then it would seem our universe must be governed by Einstein's static-spacetime general relativity and Einstein redshifts, which are consistent with energy conservation. As this Letter now reports, even though the experimental data needed to distinguish these alternatives have existed for more than two decades, their cosmological implications have remained virtually unnoticed until now.

Testing the expanding-spacetime universe paradigm begins with listing its twofold basic assumption—namely, that general relativistic processes operate to expand wavelengths only while photons are in-flight. It is imperative to assume complete cessation of expansion effects during emission/absorption in order to insure agreement with the astronomical requirement of a fixed emission wavelength, $\lambda _e.$ However, when we examine the many relativistic gravitational experiments performed over the last few decades we find that, while those results conflict with the expansion paradigm's basic assumptions, they are completely in accord with the predictions of the static-spacetime theory of general relativity as Einstein first proposed it in 1916.$^{11}$

In that seminal paper he predicted that gravity should cause a perfect clock to go "*... more slowly if set up in the neighborhood of ponderable masses. From this it follows that the spectral lines of light reaching us from the surface of large stars must appear displaced towards the red end of the spectrum."*$^{11}$

In 1954 Brault's redshift measurement$^{12}$ of the sodium D line emanating from the sun's spectrum did succeed in confirming the *magnitude* of the gravitational redshift that Einstein had predicted. But this result did not settle the question of its *origin*. More specifically, was Einstein correct in postulating that different gravitational potentials at source and observer meant that clocks at these locations should run at intrinsically different rates, and hence that this was the origin of the gravitational redshift? Or did the measured redshift instead have its origin in photons experiencing an in-flight energy exchange with gravity as they moved in a changing gravitational potential in their transit from a star to the Earth?

Even the 1965 Pound-Snider experiments$^{13}$ did not settle this question. True, these observers did find a $\Delta \nu /\nu =-\Delta \varphi
/c^2=gh/c^2$ fractional frequency difference between $^{57}$Fe gammas emitted at the top and received at the bottom of a tower of height, $h$, and this result did more precisely confirm the *magnitude* of the Einstein redshift. But it did not settle its *origin*, for they could not tell whether the redshift resulted from in-flight wavelength change as the photon passed through a gravitational gradient, or whether it was due instead to differences in gravity affecting the relative frequency at the point of emission. They did suggest, however, this issue could be decided by comparing coherent light sources operating at different potentials.$^{13}$

That is, if atomic clocks separated by a height $h$ were found to run at the same rate, this would prove that local gravity does not affect relative emission frequencies, and hence that relativistic redshifts do result from photons experiencing an in-flight energy exchange with gravity. If this had been the experimental outcome, then the predictions of the expanding-spacetime paradigm, with its expansion redshifts, would have been fully confirmed.

But as is now well-known, atomic clock experiments have repeatedly shown that a clock on a mountain top does run faster than its sea level counterpart by a fractional amount $\Delta \nu /\nu =-\Delta \varphi /c^2=$ $gh/c^2$, the same shift found by Pound and Snider. Although not generally recognized as such until now, this result proved long ago that the Einstein redshift is due to local gravity operating to affect relative emission frequencies as seen by an observer in a different gravitational potential. Moreover, the basic principle of local gravity affecting relative emission frequencies is further confirmed many thousands of times every hour in the continuing operation of GPS atomic clocks. Synchronization of those clocks utilizes the Einstein static-spacetime paradigm with its predicted effect of gravity on emission frequency to calculate how much faster satellite clocks will be expected to operate once they are in orbit. Thus, prior to launch, satellite clocks are preset to run about 38,400 ns/d slower than the base master clock to compensate for their faster rate in orbit.$^{14}$

Another remarkable confirmation of gravity's effect on emission frequencies comes from Taylor's comparison of atomic clock time with pulsar timing data.$%
^{15}$ To synchronize both data sets he found it necessary to account for the change of local atomic clock time due to the monthly variation in the sun's gravitational potential at Earth. In Taylor's own words, *"Here is direct proof, based on a clock some 15,000 light years from the solar system, that clocks on Earth run more slowly when the moon is full—because at this time of the month we are deeper in the gravitational potential of the sun!"*$^{15}$

Thus Einstein's 1916 predictions about both the origin and the magnitude of the gravitational redshift have been confirmed by a variety of general relativistic experiments, so as to obtain the following conclusions: (1) there is only one gravitational redshift between two points at different potentials, and it is given by $\Delta \nu /\nu
=-\Delta \lambda /\lambda =-\Delta \varphi /c^2$, and (2) this redshift does not originate with photons exchanging energy with gravity during transit through a potential gradient, but instead originates in precisely the way that Einstein stated it in 1916, and again in 1952—namely, *"An atom absorbs or emits light of a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated."*$^{16}$

The foregoing results contradict the basic assumptions of a universe governed by Friedmann-Lemaitre expanding-spacetime general relativity, showing instead that the universe we inhabit is one governed by Einstein's static-spacetime general relativity. In doing this they focus added attention on the recent discovery of *a New Redshift Interpretation*$^5$ (NRI)—which shows for the first time that an expanding universe characterized by Hubble-relation galactic recession and the 2.7K CBR can be explained within the framework of a universe governed by static-spacetime general relativity. The credibility of the NRI is enhanced by its apparent ability to also account for:$^5$ (i) the 2.7K CBR's spatial isotropy, (ii) the predicted variation of redshift, $z$, with CBR temperature, (iii) the observed monotonic decline in galactic angular size with increasingly higher redshifts, and (iv) possibly the sparsity of high redshift quasars for $z>4$.

Thus this Letter concludes that Einstein's static-spacetime general relativity is indeed *The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta.* Its apparent success in interpreting the aforementioned observations implies it now needs to be further tested against an increasing array of other astrophysical phenomena. Indeed, in the relatively short time that has elapsed since the NRI's publication, new results have appeared which seem to provide one of the strongest observational tests of its validity. We refer to most recent reports of astronomical observations strongly suggesting the existence of a repulsive force in the outermost reaches of the universe.$^{17,18}$ An important question which may soon attract wide attention is whether these observations may reasonably be interpreted to be a remarkable confirmation of the NRI's prediction that ours is a universe dominated by a repulsive force due to vacuum gravity.$^5$

In another paper we show how the NRI and a static-spacetime universe lead to new possibilities for quasar redshifts.$^{19}$ The latter may be of considerable interest to researchers such Burbidge and Arp, who have long contended that certain quasars provide strong evidence of intrinsic redshifts. Also, while we acknowledge the concerns and results of Burbidge,$^3$ Arp,$^4$ Ellis,$^{6,20}$ and Ellis *et al.*,$^{21}$ as providing motivation for pursuing the investigation of this most interesting topic, we do not imply that these researchers have been participants in it.

Where the results of this Letter may attract the most interest is with the majority of astronomers and astrophysicists who have long believed the creation of the universe can be traced to a big bang singularity, for the results presented herein challenge the very existence of the big bang's essential ingredient of spacetime expansion. These results are presented in the spirit of free scientific inquiry with the expectation that more details about these matters will emerge as all their ramifications are openly and freely pursued.


abstract: *Is numerical mimicry a third way of establishing truth?
  Kevin Heng received his M.S. and Ph.D. in astrophysics from the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics (JILA) and the University of Colorado at Boulder. He joined the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton from 2007 to 2010, first as a Member and later as the Frank & Peggy Taplin Member. From 2010 to 2012 he was a Zwicky Prize Fellow at ETH Zürich (the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology). In 2013, he joined the Center for Space and Habitability (CSH) at the University of Bern, Switzerland, as a tenure-track assistant professor, where he leads the Exoplanets and Exoclimes Group. He has worked on, and maintains, a broad range of interests in astrophysics: shocks, extrasolar asteroid belts, planet formation, fluid dynamics, brown dwarfs and exoplanets. He coordinates the Exoclimes Simulation Platform (ESP), an open-source set of theoretical tools designed for studying the basic physics and chemistry of exoplanetary atmospheres and climates (www.exoclime.org). He is involved in the CHEOPS (Characterizing Exoplanet Satellite) space telescope, a mission approved by the European Space Agency (ESA) and led by Switzerland. He spends a fair amount of time humbly learning the lessons gleaned from studying the Earth and Solar System planets, as related to him by atmospheric, climate and planetary scientists. He received a Sigma Xi Grant-in-Aid of Research in 2006.
  Edited by Katie Burke. `www.americanscientist.org `*
address: University of Bern
  Center for Space and Habitability
  Sidlerstrasse 5, CH-3012, Bern, Switzerland
author: Kevin Heng
title: The Nature of Scientific Proof in the Age of Simulations

Empiricism lies at the heart of the scientific method. It seeks to understand the world through experiment and experience. This cycle of formulating and testing falsifiable hypotheses has amalgamated with a modern form of rationalism—the use of reasoning, mathematics and logic to understand nature. These schools of thought are couched in centuries of history and, until recently, remained largely distinct. Proponents of empiricism include the eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher, David Hume, who believed in a subjective, sensory-based perception of the world. Rationalism is the (mistaken) belief that the use of reasoning alone is sufficient to understand the natural world, without any recourse to experiment. Its roots may be traced to the Greek philosophers, Aristotle, Plato and Pythagoras; its more modern proponents include Kant, Leibniz and Descartes.

A clear example of both practices at work is in the field of astronomy and astrophysics. Astronomers discover, catalogue, and attempt to make sense of the night sky using powerful telescopes. Astrophysicists mull over theoretical ideas, form hypotheses, make predictions for what one expects to observe, and attempt to discover organizing principles unifying astronomical phenomena. Frequently, researchers are practitioners of both subdisciplines.

Problems in astrophysics—and physics, in general—may often be rendered tractable by concentrating on the characteristic length, time, or velocity scales of interest. When trying to understand water as a fluid, it is useful to treat it as a continuous medium rather than as an enormous collection of molecules, because it makes it vastly easier to visualize (and compute) its macroscopic behavior. Although the Earth is evolving on geological time scales, its global climate is essentially invariant from one day to the next (and hence the difficulty in explaining the urgency of climate change to the public). The planets of the Solar System do not orbit a static Sun, as it performs a ponderous wobble about its center of mass due to their collective gravitational tug, but it is often sufficient to visualize it as being so. The Milankovitch cycles cause the eccentricity and obliquity of the Earth's orbit to evolve over hundreds of thousands of years, but they are essentially constant over a human lifetime. This separation of scales strips a problem down to its bare essence, allowing one to gain insight into the salient physics at the scale of interest.

Multiscale problems, on the other hand, do not lend themselves to such simplification. Small disturbances in a system might show up as big effects across a myriad of sizes and time scales. Structures on very large scales "talk" to features on very small scales and vice versa. For example, a grand challenge in astrophysics is planet formation—to predict the diversity of exoplanets forming around a star, starting from a primordial cloud of gas and dust. Planet formation is an inherently multiscale problem: Uncertainties on microscopic scales, such as how turbulence and the seed particles of dust grains are created, hinder our ability to predict the outcome on celestial scales. Many "real-life" problems in biology, chemistry, physics, and the atmospheric and climate sciences are multiscale.

By necessity, a third, modern way of testing and establishing scientific truth—in addition to theory and experiment—is via simulations, the use of (often large) computers to mimic nature. It is a synthetic universe in a computer. One states an equation (or several) describing the physical system being studied, programs it into a computer, and marches the system forward in space and time. If all of the relevant physical laws are faithfully captured, then one ends up with an emulation—a perfect, *The Matrix*-like replication of the physical world in virtual reality.

In astronomy and astrophysics, this third way has come into its own, largely due to the unique status of astronomy as an experimental science. Unlike other, laboratory-based disciplines, astronomers may not exert full control over their experiments—one simply cannot rearrange objects in the sky. Astronomical phenomena often encode information about a subpopulation of a class of objects at a very specific moment in their evolution. To understand the entire population of a class of objects across cosmic time requires large computer simulations of their formation and evolution. Examples of different classes of objects include exoplanets, stars, black holes, galaxies and even clusters of galaxies. The hope is that these simulations lead to "big picture" understanding that unifies seemingly unrelated astronomical phenomena.

During the 1940s through the 1980s, the late, distinguished Princeton astrophysicist Martin Schwarzschild was one of the first to use simulations to gain insights into astronomy, harnessing them to understand the evolution of stars and galaxies. Schwarzschild realized that the physical processes governing stellar structure are nonlinear and not amenable to analytical ("pencil and paper") solution since it requires an understanding of the physics of nuclear burning, while galaxies are hardly perfect spheres, and proceeded to investigate them using numerical solutions generated by large computers (at that time).

Both lines of inquiry have since blossomed into respected and full-fledged subdisciplines in astrophysics. Nowadays, an astrophysicist is as likely to be found puzzling over the engineering of complex computer code as he or she is to be found fiddling with mathematical equations on paper (or chalkboard).

From the 1990s to the present, the approach of using computer simulations for testing hypotheses flourished. As technology advanced, astronomical datasets became richer, motivating the need for more detailed theoretical predictions and interpretations. Computers became more prevalent and faster, alongside rapid advances in the algorithmic techniques developed by computational science. Inexorably, the calculations produced by large simulations evolved to resemble experimental datasets in size, detail and complexity. Computational astrophysicists now come in three variants: engineers to build the code, researchers to formulate hypotheses and design numerical experiments, and yet others to process and interpret the resulting massive output. Supercomputing centers function almost like astronomical observatories. For better or worse, this third way of establishing scientific truth appears to be here to stay.

In a series of lunchtime conversations with astrophysicist Piet Hut of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, I discovered that we were both concerned about the implications of these ever-expanding simulations. Computational astrophysics has adopted some of the terminology and jargon traditionally associated with the experimental sciences. Simulations may legitimately be regarded as numerical experiments, along with the assumptions, caveats, and limitations associated with any traditional, laboratory-based experiment. Simulated results are often described as being "empirical", a term usually reserved for natural phenomena rather than numerical mimicries of nature. Simulated data are referred to as "data sets", seemingly placing them on an equal footing with observed natural phenomena.

The Millennium Simulation Project, designed and executed by the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Munich, Germany, provides a pioneering example of such an approach. It is a massive simulation of a universe in a box, elucidating the very fabric of the cosmos. The datasets generated by these simulations are so widely used that entire workshops are organized around them. Mimicry has supplanted astronomical data.

It is not far-fetched to say that all theoretical studies of nature are approximations. There is no single equation that describes all physical phenomena in the universe—and even if we could write one down in principle, solving it would be prohibitive, if not downright impossible. The equations we study as theorists are merely approximations of nature. Schrödinger's equation describes the quantum world in the absence of gravity. The Navier-Stokes equation is a macroscopic description of fluids. Newton's equation describes gravity accurately under terrestrial conditions, superceded only by Einstein's equations under less familiar conditions.

To understand the orbital motion of exoplanets around distant stars, it is mostly sufficient to only consider Newtonian gravity. To understand the appearance of these exoplanets' atmospheres requires approximating them as fluids and understanding the macrosopic manifestations of the quantum mechanical properties of the individual molecules (their absorption and scattering properties). Each of these governing equations is based on a law of Nature—the conservation of mass, energy or momentum (or some other generalized, more abstract quantity such as potential vorticity). One selects the appropriate governing equation of nature and solves it in the relevant physical regimes, thus creating a model. A model captures a limited set of salient properties of a physical system. The term itself is widely abused—a "model" that is not based on a law of nature has little right to be called one.

A fundamental limitation of any simulation is that there is a practical limit to how finely one may slice space and time in a computer (the "resolution"), such that the simulation completes within a reasonable amount of time (say, within the duration of one's Ph.D thesis). For multiscale problems, there will always be phenomena operating on scales smaller than the size of one's simulation pixel. Astrophysicists term these "subgrid physics"—literally physics happening below the grid of the simulation. This difficulty of simulating phenomena from microscopic to macroscopic scales, across many, many orders of magnitude in size, is known as a "dynamic range" problem.

As computers become more powerful, one may always run simulations that explore a greater range of sizes and discretize space and time ever more finely, but in multiscale problems there will always be unresolved subgrid phenomena. Astrophysics and climate science appear to share this nightmare. In simulating the formation of galaxies, the birth, evolution, and death of stars are determining the global appearance of these synthetic galaxies themselves. Galaxies typically span tens of thousands of light years across, whereas stars operate on scales that are roughly a hundred billion times smaller.

The climate of Earth appears to be significantly influenced by clouds, which both heat and cool the atmosphere. On scales of tens to hundreds of kilometers, it is the imperfect cancellation between these two effects that matters. To get the details of this cancellation correct, we need to understand how the clouds formed and how their emergent properties developed, which ultimately requires an intimate understanding of how the microscopic seed particles of clouds were first created ("nucleation"). Remarkably, uncertainties about cloud formation on such fine scales are hindering our ability to predict whether a given exoplanet is potentially habitable. Cloud formation remains a largely unsolved puzzle across several scientific disciplines. In both examples, it remains challenging to simulate the entire range of phenomena, both due to the prohibitive amount of computing time needed and our incomplete understanding of the physics involved on smaller scales.

Another legitimate concern is the use of simulations as "black boxes" to churn out results and generate seductive graphics or movies without deeply questioning the assumptions involved. For example, simulations involving the Navier-Stokes equation often assume a "Newtonian fluid"—one that retains no memory of what was done to it in the past and offers more resistance or friction when layers of it are forced to slide past one another. Newtonian fluids are a plausible starting point for a rich variety of simulations, ranging from planetary atmospheres to accretion disks around black holes. Curiously, several common fluids are non-Newtonian. Dough is an example of a fluid with a memory of its past states, while ketchup tends to become less viscous when it is increasingly deformed. Attempting to simulate these fluids using a Newtonian assumption is an exercise in futility.

To use a simulation as a laboratory, one has to understand how to break it—otherwise, one may mistake an artifact as a result. In approximating continua as being discrete, one has to pay multiple penalties. Spurious oscillations or enhanced viscosity that are artifacts of this procedure may easily be misinterpreted as being physically meaningful. Simply put, when one slices up space and time in a simulation, it may introduce features that look like real waves or make the fluid more viscous in an artificial way. The conservation of mass, momentum, and energy—cornerstones of theoretical physics—may no longer be taken for granted in a simulation and depends on the numerical scheme being employed, even if the governing equation conserves all of these quantities perfectly on paper.

Despite these concerns, a culture of "bigger, better, faster" is prevailing. It is not uncommon to hear discussions centered on how one can make one's code more complex and run even faster on a mind-boggling number of computing cores. It is almost as if gathering exponentially increasing amounts of information will automatically translate into knowledge, that the simulated system attains self-awareness. As terabytes upon terabytes of information are being churned out by ever more massive simulations, the gulf between information and knowledge is widening. We appear to be missing a set of guiding principles—a "meta-computational astrophysics", for lack of a better term.

Questions for metacomputational astrophysics include: Is scientific truth more robustly represented by the simplest or the most complex model? (Many would say simplest, but this view is not universally accepted.) How may we judge when a simulation has successfully approximated reality in some way? (The visual inspection of a simulated image of, say, a galaxy versus one obtained with a telescope is sentimentally satisfying, but objectively unsatisfactory.) When is "bigger, better, faster" enough? Does one obtain an ever better physical answer by simply ramping up the computational complexity?

An alternative approach to "bigger, better, faster" is to construct a "model hierarchy"—a suite of models of varying complexity that develops understanding in steps, allowing each physical effect to be isolated. Model hierarchies are standard practice in climate science. Focused models of microprocesses (turbulence, cloud formation, etc) buttress global simulations of how the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, cryosphere and lithosphere interact.

With increasingly complex simulations, there are also questions surrounding the practice of science. It is not unheard of to encounter published papers in astrophysics where insufficient information is provided for the reproduction of simulated results. Frequently, the computer codes used to perform these simulations are proprietary and complex enough that it would take years and the dedicated efforts of a research team to completely recreate them. Scientific truth is monopolized by a few and dictated to the rest. Is it still science if the results are not readily reproducible? (Admittedly, "readily" has a subjective meaning.)

There are also research groups or individuals who take the more modern approach of making their codes open source. This has the tremendous advantage that the task of scrutinizing, testing, validating, and debugging the code no longer rests upon the shoulders of an individual, but of the entire community. Some individuals believe that this amounts to giving away trade secrets, but there are notable examples of researchers whose careers have blossomed partly because of influential computer codes they have made freely available.

A pioneer in this regard is Sverre Aarseth, a Cambridge astrophysicist who wrote and freely gave away codes that computed the evolution of astronomical objects (planets, stars, etc) under the influence of gravity ("N-body" codes). Jim Stone of Princeton and Romain Teyssier of Zürich are known for authoring a series of codes that solve the equations of magnetized fluids and they have been used to study a wide variety of problems in astrophysics. Volker Springel of Heidelberg made his mark via the Millenium Simulation Project. In all of these cases, the publicly available computer codes became influential because other researchers incorporated them into their repertoire and they eventually became part of the astrophysical lexicon.

A related issue is falsifiability. If a physical system is perfectly understood, it comes with no freedom of specifying model inputs. Technically, astrophysicists term these "free parameters". Quantifying how the sodium atom absorbs light provides a fine example—it is a triumph of quantum physics that such a calculation requires no free parameters. In large-scale simulations, there are always physical aspects that are poorly or incompletely understood and need to be mimicked by approximate models that specify free parameters. Often, these pseudo-models are not based on fundamental laws of physics, but consist of ad hoc functions calibrated on experimental data or smaller-scale simulations, which may not be valid in all physical regimes.

An example is the planetary boundary layer on Earth, which arises from the friction between the atmospheric flow and the terrestrial surface and is an integral part of the climatic energy budget. The exact thickness of the planetary boundary layer depends on the nature of the surface—whether it is an urban area, grasslands, or ocean matters. Such complexity cannot be directly and feasibly computed in a large-scale climate simulation. Hence, one needs experimentally measured prescriptions for the thickness of this layer as inputs for the simulation. To unabashedly apply these prescriptions to other planets (or exoplanets) is to stand on thin ice. Worryingly, there is an emerging sub-community of researchers switching over to exoplanet science, from the Earth sciences, who are bringing with them such Earth-centric approaches.

To form large-scale galaxies, one needs prescriptions for star formation and how dying stars (supernovae) feed energy back into their environments. To simulate the climate, one needs prescriptions for turbulence and precipitation. Such prescriptions often employ a slew of free parameters that are either inadequately informed by data or involve poorly known physics. As the number of free parameters in a simulation increase, so does the diversity and variety of simulated results. In the most extreme limit, the simulation predicts everything—it is consistent with every outcome anticipated. A quote attributed to John von Neumann describes it best, "With four parameters, I can fit an elephant and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." Inattention to falsifiability has been chided by Wolfgang Pauli, who remarked, "It is not only incorrect, it is not even wrong." *("Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch.")* A simulation that cannot be falsified can hardly be considered science.

Simulations as a third way of establishing scientific truth are here to stay. The challenge is for the astrophysical community to wield them as transparent, reproducible tools, thereby placing them on an equally credible footing with theory and experiment.

**Acknowledgment**

The author is grateful to Scott Tremaine, George Lake and Justin Read for constructive feedback on an earlier version of the essay.


abstract: The last two decades have seen a tremendous surge in research on social networks and their implications. The studies includes inferring social relationships, which in turn have been used for target advertising, recommendations, search customization etc. However, the offline experiences of human, the conversations with people and face-to-face interactions that govern our lives interactions have received lesser attention. We introduce **DAIICT Spatio-Temporal Network (DSSN), a spatiotemporal dataset** of 0.7 million data points of continuous location data logged at an interval of every 2 minutes by mobile phones of 46 subjects.
  .
  Our research is focused at inferring relationship strength between students based on the spatiotemporal data and comparing the results with the self-reported data. In that pursuit we introduce **Temporal Diversity**, which we show to be superior in its contribution to predicting relationship strength than its counterparts. We also explore the evolving nature of Temporal Diversity with time.
  .
  Our rich dataset opens various other avenues of research that require fine-grained location data with bounded movement of participants within a limited geographical area. The advantage of having a bounded geographical area such as a university campus is that it provides us with a microcosm of the real world, where each such geographic zone has an internal context and function and a high percentage of mobility is governed by schedules and time-tables. The bounded geographical region in addition to the age homogeneous population gives us a minute look into the active internal socialization of students in a university.
author:
Deshana Desai

Harsh Nisar

Rishab Bhardawaj

title: Role of Temporal Diversity in Inferring Social Ties Based on Spatio-Temporal Data

# Introduction

The emergence of new technologies that enable collection of geospatial and temporal data along with the explosive growth of research in the fields of online social networks and their implications have led the path to conduct research on the *offline* experiences of humans, the social behaviour and movement of people in the *real world*. Online social networking sites facilitated easy collection of data and social graphs which motivated a large number of studies: from analyzing the structure of the networks, identifying the most influential people in a network, predictive models for inferring social connections to evolution studies for communities in social graphs.

However, the properties of the online social networks may not necessarily apply to the real world. Even the social ties projected in the online world may not necessarily capture the social ties that exist in reality. Online Social Networks are curated and rather embellished versions of real-life mobility and social interactions. It is therefore imperative to bridge the gap between the amounts of research on online social networks and the real lives. This brings forth the need to examine the real world social networks and individual mobility patterns. Such *real world mobility data* can be collected through various online services such as geo-tagged tweets, check-ins from Foursquare and Facebook or from mobile apps data such as whatsapp. Since this data is collected from the people who visit certain places at a certain time, the properties inferred from such data are applicable to the real world as opposed to the online social networks.

There are certain disadvantages of collecting data from various online websites. First, the data can be highly irregular depending on whether the user checked-in at particular places, whether the application was running at that time, whether the GPS was switched on by the user etc. Second, it does not track the fine-grained movements of the user at regular intervals. Third, often the check-in location is known however the duration spent at the location may remain unknown. Finally, the number of check-in locations visited by the user are unbounded and therefore it is relatively hard to attach a context to every location.

We attempt to demonstrate the power of collecting *fine-grained behavioral social network data from mobile phones of users*. We introduce **DAIICT Spatio-Temporal Network (DSSN)** - a spatiotemporal dataset which addresses the above challenges and produces fine-grained data with each location visited by the users recorded at minute and regular intervals. The dataset is complimented by an extensive survey of the participants in which demographic, sociability and most importantly ground truth data about social ties with other participants is collected. We then turn to various experiments conducted on one of the possible lines of research with this dataset- finding the inter-relationship between reported friendship and the time spent together, introducing **Temporal Diversity** as a feature to infer the strength of friendship between two individuals and comparing its performance to measures of Diversity in previous works. We believe Temporal Diversity can be beneficial in environments where mobility is governed by schedules and time-tables much like in real life. We also explore the concept of Time Diversity and how it evolves with time. **Finally, we discuss the numerous different research avenues that can be pursued using such a fine-grained spatiotemporal dataset.**

# DAIICT Spatio-Temporal Network (DSSN) Dataset

## Subject pool

The subjects from this study consisted of students pursuing B-Tech ICT at DAIICT (Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information and Communication Technology), a university located in Gujarat, India. It has a residential campus which spans 60 acres and houses approximately 1,500 students. This choice of location provided several advantages.

-   The movements of the subjects were largely encapsulated within the geographical boundary of the campus. This provided us with a finite set of locations that are visited by the subjects at different times.

-   Each location inside the campus has an inherent function attached to it. For example, the library is used for reading purposes while the sports center is used for recreational purposes.

-   The subjects of the study pursuing the B-Tech ICT program are compulsorily residing within the campus. The in-campus residence along with the distinct designated buildings for recreation, academics etc inside the campus make it an interesting and reliable microcosm of real world activities, movements and social behaviour.

The data was collected from 46 subjects between the months of March and May, 2016. For this paper's analyses, we used a subset of the data collected during the month of April, 2016. Out of the 46 subjects that participated in the study, 36 of them completed the survey conducted in July, 2016. The subjects volunteered to become part of the experiment.

## Important Statistics

For each user, the timestamp, latitude and longitude, elevation, accuracy, satellites, network provider is recorded. The total number of data points collected are 7,33,403. The total number of data points within the month of April are: 6,59,268 (this subset of data is used for the following analysis). The total number of subjects using the application to record data are 46. The data recorded varies in accuracy with an average accuracy of 36.0 meters.

## GPSLogger Software for Data Collection

The data was collected from the Android-based mobile phones of the subjects. The subjects installed the GPS-Logger app which is available on playstore (<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.crearo.gpslogger>). The application exploits the GPS capabilities of the mobile phones to log co-ordinates and runs as a background process at all times.

The following functionalities are present in the application:

-   Logs data from the mobile phones of subjects at a regular interval of 2 minutes on local storage. Since the application is only programmed to log location data, the privacy invasion is minimum as compared to previous such approaches which log voice calls, messages, active applications, phone's charging status etc.

-   The data is sent to the server periodically (every 2 hours) if the mobile phone is connected to internet. If not, the data file is pushed to a queue and resent at a later time.

-   The subjects cannot switch off the application (without "Force Kill" or un-installing the application). It shall restart in 30 minutes if the subject attempts to do so.

-   The battery consumption is optimized to last as long as possible.

-   It is a user-friendly application where the subject only has to press "start logging" after installing the application.

Since the application automatically restarts following any crashes, data losses mainly occur only due to powered-off devices. The application can be assumed to be running on the phone while the phone is powered-on, however, the accuracy of the dataset generated shall rely on the strength of the GPS signal captured. The strength of the signal shall vary based on the location as well as hardware of the phone. We therefore have to deal with the accuracy loss and random chunks of missing data that is characteristic of any real-time GPS data collection.

An anonymized version of the dataset can be downloaded at: (<https://github.com/deshanadesai/Geospat>).

## Ground Truth: Self Reported Survey data

We conducted an online survey for the subjects who participated in the DSSN data collection. The survey is detailed and focuses on questions to report strength of friendship and estimated average proximity with each subject. It also includes general questions regarding the subjects' social behaviour, participation in various activities, anxiety levels, academic performance etc. <u>Questions to be answered for each subject in the study.</u>

-   Estimate your average proximity with the Person. (Time spent together on an average per day)

    -   Scale of 1-5 (1- 0 to 5 minutes, 2- 5 to 30 minutes, 3- 30 minutes to 2 hours, 4- 2 to 4 hours, 5- 4 hours and above)

-   Estimate strength of friendship with the person.

    -   Scale of 0-5 (0- Do not know the person, 1- Acquainted, 2- Sort of friends, 3- Friends, 4- Good friends, 5- Very good friends)

<u>General Questions </u>

-   Rate your participation in the following activities:

    -   Sports, Programming, Quizzing, Debate, Electronics, Writing college magazine, Dance, E-sports, Music, Drama, Academics, Research

-   Native Language, Birthplace

-   Rate amount of stress experienced , GPA (academic performance), productivity with the time in college, satisfaction with time in college, social comfort, self-confidence.

# Problem Definition

## Problem Statement

Given a set of users U = (u1,u2,..,un) and a set of data points recorded by every user u: Users location - *l*, which consists of latitude and longitude values, the timestamp - *t*, the provider used to measure location - *p* and finally, the accuracy logged by the provider - *A*. **The objective is to infer the relationship score between each pair of users based on quantitative values.** *Definition 1:* Relationship strength is a quantitative measure that tells how strongly associated two people are. *Definition 2:* Encounter is defined as an event when two users co-occur at the same place at the same time. The distance threshold *d* chosen can be varied with the mean accuracy of the logged data points.

## Related Works

One of the pioneering papers that study the behavioral characteristics of friendship and infer social network structure of the real world using Mobile Data is by Nathan Eagle et al. They study social networks with binary relational ties (i.e. are two students friends or not?). However, these binary indicators only provide a very coarse indication of the nature of the relationships, and do not embrace the complexity of human relationships. Our purpose is to estimate the strength of people's relationships based on their interaction frequency, other proximity variables and describe the same in a discrete manner tending to the degree of friendship. Their collection of data includes mobile phone logs, calls, messages, usage of applications etc which is considerably privacy cannot be done at scale. Their results showed that the behavioural data collected by the mobile phones and the self-reported data are indeed related. In addition, the amount of communication was the most significant predictor of friendship.

This is extended by the work of Crawnshaw et al. who introduces various features such as specificity, location entropy, etc to analyze social connections. This study provides an insight into the social network structure showing that there exists a relationship between the mobility patterns of the user and number of friends that the user has in his social network. Further, Cyrus et al. included the impact of co-incidences and co-occurrences at locations to infer a continuous variable predicting the relationship strength between a pair of subjects. They compute the strength of relationship by conducting multiple linear regression over location diversity (the spread of encounters over different locations) and frequency of encounters weighted by the location entropy (how crowded a place is).

explore the inherent strucutre in mobility patterns which are governed by geographic and social constraints. They find that short ranged travel is periodic both spatially and temporally and not affected by social ties, while long-distance travel is more influenced by social networkt ties.

## Preliminaries

**Temporal Representation:** The day is divided into intervals of *t* minutes. For example, if *t* is 5 minutes, the day can be divided into 288 intervals from 00:00-00:05, 00:05-00:10 to 23:55-00:00. The variable *t* can be a maximum of 1440 minutes where the entire day is counted as one interval.

**Temporal Encounter Vector:** Temporal Encounter Vector T$_{ij}$ contains the total number of times user i and user j had an encounter for each *t* minute interval of the day over a period of N days. The day can be divided into 1440/*t* intervals and hence the dimensions of the vector are fixed. Example, for t=5 minutes, T$_{(1,2)}$ = (1,3,0,0,0,0,...2) would mean that user 1 and user 2 had one encounter between 00:00-00:05, three between 00:05-00:10 and two between 23:55-00:00 across N days.

**Temporal Diversity:** We introduce a new feature called Temporal Diversity which can be beneficial in predicting social ties based on spatio-temporal data. *Motivation:* Over a period of days, encounters with a close friend will be spread across different time intervals in a day, as compared to encounters with someone you only meet because of scheduled activities. Essentially, encounters with friends over time don't follow any rules or schedules and are randomly spread across a day's time-span. On the other hand, encounters with people whom a person meets due to scheduled activities (eg: for work, lectures, tutorials) are routine and therefore would occur repeatedly at a scheduled time. We aim to capture this diversity in encounters over time to infer relationship strength. *Definition: Temporal Diversity quantifies the effective spread of encounters across time-intervals in a day's timespan.*

Given two users i and j, Temporal Encounter Vector $T_{ij}$ contains the total number of times user i and user j had an encounter for each *t* minute interval of the day over a period of N days.

Let $$r_{i,j,l,t} = <i,j,l,t>$$ represent an encounter between user i and user j in location l and time interval *t*. Let $$R_{i,j}  = \bigcup_{i=1}^nr(i,j,l,t)$$ be the set of co-occurrences of User i and j in all time intervals.

The probability that a randomly picked encounter from the set R(i,j) happened at time interval t is: $$P_{(i,j,t)} = |R_{(i,j,t)}|/|R_{(i,j)}|$$

If we randomly pick an encounter from the set R(i,j) and define its time-interval as a random variable then the uncertainty associated with this random variable is defined by the Shannon entropy for user i and j as follows: $$H_{(i,j)}^{S} = - \sum_{t}(P_{(i,j,t)}logP_{(i,j,t)})$$

$$D = exp(H)$$ Diversity *D* is the effective number of t min time intervals user i and j have been together for in a day.

The more spread the encounters are across different time intervals, the higher the diversity.

Example: If we use the temporal representation with t=120 minutes, you can divide the day in 12 parts as follows: 00:00-02:00, 02:00-04:00 till 22:00-00:00. User A and User B have a Temporal Encounter Vector T$_{ab}$ calculated over 14 days such that, T$_{ab}$ = (0,0,0,2,10,3,0,0,0,2,0,0) T$_{ac}$ = (3,0,4,0,3,0,2,2,0,0,0,3) Expanding T$_{ab}$ for clarity, User A and User B, had 2 encounters in 06:00-08:00 interval, 10 encounters in 08:00-10:00 interval, 3 encounters in 10:00-12:00 interval and 2 encounters in 18:00-20:00 interval over 14 days. Note: User A and User B have had 17 encounters in 14 days, so have User A and User C. Temporal Entropy for T$_{ab}$ = 1.1218 Temporal Diversity for T$_{ab}$ = 3.1 Temporal Entropy for T$_{ac}$ = 1.7623 Temporal Diversity for T$_{ac}$ = 5.8 Most encounters for user T$_{ab}$ happened in the time interval 08:00-10:00 which could suggest that they were governed by some schedule such as a common lecture or breakfast routine. Encounters between User A and C are spread across the day and are more random or one might say *diverse.* We want to give less weight to to time intervals where the users have encountered a lot because it could be due to some schedule shared between the users. They will still contribute, but lesser compared to encounters which were not part of schedules. Our assumption is that interactions with friends overtime are outside the purview of schedules and meeting times will be distributed across the entire day if averaged over N days.

# Experiments with Temporal Diversity

## Data Pre-processing

We use the the DAIICT Spatio-Temporal Social Network (DSSN) with the following pre-processing:

1.  All timestamps are rounded off to the nearest 5 minute interval to align data collected from different devices/users.

2.  The duplicate points occurring for a particular ID at any timestamp are dropped.

3.  Only data points collected between 2016-04-01 00:00:00 and 2016-05-01 00:00:00 are used.

4.  We keep the GPS points whose reported accuracy from the phone is less than 60 meters.

5.  For a user, if he/she has less than 20% data points collected for a day, we discard that day's data for the user. We assume the app malfunctioned or wasn't switched on for that day.

6.  Users with data for less than 5 days are dropped from the analysis

7.  Only those Users are picked for which ground truth data is also available.

8.  Reported closeness *Friends* and *Sort of Friends* are clubbed into one category; leaving a total of 5 categories.

    |  Closeness |      Description      |     |
    |:----------:|:---------------------:|:----|
    |      0     | Don't know the person |     |
    |      1     |     Acquaintance      |     |
    |      2     |        Friends        |     |
    |      3     |     Good Friends      |     |
    |      4     |   Very Good Friends   |     |

    Re-grouping

It's not necessary that Users have data for all the 30 days for which the experiment was conducted. A fraction of users left/joined the experiment in the month of data collection. Hence, it's important to keep the number of common days between two people as part of the discussion as compared to the number of days a User had data overall. We choose N, the number of common days as a minimum 7. Selecting a number too less leaves us with less number of data points per pair and selecting a number too large leaves us with less number of User pairs. Hence, all our results reflect a scenario where any two Users have at least 7 days worth of data common between themselves.

It's important to note that reported closeness between two users is bi-directional. It's not necessary that User A and User B have reported closeness to each other equally. Hence, U$_{ab}$ and U$_{ba}$ are treated differently in the experiments.

## Evaluation

We attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of Location Diversity , Temporal Diversity and Average Encounters per day as features in predicting reported closeness scores between Users. We primarily use F-Tests and pearson correlations.

### Sweeping over width of time interval (t)

The width of the time-intervals in which one divides the day in the temporal representation is an important parameter. For example, take User A and User B as discussed in the example with the Temporal Encounter Vector as T$_{ab}$ = (0,0,0,2,10,3,0,0,0,2,0,0). User A and User B have 10 encounters in 08:00-10:00 interval. We assume User A and User B have a common lecture at this time. If the interval width was shorter such as 5 minutes, there is a likelihood that these 10 encounters would be distributed across the intervals 08:00-08:05, 08:05-:08-10 to 09:55 to 10:00. Both User A and User B may not enter the classroom at the same time or may not always be in each others exact vicinity for an encounter to be recorded. So, even though the meeting is a scheduled encounter, the Temporal Diversity is not able to account for it, rather in all likelihood Temporal Diversity increases positively because of it.

As we saw, this effect can be mitigated by having wider time-intervals. But if the time-intervals are kept too wide, the actual random encounters across the day would be grouped into one and information would be lost.

We calculate for Temporal Diversity scores for the same set of encounters at different widths *t*. The cross correlation between each regressor and the target is computed, which is eventually converted to a F score and a p-value.

|  Width t (minutes) | F Value | p-value |
|:------------------:|:-------:|:--------|
|          5         |  53.44  | 0       |
|         15         |  63.47  | 0       |
|         30         |  67.45  | 0       |
|         60         |  69.83  | 0       |
|         90         |  64.97  | 0       |
|         120        |  63.00  | 0       |
|         180        |  54.04  | 0       |
|         240        |  48.15  | 0       |
|         360        |  54.05  | 0       |
|         710        |  37.09  | 0       |

Sweeping over width of time interval (t)

**Observation:** We notice, 60 minutes has the highest F-value and hence can be the optimum width t for our dataset. F-values increase from 5-minute interval to 60-minute interval and thereafter decrease till the 720 minute interval.

### Predicting Reported Closeness through Regression.

**Location Diversity:** We calculate Location Diversity based on the explanation given in EBM. The only difference being we used geohashing to divide the campus into fixed regions to map each encounter to a location id. We use hashes of length 8 which give a precision of 19 meters more or less.

We apply F-test on Location Diversity, Temporal Diversity and Mean Encounters each regressing them with the outcome (closeness).

|           Feature          | F Value | p-value | Correlation (r) |
|:--------------------------:|:-------:|:-------:|:----------------|
|     Location Diversity     |  42.01  |    0    | 0.23            |
|       Mean Encounters      |  35.10  |    0    | 0.21            |
|  Temporal Diversity (t=60) |  69.83  |    0    | 0.30            |

Predicting Reported Closeness through Regression

**Observations:** We notice that amongst the three features, Temporal Diversity is ranked the highest, followed by Location Encounters and Mean Encounters. Temporal Diversity is most correlated with closeness.

We further explore how Temporal Diversity, Location Diversity and Mean Encounter scores are distributed across different closeness sub-groups.

**Observations:**

-   Mean Temporal Diversity for sub-group *Very Good Friends*, is significantly higher than the rest.

-   There are many outliers in *Don't Know* and *Acquaintance* sub-group for Temporal Diversity. It suggests there are a lot of coincidences happening. It will be worthwhile to explore further ways of accounting for co-incidences in encounters. Renyi Entropy has been explored previously to tackle for co-incidental encounters but in domain of locations. We apply the same concept to the domain of time.

-   Temporal Diversity isn't able to differentiate between *Friends* and *Good Friends*. The overlap between both is high.

-   Location Diversity shows a healthy increase in mean diversity across sub-groups but contains a lot of overlaps between different sub-groups both in the lower quartile and the upper quartile.

-   Mean Encounters for *Very Good Friends* is significantly different than the other sub-groups. It would suggest that pairs in that sub-group had a healthy amount of encounters every common day. Strikingly, the same effect is not visible for pairs in *Good Friends* or even *Friends*, where the median of Mean Encounter is approximately 1 as compared 8 for *Very Good Friends*. But the same sparsity in encounter data doesn't negatively affect temporal diversity for the said sub-subgroups. We can say Temporal Diversity is robust to sparsity in the daily data which is an important factor in real life geospatial applications.

### Renyi Entropy and Co-incidences

We use Renyi Entropy as used in Cyrus et. al, which is a generalization of Shannon entropy. Let R$_{ij}$ be the diversity calculated from the Renyi entropy.

$$H_{ij}^R =  [-log \sum_{t}{P_{(i,j)}^t}^q ]/(q-1))$$ $$R_{ij} = exp(H_{ij}^R)$$ $$R_{ij} = exp[(-log\sum_{t}{P_{ij}^t}^q)/(q-1)]$$ $$D_{ij} = [\sum_{t}((P_{ij}^t)^q)^(1/(1-q))]$$

Cases of Renyi Entropy:

1.  As q approaches zero, the Renyi entropy increasingly weighs all possible events more equally, regardless of their probabilities. In the limit for q -\> 0, the Renyi entropy is just the logarithm of the size of the support of X.

2.  When q \< 1, the temporal diversity tends to give more weight to the local frequencies with low-values in the Temporal Encounter vector. In other words, the lower the number of times a pair of students have met in a particular time slot, the more weight it gets from the diversity or the more impact the local frequency can make on diversity.

3.  The limit for q -\> 1 is the Shannon entropy.

4.  When q \> 1 the Renyi entropy H$_{ij}$ , the opposite of q \< 1 occurs and consequently the diversity D$_{ij}$ , more favorably considers the high values of the Temporal Encounter vector.

5.  As q approaches infinity, the Renyi entropy is increasingly determined by the events of highest probability.

When q\<1 is used, Renyi Entropy and consequently the diversity, more favourably considers lower values of local temporal frequencies than higher values. Using q = 0.5

goes in detail about its exploration on how the effect of co-incidences can be controlled by using Renyi entropy based Diversity in the domain of locations. We apply to same concept for Temporal Diversity and sweep over the the parameter *q*, the order of diversity, which decides the senstivity of the final Temporal Diversity to the number of encounters in each time-interval.

Refer to Table for results.

**We observe that the lower the order of the diversity (*q*), the more effective is Temporal Diversity in predicting closeness.** This is in line with the results noticed in for Location Diversity.

| Order of Diversity | F-Value |
|:-------------------|:--------|
| 0.1                | 79.82   |
| 0.2                | 78.18   |
| 0.3                | 76.66   |
| 0.4                | 75.26   |
| 0.5                | 73.98   |
| 0.6                | 72.83   |
| 0.7                | 71.78   |
| 0.8                | 70.84   |
| 0.9                | 69.99   |
| 1.1                | 68.51   |
| 1.2                | 67.87   |
| 1.3                | 67.29   |
| 1.4                | 66.76   |
| 1.5                | 66.27   |
| 1.6                | 65.82   |
| 1.7                | 65.41   |
| 1.8                | 65.02   |
| 1.9                | 64.66   |
| 2                  | 64.33   |

Sweeping over order of diversity (d)

### Changing Temporal Diversities Over Time.

How does Temporal Diversity between two people change over time? We've emphasized before how the essence of Temporal Diversity lies in the growing randomness of encounters across a day over time for users with strong social ties. Hence, it's important to explore how temporal diversity changes for over days for different sub-groups of closeness.

**Methodology:** Each user has different number of common days for which they share data. For this experiment, we calculate temporal diversity between pairs of users using only common days less than equal to d, while we sweep d from 1 to 11. For example, for *d*=3 we calculate temporal diversity between pairs based on data from their respective first three common days. In case a pair has only 2 common days, temporal diversity for *d*=3 is set as empty. Then, for each sub-group in closeness and common day *d*, we calculate the average temporal diversity.

**Observations:**

-   Temporal Diversity in general increases as the number of common days between two users increases.

-   For the sub-group *Very Good Friends*, average temporal diversity is starkly higher than the averages in other sub-groups.

-   Average temporal diversity of encounters between *Very Good Friends* increases at a much higher rate than that of other sub-groups.

# Conclusions

In this paper, we first introduce and release the DAIICT Spatio-temporal Social Network (DSSN) dataset which is a granular dataset about 46 participant's movement in a residential college campus over a span of thirty days. It reflects human patterns guided by routine and schedule in a geographically bounded area of a university. The data is complemented with rich self reported data about the participants based on an extensive survey capturing demographics, extent of participating in various campus activities, proximity to other participants in the survey and questions pertaining to happiness, sociability and self-confidence.

Further, we introduce a new feature called Temporal Diversity which our experiments confirmed to have superior predictive power for inferring social ties as compared to its counterparts: Location Diversity and Mean Encounters. Next, we examined how Temporal Diversity changes with time and gets better at differentiating between sub-groups of social-ties as the number of common days increase. Lastly, we saw how Temporal Diversity is robust to sparsity of data collected between two users and can function well even with lesser data. We believe, Temporal Diversity can be an useful feature to predict social ties in environments where users are governed by fixed schedules and the number of meaningful unique locations are less. We believe a bustling resendential university campus is a microcosm of urban lifestyles to some extent.

This work along with releasing of the DSSN dataset opens up opportunities to answer interesting multi-disciplinary questions. How does mobility affect self-confidence, sociability, happiness or GPA? Do people with similar interests end up in the same social groups? Do people in relationships have a particular mobility pattern? Are certain time-intervals of meeting more helpful in predicting social ties than others? How can one effectively predict social-ties in an environment where co-incidental encounters are abundant due to schedules and closed spaces like in workplaces? We wish to investigate some of these issues in our future work and at the same time hope that the research community finds the dataset useful to explore some of their own questions.

# Acknowledgments

The authors would like to heartily thank professor Sanjay Srivastava of DA-IICT for his encouragement, initiatives and help. We also thank the software creators of the publicly available GPS Logger (<https://github.com/mendhak/gpslogger>) and Vraj Delhivala for the additions to the software application. Finally, we are thankful to all the participants for there help with the data collection and survey.